State Community Health Worker Models
/in Community Health Workers Featured News Home, Maps Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Care Coordination, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Community Health Workers, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health System Costs, Long-Term Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Primary Care/Patient-Centered/Health Home Community Health Workers /by NASHP StaffThrough Coordination and Investment, Arizona Substantially Increases Access to School-Based Behavioral Health Services
/in COVID-19 State Action Center, Policy Arizona Blogs, Featured News Home Back to School, Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, COVID-19, EPSDT, Health Equity, Integrated Care for Children, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Anita Cardwell and Gia GouldBy leveraging federal Medicaid funding and state investment while simultaneously clarifying complex billing procedures and enhancing engagement with providers, Arizona has made remarkable progress in increasing student access to critical school-based behavioral health services.
Arizona’s efforts to improve school behavioral health services began in 2018 when its state legislature allocated $3 million from the state’s general fund to expand these services. The state’s Medicaid program, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), and the Arizona Department of Education (DOE) used $1 million of this funding to provide schools with mental health training, and the remaining $2 million was matched with federal Medicaid funds, resulting in a total $10 million in Medicaid funding to increase the number of behavioral health providers in schools.
To obtain Medicaid reimbursement for school-based services under the Medicaid School-Based Claiming (MSBC) program, Arizona’s local education agencies (LEAs) use two school-based claiming programs, the Direct Service Claiming (DSC) program and the Medicaid Administrative Claiming (MAC) program. LEAs seek Medicaid reimbursement through the DSC program to cover the cost of providing medical and behavioral health services to Medicaid-eligible students with an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The MAC program provides LEAs with reimbursement for administrative outreach services for Medicaid that are conducted in school settings. The state contracts with a third-party administrator, Public Consulting Group (PCG), to process Medicaid school-based claims.
In addition to claims processed through the MSBC program for students with IEPs, Medicaid services delivered by behavioral health providers contracted through one of AHCCCS’ managed care organizations can be reimbursed by Medicaid regardless of whether the student has an IEP.
Challenges and Solutions
Improving partnerships and coordination between schools and providers: While Arizona provided school behavioral health services before 2018, the additional state funding helped prioritize these services and facilitated the development of new relationships between behavioral health providers and schools. State officials reported that prior to the initiative to promote school-based behavioral health services, there were some challenges related to establishing relationships between schools and providers.
For example, some school administrators were skeptical if they could bill for school-based services or were concerned about the logistics of providing appropriate space to conduct behavioral health services without interrupting usual school activities. Many of these issues have been addressed through extensive and ongoing training sessions with both school administrators and provider groups. State officials also credited the cross-sector workgroup meetings that are held on a regular basis with helping improve interagency relationships.
Another key factor in Arizona’s success was incentivizing partnerships between schools and behavioral health provider agencies to create a differential adjusted payment for behavioral health providers. The enhanced payment became effective in October 2019, and provides a 1 percent rate increase for providers that have a memorandum of understanding with three or more schools to provide behavioral health services, and a 3 percent rate increase for providers that are autism Centers of Excellence.
State officials at AHCCCS also are in the process of improving data sharing with the DOE. By matching school identifier numbers on claims for services provided on a school campus, or as the result of a referral from an educational entity, the state will be able to obtain a better understanding of where and which services are delivered. Improving these data-matching processes will also provide information about where students are being referred for additional services and help identify where future focus should be directed within the state to enhance school-based behavioral health services.
Another key partnership to support students’ behavioral health needs is AHCCCS’ collaboration with the Arizona DOE on several grants, including Project Aware, which is funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Project AWARE works with three school districts to provide suicide prevention and behavioral health resources.
Addressing lack of behavioral health providers and service delivery challenges: Arizona state officials identified the lack of behavioral health providers, particularly in rural regions, as an issue faced by many states. However, Arizona officials are pleased and encouraged by the number of providers who are participating in the state’s expansion of school-based behavioral health services. One factor that likely incentivized greater provider engagement was the implementation of the differential adjusted payment, although state officials indicated that there had already been a growing interest among behavioral health providers to develop new school partnerships to reach more students due to the statewide focus on the issue.
School districts in Arizona have also developed creative solutions to connect their students to behavioral health services. One school district in Arizona responded to provider shortages and space limitations by setting up a dedicated mobile unit in the school parking lot for behavioral health services. Prior to bringing in the mobile clinic, providers did not have financial incentives to travel to the school because it was difficult to secure an appropriate office during the school day. With the mobile unit, the district can provide consistency for their providers as well as a private space for students to receive behavioral health care. However, because the care is not technically provided in the school building, the district needed to work with the state Medicaid agency to find a way to appropriately bill under school-based behavioral health services.
Clarifying qualifying services and billing procedures: The state’s increased focus on the provision of behavioral health services in schools also helped to improve the accuracy of billing code processes. When efforts to expand school-based behavioral health services were initially launched, state officials at AHCCCS actively worked to address some of the existing misunderstandings about the allowability for those services to be provided at a school campus outside of the MSBC program. State officials recognized that due to errors in coding related to where services are provided, some school-based behavioral health services were not being correctly captured, resulting in the state not having a clear picture of the scope of services being provided to students.
To address these issues, AHCCCS coordinated and led many informational learning sessions throughout the state for both educators and provider agencies, including trainings about billing procedures. Once providers learned how to assign the correct place of service code, state officials reported a notable increase in the quantity of behavioral health services provided. State officials attributed the increase not only to the coding improvements that more accurately captured completed work, but also due to new services provided as a result of the state’s overall emphasis and investment in school behavioral health services.
Like many states, Arizona uses a Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) to assess the amount of time providers spend engaged in Medicaid-reimbursable activities. Each LEA has a RMTS coordinator who facilitates the administration of the program. As the third-party administrator, PCG manages the overall RMTS process, and provides program-specific introductory trainings for new coordinators and LEAs as well as recurring trainings to provide program updates and address areas of concern. AHCCCS coordinates with PCG to improve the RMTS process, and at present, AHCCCS consistently meets RMTS compliance standards, despite having to transition to virtual trainings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Effect of COVID-19: The transition to mobile learning due to COVID-19-related school closures has presented an opportunity for schools to provide behavioral health services through virtual platforms. State officials report there has been a reduction in the number of claims that use place-of-service codes, which indicate when services are provided at an educational institution, most likely due to the decrease in the number of students attending school in person because of the pandemic. However, officials indicated that they have observed a dramatic increase in the amount of behavioral health services currently delivered through telehealth as more students have had to operate within a remote learning environment.
For districts without local providers, the ability to work with students without travel has helped connect more children to care. According to one Arizona state official, many behavioral health providers have gone above and beyond to connect with children whose need for care has been exacerbated by stress and isolation resulting from the pandemic.
State officials said there is anecdotal evidence that the pandemic has caused an increase in the number of parents expressing concern that their children are exhibiting depression and/or suicidal tendencies. However, officials also noted they have observed a greater willingness among parents to discuss issues concerning mental health, which could result in parents more actively advocating to ensure that schools continue to offer behavioral health services.
Overall Success
Since the start of the state’s efforts to expand behavioral health services in schools in 2018, officials report progress has been remarkably successful throughout 2019 and into early 2020, and there has been a substantial increase in the number of students who have received behavioral health services from an educational entity or institution. While declines in the number of youth suicides cannot be directly correlated with the state’s expansion of behavioral health services — and data from the effect of the pandemic is not yet available — there was a 41 percent decrease in youth suicides from 2018 through 2019.
State officials report their efforts have been so successful that in 2020 the state legislature passed SB 1523, which established and allocated $8 million to a new Children’s Behavioral Health Services Fund that will further enhance school-based behavioral health services. The fund will be administered by AHCCCS and provides behavioral health services to students who are not Medicaid-eligible but are uninsured or under-insured and who receive a referral for services from an educational institution.
In reflecting on lessons from Arizona’s expansion of school-based behavioral health services that might be used by other states, officials explained that determining how to handle nuanced billing situations, such as telehealth and the state’s mobile unit, was an important factor in ensuring that all provided services were accurately captured and reimbursed. They commented, “If Arizona can do it, anyone can do it — we are ranked 51st in [the nation for] education funding, and we have the poorest counselor-to-student ratio in the nation…that said, we have this great state Medicaid agency, and we’ve been able to figure out how to reach more kids with the dollars given to us. And so, if Arizona can figure out how to do this sort of work and get these partners on school campuses, then any other state can do this.”
The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) would like to thank state officials from Arizona for their time and contribution to this publication. Support for this work was provided by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.
State Strategies to Promote Advance Care Planning in Light of the Pandemic
/in Palliative Care Blogs, Featured News Home Chronic and Complex Populations, Framing the Message, Palliative Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Reimbursement Strategies, State Recommended Resources /by Wendy Fox-GrageA new National Poll on Healthy Aging published by the University of Michigan this month found that 59 percent of older adults have discussed advance care planning with family members and/or friends, and nearly one-third of them did so during the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Advance care planning makes individuals’ wishes and preferences known to health care providers and families ahead of time, which is especially critical when faced with a serious illness.
Although many recently had advance care planning discussions, about one-half of older adults in the poll did not complete legal documentation. The recommended advance care planning documents are a living will and a durable power of attorney for health care, as well as portable medical orders for people with serious illness or advanced frailties – often called Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment or Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment.
State policymakers interested in promoting good care and avoiding costly and unwanted treatments for people with serious illness can implement strategies that help ensure these tools are used.
State policymakers interested in promoting good care and avoiding costly and unwanted treatments for people with serious illness can implement strategies that help ensure these tools are used and documented systematically. State strategies, listed below, can help bolster support for advance care planning:
- Provider guidance, licensure, and regulation: States can foster advance care planning by disseminating guidance for providers and adopting practice standards in licensing or payment regulation. Maryland’s hospital licensing regulations outline staffing and other standards for hospitals that include developing an inter-disciplinary care plan for each patient and completing Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) forms according to state law. New York’s department of health approved the MOLST form to help health care providers discuss and implement a patient’s wishes regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and other life-sustaining treatment.
- Reimbursement: State Medicaid programs may reimburse for advance care planning through Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) billing codes. National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) research identified a range of codes that could be used by providers to bill for key services, including:
-
- End-of-Life Counseling HCPCS (S0257);
- Advanced Care Planning CPT (99497, 99498);
- Home/Community Interdisciplinary Care Team Consult CPT (99341- 99350);
- Inpatient/Outpatient Interdisciplinary Care Team Consult CPT (99366, 99368); and
- Individual, Family, Marriage Counseling, In-Home CPT (99510).
States that use billing codes may want to provide additional guidance to providers on how to use these codes, which are also a helpful tool for tracking the occurrence of these services and supporting best practices. California provided an example of billing codes for advance care planning and related palliative care services in its December 2017 New Policy Guidance for Palliative Care.
- Value-Based Purchasing: Per federal regulations, states must ensure that enrollees of Medicaid managed care plans receive information on how to exercise their right to an advance directive. Some states go beyond this baseline requirement and are using value-based payment to encourage advance care planning. Illinois, as part of that state’s Financial Alignment Demonstration, includes the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) Care for Older Adults measure in its Medicaid managed care quality framework. The measure calculates the percentage of enrollees 66 years and older who had four critical services in one measurement year, one of which is advance care planning. Under the demonstration, a percentage of Medicaid managed care organizations’ capitation rate is withheld and then repaid if the managed care organization meets the quality threshold.
- Registries: Several states have or are creating repositories to house POLST forms for patients, so they are readily available to health care providers across care settings when needed. Oregon has a statewide POLST registry, which the state legislature created and funded in 2009. The registry is a public health registry within the Oregon Health Authority and operated through a contract with the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) Department of Emergency Medicine. Requests for POLST orders have been the highest ever during the pandemic.
More Information
Funded by a grant from The John A. Hartford Foundation, the National Academy for State Health Planning (NASHP) has been supporting state policymakers across the country in their efforts to improve care for people with serious illness. NASHP has documented policy activity in all 50 states, crafted recommendations to help states advance this care, and has published a series of state policy tools and resources at its Palliative Care Resource Hub.
New Federal Resources Can Support States’ Affordable and Supportive Housing Programs
/in COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Resource Center Blogs, Featured News Home Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Health Equity, Housing and Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Relief and Recovery, Social Determinants of Health /by Allie AtkesonAcross the nation, COVID-19 has exacerbated the dual challenges of housing affordability and homelessness. As states address these issues, there are new federal resources available through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and proposed American Jobs Plan that states can deploy efficiently and equitably.
The economic impact from COVID-19 has left 30 to 40 million Americans at risk of eviction with a disproportionate impact on low-income communities of color. To avoid homelessness, many individuals and families have sought housing with friends and family, leading to crowding and increased coronavirus transmission. The pandemic has also greatly impacted individuals currently experiencing homelessness and living in congregate shelters. In New York City, the age-adjusted mortality rate from COVID-19 among sheltered people experiencing homelessness was 50 percent higher than the rest of the population’s cumulative rate as of February 2021.
For more information about NASHP’s health and housing institute opportunity, please view the request for applications due Friday, April 30, 2021.
The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) is launching its Second Health and Housing Institute. The goal of the institute is to help states break down inter-agency silos and strengthen services and supports to help low-income and vulnerable populations become and remain successfully housed. Permanent supportive housing programs require affordable housing and housing-related services financed by Medicaid. Importantly, the new institute will focus on state deployment and execution of newly available federal resources.
With the passage of ARPA and the proposed American Jobs Plan, the following are new programs, policy, and funding opportunities:
Eviction Prevention and Affordable Housing:
- In late March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky extended the temporary halt in residential evictions until June 30, 2021. Under the eviction moratorium, individuals must declare their inability to pay rent due to the loss of income or employment to avoid eviction.
- ARPA allocated $21.5 billion for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP). ERAP funds will be released by early May 2021 to support eligible households in which one or more individuals are experiencing unemployment or housing instability. Financial assistance is limited to 18 months.
- $100 million in grants to organizations approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that provide housing counseling services to households experiencing housing instability. Housing counseling includes information on renting, mortgage defaults, foreclosures, and credit issues.
- $5 billion allocated in ARPA for emergency housing vouchers. Vouchers serve as emergency rental assistance and voucher renewals for people experiencing homelessness, at risk of homelessness, experiencing housing instability, or fleeing intimate partner violence.
Supportive Housing and Homelessness Assistance:
- $5 billion in federal funding to states for the Homelessness Assistance and Supportive Services Program. This funding will be distributed to states to acquire and develop properties for supportive housing programs, tenant-based rental assistance, and supportive services, including housing counseling and homeless prevention services. Funding can also be used for the supportive housing workforce and service providers.
Home- and Community-Based Services:
- President Biden’s proposed American Jobs Plan includes $400 billion to strengthen home- and community-based services for seniors and people with disabilities. This funding will also raise wages for home health care workers and support the Money Follows the Person program to provide services for individuals in communities rather than nursing homes. Both home-and community-based services and the Money Follows the Person program are essential components of supportive housing.
These newly available resources provide states with opportunities to support, expand, and develop programs for those experiencing homelessness, housing instability, and populations that benefit from supportive housing. States will play an important role in determining how resources are distributed equitably to communities that have historically been denied federal housing resources and those most in need. In addition, some funding will go directly to local governments, public housing authorities and HUD-approved nonprofits. States can work collaboratively with these partners on shared agendas around housing stability and homelessness to strengthen health outcomes.
Acknowledgement: This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U2MOA394670100, National Organizations of State and Local Officials. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the US government. The author would also like to thank the Corporation for Supportive Housing for their analysis of the American Rescue Plan Act.
Confronted with Overdoses, Rhode Island’s Emergency Departments Employ Peer Services to Promote Treatment
/in Policy Featured News Home, Reports Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Care Coordination, Chronic and Complex Populations, Maternal Health and Mortality, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration /by Jodi Manz and Kitty PuringtonDrug overdose deaths nationwide have continued to rise during the COVID-19 pandemic, exceeding 88,000 between August 2019 and August 2020, signaling a critical need for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services and the workforce to provide them. Non-fatal overdoses, which are a predictor of future fatal overdoses, also rose, leading to an increase in opioid-related emergency department (ED) visits even as overall ED visits declined during the pandemic.
While overdose-related ED incidents are traumatizing to individuals and costly to payers – especially state Medicaid programs – Rhode Island has found that hospital emergency rooms can be low-barrier and successful access points to SUD treatment with the right crisis response – including peer services – in place.
Background
Peer recovery services for substance use disorder (SUD) have been demonstrated to help individuals stay in treatment, increase satisfaction with treatment experiences, and reduce rates of return to use.
Responding to existing and projected behavioral health workforce shortages, states are building capacity for SUD treatment by developing certification pathways and reimbursement structures for peers as a non-licensed, supportive workforce.
Rhode Island, and 38 other states, have integrated the use of peers as care team members who can provide Medicaid-reimbursable, non-clinical treatment and recovery support services. In 2014, the state developed an innovative model, AnchorED, that introduced peers into hospital EDs to link patients who experienced overdoses with treatment and recovery. This program is the result of cross-agency collaboration among Rhode Island’s Department of Health (RIDOH), Department of Behavioral Health, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH), the Providence Center (a community behavioral health provider), and Anchor Recovery Community Centers.
Currently, post-overdose peer services are accessible at all hospitals in the state – with the exception of a Veterans’ Affairs hospital – and peers who provide services are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Early evaluation of AnchorED showed that in the program’s first year, peers had contact with 1,329 patients. Among those patients, 88.7 percent were trained to use naloxone and 86.8 percent agreed to engage with a peer after hospital discharge. Further evaluation showed that ED providers consulted with peers in over 85 percent of overdose cases, and referral to treatment upon discharge increased from 9 to nearly 21 percent.
Building Blocks for Rhode Island’s AnchorED Program
State Leadership
State leadership ensures that peer services are recognized as a valuable component of opioid/substance use disorder (OUD/SUD) systems in Rhode Island. The Rhode Island Governor’s Overdose Prevention and Intervention Task Force, established through an Executive Order in 2015, provides a forum for consistent communication related to all SUD-related initiatives and has been important in promoting the peer workforce. This group, composed of stakeholders as well as state policy leaders, is co-chaired by the directors of the RIDOH and BHDDH, the two agencies that were instrumental in implementing policy for peer services in hospital EDs. In 2017, the governor signed another Executive Order making additional policy actions in response to the needs of the state emerging from the task force, including several initiatives supporting peer services that align to the task force’s Action Plan. Outcomes, including data on the number of peer recovery specialists (PRS) in the state and the number of services they provide, are reported on regularly updated public dashboards.
Data for 2020 showed an increase in the number of newly trained PRS, which reached 958 by September, and new client enrollments in services, which has increased steadily from a low point in April, 2020, likely related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The task force, which continues to hold open monthly meetings, recently issued an updated strategic plan that includes goals to further expand and enhance the peer recovery workforce. Task force meeting notes and presentation archives are also publicly posted.
Rhode Island state leaders were also engaged in concurrent efforts on workforce development as a component of their State Innovation Model (SIM) project. The state’s Health System Transformation Program published a Healthcare Workforce Transformation report that advocated expanding the role of peers as members of integrated behavioral health teams. The report recommended providing a pathway for state certification for peers as a strategy to build behavioral health workforce capacity with non-clinical team members in supportive roles.
Infrastructure
Rhode Island, through a number of policy actions, has created a regulatory framework that supports delivery of peer services in hospital EDs. In 2016, the state passed legislation that requires hospitals to submit comprehensive discharge plans to its health department director and outlines specific requirements for post-overdose patient care. Aligning with this statute, RIDOH and BHDDH developed standards for hospital EDs, requiring integration of peer services into ED overdose response across all state hospitals, as well as Freestanding Emergency Care Facilities (FECF) that provide emergency services outside of a hospital’s structure. The agencies delineated these standards in the Levels of Care for Rhode Island Emergency Departments and Hospitals for Treating Overdose and Opioid Use Disorder, creating three levels of certification for EDs across the state. In order to gain certification at any of these levels, hospitals and EDs are required to complete and submit a self-assessment that reviews where each facility falls on the continuum of services identified in the standards.
Rhode Island Hospital Levels of Care Standards
| Level 3: Minimum standards – indicating readiness and capacity to: | Level 2: These certified facilities must meet Level 3 criteria, and also show capacity to: | Level 1 In addition to meeting levels 1 and 2 criteria, these certified facilities must: |
| 1. Offer peer recovery support services in their emergency departments.
2. Follow the discharge planning standards as stated in current law. 3. Administer standardized substance use disorder screening to all patients. 4. Educate all patients who are prescribed opioids on safe storage and disposal. 5. Dispense naloxone for patients who are at risk, according to a clear protocol. 6. Provide active referral to appropriate community provider(s). 7. Comply with requirements to report overdoses within 48 hours to RIDOH. 8. Perform laboratory drug screening that includes fentanyl on patients who overdose. |
1. Conduct comprehensive standardized substance use assessments.
2. Maintain capacity for evaluation and treatment of opioid use disorder using support from addiction specialty services. |
1. Maintain a Center of Excellence or comparable arrangement for initiating, stabilizing, and re-stabilizing patients on medication-assisted treatment:
· Evaluate and manage medication assisted treatment, and · Ensure transitioning to/from community care to facilitate recovery. |
These standards for EDs also inform licensing regulations for both hospitals and Freestanding Emergency Care Facilities (FECF) in Rhode Island. Those regulations require that overdose patients and/or patients who are evaluated and found to have SUD are informed of available treatment services and that those patients are offered an opportunity to speak with a PRS. RIDOH also encourages hospitals in Rhode Island to use the BHDDS model consent form language for peer services, facilitating patient consent to both peer and medical services simultaneously. This approach to incorporating peer services into hospital consent forms was mandated by the legislature in 2018.
At this time, the standards are currently under revision by a workgroup of state leaders and stakeholders to identify and address gaps in alignment between the standards and the provider experience. These revisions, however, are not expected to lead to changes in the regulations.
Workforce Development
As officials developed certification requirements for peers, members of the peer community and people in recovery from SUD explained that being paid to help others conflicted with an important tenet of their personal journeys, which is to give freely of their time helping others with SUD and “pay it forward.”
The state began laying the groundwork for peer certification in 2012 when BHDDH began trainings for mental health peer recovery specialists through certification planning developed as part of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Transformation Transfer Initiative (TTI). In 2014, the Rhode Island Certification Board (RICB) – not a state entity – began certifying SUD peer recovery specialists as well, this led to BHDDH ultimately integrating mental health and SUD peer recovery trainings after the state brought together stakeholders through SAMHSA’s Bringing Recovery Supports to Scale Technical Assistance Center Strategy (BRSS TACS) program.
Peer certification in Rhode Island begins with the state’s integrated peer recovery and mental health training provided through Anchor Recovery. Requirements include:
- 46 hours of didactic learning across four domains (advocacy, mentoring/education, recovery/wellness support, and ethical responsibility)
- 500 internship hours, including or in addition to 25 supervised hours.
- Evidence of passing the International Certification and Reciprocity Consortium (IC&RC) peer recovery certification exam. To prepare for the exam, IC&RC provides a Candidate Guide, and BHDDH contracted with JSI International to develop the Rhode Island Peer Recovery Specialist Certification Study Guide.
Peers delivering services in Rhode Island must receive ongoing supervision from either licensed health care practitioners or certified peers who provided peer services for at least two years. Supervisors must also complete BHDDH-approved core competency training provided through a contract with Anchor Recovery. Agencies providing peer services must maintain a ratio of 1 supervisor for every 10 peer full-time-equivalents, and document provision of supervision totaling at least two hours per month or 30 minutes per week. Agencies must also provide at least a monthly opportunity for group meetings for working peers. In order to deliver services, these agencies must also be certified by BHDDH as Peer Based Recovery Support Services (PBRSS) providers and can use the PBRSS Provider Billing Manual to bill for services.
State Investment and Resources
Initial grant funding. Peers initially began meeting with overdose patients in hospital EDs as a volunteer engagement opportunity supported by Providence Center’s Anchor Recovery, a community recovery organization established in 2010 and funded through the state’s Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) block grant.
Direct patient crisis response in partnership with a community organization was a familiar approach for the first Rhode Island hospital site to provide SUD peer services. The hospital already had an agreement with a local intimate partner violence organization that allowed volunteers to connect with patients in the ED. The hospital also maintained an agreement with the Providence Center to provide a clinician to triage and assess patients who came into the ED indicating mental health and SUD-related needs. Initial grant funding and existing relationships helped to facilitate development of peer integration.
Medicaid reimbursement. In the long term, paying for peers meant developing a source of sustainable funding for the program, and Rhode Island’s health policy leaders saw an opportunity to reimburse for peer services in Medicaid. While states have a variety of authority options to cover recovery support services in Medicaid, including health home models and 1915(b) and 1915(c) waivers, Rhode Island is one of nine states to provide these services under an 1115 demonstration waiver, submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2016 and approved in 2018. The waiver specifies that reimbursable services under the authorized Recovery Navigation Program (RNP) and Peer Recovery Specialist (PRS) Program include “an array of interventions that promote socialization, long-term recovery, wellness, self-advocacy, and connections in the community,” delivered as part of a care team.
Rhode Island’s waiver requires the state to credential peers using the International Certification & Reciprocity Consortium (IC&RC) exam and to develop standards for peer supervisors, as outlined in the previous section. The Rhode Island waiver created a bundled payment, which incorporates services provided by peer recovery specialists as part of the Recovery Navigation Programs. Services outside of such programs, which include those provided in EDs, are billed by the Medicaid-enrolled provider organization employing the PRS and are paid as a flat fee – peer services are reimbursed by Medicaid at rates of $13.50/15 minute unit for one-on-one services and $4/15 minute unit for up to 10 participants for group services.
Reporting and Outcomes
State regulations require that hospitals must report all opioid overdoses to RIDOH within 48 hours through a case report form that captures information about the patient and the overdose event. Additionally, AnchorED captures and reports on each unique patient contact, including data describing whether peer or other counseling services were accepted by the patient. Patients may also be referred to outpatient MOUD treatment, admitted to detox, or refuse engagement altoghter. This data is reported to the state by each hospital as de-identified, aggregate demographic and incident data. This is used to inform state leaders about who is seeking services and what factors may be leading to overdose, and how services are being initiated by PRS.
Anchor Recovery peer specialist services include:
- Linking individuals to treatment and recovery resources;
- Educating about overdose, prevention, and how to obtain naloxone, a drug that reverses the effects of an opioid overdose when administered quickly;
- Providing additional resources to individuals and family members; and
- Contacting the individual after release from the ED with a follow-up phone call.
Source: Anchor Recovery
AnchorED reports:
- Average minutes between contact and team connection to a patient;
- Whether naloxone training was done;
- Whether an individual agreed to see a PRS;
- Whether an individual agrees to a treatment referral; and
- Whether an individual agrees to initiating MOUD that day.
State agencies use these data sets to track outcomes and understand how hospitals are engaging individuals after an overdose to ensure connections to treatment are made. Rhode Island’s overall SUD response strategy includes collection and analysis of treatment and recovery data, and the state uses its Prevent Overdose RI website as a platform to publicly report on measures. ED overdose visits are reported publicly on a monthly basis, along with location and naloxone provision data, and the AnchorED outcomes of patient engagement. Reports include quarterly numbers showing total ED visits, as well as post-overdose counseling, which was accepted by 26 percent of overdose patients in the most recent data reported for the fourth quarter of 2020. Data for that time period also shows that of a total 267 overdose patients, with 45 percent receiving naloxone before being discharged from the hospital.
Challenges and Considerations in Maximizing Peer Workforce
Engage stakeholders. Peer stakeholders have been engaged with policymakers since the inception of the AnchorED program. These relationships helped to develop the policies that support the program, particularly for peer certification requirements. Stakeholder and cross-agency communication continues to drive policy in Rhode Island; regular informal communication through weekly calls among PRS contractors/peer recovery organizations, ED providers, law enforcement, detox centers, and state agencies has been key to identifying emerging trends and resulting needs.
Build workforce diversity. Several state leaders and stakeholders noted that diversity is lacking in the existing peer workforce and suggested that targeted recruitment of peers who are people of color, are bilingual, and/or identify as LGBTQ may help better meet the state population’s needs. A February 2021 update to the Governor’s Task Force – which has recently created a Racial Equity Workgroup – prioritizes this as a goal for the state’s recovery work, listing recruitment and training of people of color and those who speak languages other than English as a short-term recommendation.
Delineate peer roles. While the goals of peer engagement include patient retention and continuity of care, ED providers and stakeholders repeatedly stressed that connecting overdose patients to medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) was the most important intervention to reduce overdose death. Providers noted concern regarding peers advocating for patients to choose either MOUD or abstinence-based recovery, a clinical decision that may test role definition and boundaries. While they emphasized that most peer-to-patient interactions are not clinical in nature and do not include discussions of medical interventions, there have been occasions when providers felt that peers may be overstepping in their roles by dissuading overdose patients from initiating MOUD. Providers and peers alike are mindful of existing tension in the recovery community regarding the use of medications. Abstinence-based recovery programming sometimes discourages medications, though this perspective is far from universal. In the most recent Governor’s Task Force strategic plan update, Rhode Island included a goal to develop PRS who focus on supporting patients in MOUD treatment, and to integrate these specialty PRS into services across the SUD continuum of care.
Identify hiring barriers. When Rhode Island first shifted toward employing peers to work within the hospital, leaders within the recovery organization and the hospital system had to decide whether peers would need to go through hospital system human resources checks and procedures, which may have posed barriers to peers being able to work in the hospital environment due to felony backgrounds or other prior issues. Rhode Island determined that the best course of action was to have peer candidates evaluated as part of the the recovery organization’s human resources to avoid this. Within some health systems, internal hospital policies can prevent the hiring of individuals with felony records, a challenge for some people in recovery who had past convictions. To mitigate this, states can consider approaches in which peers are hired by the organizations that bill for peer services rather than directly by hospitals.
Conclusion
The importance of relationships across systems and among team members in developing and integrating peer services in EDs was a dominant theme in interviews with state leaders and stakeholders. Relationships between the recovery community and hospital clinicians were already in place before AnchorED became a Medicaid-reimbursable model, and leaning on those relationships was key to licensure and Medicaid policy creation. Further, the relationships that develop between team members when providing peer services in the ED help to reduce stigma. As one peer leader said, integrating “education along the way” by talking with providers about the realities of active use and the fears that emerge from it helped humanize recovery for ED providers. Rhode Island’s leaders routinely pointed to the small size of the state and the opportunity that affords them to develop such relationships across systems. While the state’s small size is a unique factor that cannot be replicated, it suggests that states can support regional relationships among community behavioral health, community recovery organizations, and hospital systems through formal regional networks and activities.
Acknowledgements: This brief was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award under the National Organizations of State and Local Officials cooperative agreement. The contents are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by HRSA/HHS, or the US government. The authors would like to thank HRSA project officer Diba Rab for her support and guidance. Further, the authors would like to acknowledge the dedication, leadership, and input of Rhode Island state agency leaders and staff, as well as providers, stakeholders, and peers who contributed to this brief.
Michigan’s Caring for Students Program Leverages Medicaid Funding to Expand School Behavioral Health Services
/in Policy Michigan Blogs, Featured News Home Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Children/Youth with Special Health Care Needs, Children/Youth with Special Health Care Needs, Chronic and Complex Populations, Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Integrated Care for Children, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Quality and Measurement, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Anita Cardwell and Gia GouldDespite a federal rule change that allows states to bill Medicaid for school-based physical and behavioral health services provided to all Medicaid-enrolled students, many states struggle to overcome the persistent and complex billing challenges associated with receiving Medicaid reimbursement for delivery of these critical services.
To access additional Medicaid funds to expand school-based behavioral health services, Michigan established the Caring 4 Students (C4S) program, which strengthens partnerships between its Medicaid agency, providers, and educational entities and streamlines Medicaid billing policies and procedures. This case study explores how Michigan overcame some of the challenges states face when seeking Medicaid reimbursement for school-based behavioral health services. It also describes how Michigan retooled the C4S program during the pandemic to ensure the services continued to reach students through telehealth.
Introduction
The majority of children who receive behavioral health care access these services in school settings. According to the School-Based Health Alliance, 70 percent of children who receive mental health services access them at school.[1] As an increasing number of children experience worsening behavioral health due to the pandemic,[2] the need for these support services is even greater. Also, with the pandemic forcing many schools to offer reduced in-person teaching or fully remote learning, they have had to adapt and provide more behavioral health services through telehealth.
While states can fund school-based behavioral health services in a variety of ways, a number of states have leveraged federal Medicaid dollars to help fund behavioral health services for students with Medicaid coverage. In federal fiscal year 2016, estimated Medicaid spending for both school-based and administrative services totaled $4.5 billion.[3]
Historically, schools were restricted in their ability to receive federal Medicaid reimbursement for physical and behavioral health services provided to Medicaid-enrolled students. The “free care rule” prohibited schools from seeking Medicaid payments for services provided to Medicaid-enrolled students if the services were provided for free to all students, such as no-cost health screenings. While the rule contained an exception for services identified in Medicaid-enrolled students’ Individuals Education Plans (IEPs), it limited schools’ ability to obtain Medicaid reimbursement for services provided to students with Medicaid coverage who did not have IEPs. However, as a result of the “free care rule” policy reversal in 2014, states have the opportunity to bill Medicaid for physical and behavioral health services delivered to all Medicaid-enrolled students, including students without IEPs.
Despite the rule change, some schools still face challenges in obtaining Medicaid reimbursement for services provided to Medicaid enrollees, either due to state-level policy barriers or other issues, such as the administrative complexity of the billing process. School staff often may not have the expertise or resources to implement Medicaid billing procedures, and often need assistance and training from state education and Medicaid agencies.[4] Also, some states with budgets impacted by the pandemic may be limited in their ability to invest in an expansion of services.
Development of C4S
To help increase students’ access to behavioral health services, in 2019 Michigan capitalized on the flexibility provided by the reversal of the free care rule by creating the C4S program through a state plan amendment (SPA) that leverages the Early, Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit. Through the C4S program, Michigan schools can now receive Medicaid reimbursement for services delivered to Medicaid-eligible students if they are covered under EPSDT, delivered within a provider’s scope of practice, and billed in accordance with state Medicaid billing procedures.[5]
In addition to federal Medicaid dollars, implementation of the C4S program was bolstered by state funding,[6] which included a $16.5 million allocation by the state legislature in the fall of 2018 to provide direct medical services to students that must be billed to Medicaid whenever possible. State officials subsequently acted quickly to submit a Medicaid SPA by December 2018, and after approval by federal officials, the state launched the C4S program in October 2019.
Interagency Coordination
Nearly all 587 school districts in Michigan fall under the authority of an intermediate school district (ISD), which conducts various administrative functions for the schools. Michigan has 56 ISDs, as well as two independent school districts, and the ISD system structure allows all schools, regardless of how small they are, to participate in the C4S program because the reimbursement claims are administered by the ISDs. The state considers the ISDs to be the main provider entities within the C4S program, as clinicians participating in the program report their services under each ISD’s provider identifier number.
State officials characterize the C4S program as a three-legged stool – consisting of Medicaid, the ISDs and the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) – all closely coordinating together to support the behavioral health needs of students. Even prior to the reversal of the free care rule, Michigan ISDs worked closely with the state Medicaid agency to provide IEP services for Medicaid-enrolled students. The strong relationship between Medicaid and the ISDs can be credited, in part, to a payment agreement that provides ISDs with 60 percent of federal Medicaid reimbursement for school-based services. To provide schools the support needed to manage the service expansion through C4S, ISDs receive 95 percent of the federal share for services covered under the program and the state Medicaid agency receives the remaining five percent to cover administrative costs.
Challenges and Solutions
Lack of behavioral health providers: In addition to expanding the scope of Medicaid reimbursable health and behavioral health services, the C4S program also expanded the type of providers who can claim reimbursement for delivering services to Medicaid-enrolled students. While funding from the legislature allowed the state to hire new mental health staff, the C4S program still needed additional providers because similar to many states, Michigan was already facing shortages within its mental health workforce.
In response, Michigan’s Medicaid officials employed a creative approach to ensure there were enough providers to support the expansion of school behavioral health services. Recognizing the potential of utilizing other categories of providers, such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, behavior analysts, and marriage and family therapists, state officials incorporated them and others into the list of allowable providers. Including these additional provider types expanded the behavioral health workforce pool and helped the state address the lack of providers, particularly in rural areas of the state.
Overall complexity of reimbursement process: State Medicaid agency officials indicated that some school districts were initially hesitant to participate in the C4S program because they were concerned about the potential administrative burden that might be involved with implementing the Medicaid reimbursement process. These concerns have been addressed by establishing strong communication channels among the three entities (Medicaid, ISDs, and MDE) to clarify processes and procedures and provide ample opportunities for staff training sessions.
Given the complexity of the reimbursement process, the state Medicaid agency works particularly closely with the ISDs to provide them with answers to specific questions. Training on implementing the reimbursement processes occurs frequently, both at an annual conference and on a regular basis because of the frequency of staff turnover in the schools and consequently the need to train new employees about the procedures and how to account for time spent providing services.
One key aspect of the Medicaid reimbursement model is that the state uses a process that is based on paying for part of the salary of a particular staff position, rather than reimbursing for the actual services themselves. Given that providers do not spend all of their time engaging in reimbursable activities, in order to determine the amount of their salaries that can be reimbursed by Medicaid, state officials must estimate the portion of time they spent on providing medically eligible services to Medicaid-enrolled children. To do this, each month state officials ask for responses to a Random Moment Time Study (RMTS), which is a federally approved method to assess how providers spend their time. The RMTS data is incorporated into an algorithm containing a number of other factors, and this calculation forms the basis of the Medicaid reimbursement model.
State officials reported there are still some challenges associated with helping providers understand how to evaluate their time spent providing services when they respond to requests for RMTS data, due to some providers’ lack of familiarity with the RMTS process as well as the accelerated pace of implementation of the C4S program. However, state officials indicated that they expect these issues can be addressed with additional training.
Provider and general reimbursement issues: One challenge the state encountered during the initial stages of C4S implementation was due to an existing rule within MDE, which stipulated that if a provider’s salary was partially funded by general education dollars that individual was not permitted to work with special education students. State Medicaid officials worked with MDE to eliminate that rule, and this has resulted in the ability to more effectively and efficiently allocate providers’ time and allow them to serve more students.
Another key to the state’s success in increasing Medicaid reimbursement for behavioral health services provided in the schools was to address the reimbursement rate applied to school psychologists. There are four different pools of staff providers serving students — direct services staff, personal care services staff, targeted case management staff, and administrative and outreach staff. Prior to implementation of C4S, the school psychologists were categorized as part of the administrative outreach pool, resulting in a low Medicaid reimbursement rate. State officials were able to work with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to change that designation so they were instead recognized as part of the direct service staff pool, which significantly increased their reimbursement rates.
Michigan state officials also anticipated a potential administrative challenge related to provider reimbursement. If the state used two separate Medicaid state plans to implement the program — one for special education students and another for general education students — this would create reimbursement complications because it would silo providers into serving only one student population group. By instead submitting a SPA for the C4S program that added in coverage of the general education students, this allowed providers to serve both groups of students. The state also worked closely with CMS on the overall reimbursement methodology to maximize the program’s potential for leveraging federal Medicaid funds, which included keeping the students with IEPs separate from the general education students in the state’s calculations because of their differing Medicaid eligibility rates.
Transition to online school services due to COVID-19: Michigan officials had to quickly adjust policies and processes in response to the statewide shift to online learning in the spring of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. State officials had heard anecdotally about an increased need among students for behavioral health services due to stresses associated with the pandemic, and they anticipate that this demand may continue to grow. Recognizing the need to increase access to behavioral health services for students who may be in crisis, the state waived the requirement that a plan of care must be in place, allowing schools to bill Medicaid up to 30 days without an existing plan of care.
State officials quickly broadened their telehealth policies to include an audio-only provision, and while that will most likely be discontinued when the pandemic ends, they indicated that they plan to sustain many other telehealth provisions post-pandemic.
Also, while telehealth services were implemented fairly rapidly, state officials reported that changing the billing processes was not as easy. School closures caused nearly all RMTS moments to show no reimbursable activity, because providers were not providing medical or behavioral health services during the initial stages of the closure. State officials explained that while this did result in a notable loss in reimbursement, the enhanced Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) provided by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act would help cover much of this decrease. Also, CMS allowed the state to use an average of RMTS responses from the last two quarters for their RMTS when schools were closed, because of the significant declines in time spent providing care, and state officials indicated that federal approval to do this helped significantly.
The state is also seeking to ensure equitable access to behavioral health services by focusing on addressing issues for students who lack access to devices that can be used for telehealth services. State officials recently submitted a SPA to federal officials to obtain reimbursement for providing students in need of devices with access to iPads and computers that would be owned and managed by the schools. They indicated that if the proposal is approved, they plan to continue reimbursing for devices beyond the pandemic period.
Overall successes: The C4S program has not only achieved one of its overall goals of increasing students’ access to behavioral health services, it has also helped bring in needed additional funds to the schools. There had already been some psychologists in the schools, but it was not until implementation of C4S that Michigan was able to obtain Medicaid reimbursement for any qualifying services provided. Also, despite needing to navigate the challenges associated with the pandemic, state officials considered it a success that there has been an approximate 6 percent increase in the amount of federal Medicaid reimbursement being directed to schools through the C4S program.
The Future of C4S
State officials said they anticipate that C4S’ initial successes will continue and that the program will likely expand further, as not all ISDs were able to implement the program fully during its initial stages. As school hiring begins to increase post-pandemic and as providers and ISDs become more familiar with navigating the RMTS responses and overall reimbursement process, state officials indicated they expect the program to grow steadily in the coming months.
Notes
The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) would like to thank state officials from Michigan for their time and contribution to this publication. Support for this work was provided by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.
[1] Mental Health webpage on the School-Based Health Alliance webpage, https://www.sbh4all.org/school-health-care/health-and-learning/mental-health/.
[2] Stephen W. Patrick et al, “Well-being of Parents and Children During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Survey. Pediatrics October 2020, 146(4). https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/146/4/e2020016824
[3] Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC), “Medicaid in Schools.” April 2018. https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Medicaid-in-Schools.pdf
[4] Heather Clapp Padgette, Candace Webb, Phyllis Jordan, “How Medicaid and CHIP Can Support Student Success through Schools.” Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, April 2019. https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2019/04/24/how-medicaid-and-chip-can-support-student-success-through-schools/
[5] While the C4S program serves all students, the state can only receive Medicaid reimbursement for services provided to Medicaid-eligible children. Also, the C4S program also expands school nursing services, but this case study focuses on the program’s behavioral health services.
[6] Also, the non-federal share of Medicaid spending for school-based services is provided by schools through certified public expenditures.
Rhode Island’s Accountable Entities Emphasize Children’s Health and Social Needs
/in Policy Rhode Island Blogs, Featured News Home Chronic and Complex Populations, Eligibility and Enrollment, Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Housing and Health, Integrated Care for Children, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Elinor HigginsIn the midst of the pandemic, many states are continuing to advance their health system transformation efforts. Rhode Island’s Medicaid Accountable Entities (AE) Program, for example, is shifting to a pay-for-performance model for several screening measures. Under this model, there is an additional financial incentive to screen children and their families for health and social needs, which have taken on new importance due to the added stressors of COVID-19.
Rhode Island’s AE program, now entering its fourth year, makes provider organizations (AEs) accountable for health outcomes of their members as well as the total cost of care of their populations. Using contractual levers in the agreements between AEs and managed care organizations (MCOs), the state requires AEs to integrate strategies to address social needs and social determinants of health (SDOH). The strategies must include assessment of social needs, referral to community resources, and utilizing community partnerships and engagement to address the identified needs.
Read NASHP’s 2018 profile of Rhode Island’s Accountable Entities Program here.
The state developed SDOH screening requirements for the AEs. Screening tools must be approved by the Rhode Island Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS), and they must include information on the following domains: housing insecurity, food insecurity, transportation, interpersonal violence, and utility assistance.
Screening for a child’s needs can offer insights about what kinds of services, referrals, or wrap-around care are needed to ensure healthy development. Because the ongoing pandemic has required children and families to stay home and spend additional time together, a safe and supportive home environment is especially crucial for children’s health and well-being. The SDOH screening domains that are required by EOHHS overlap with adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), such as poverty, food and/or housing insecurity, neglect, and mental illness — all of which contribute to poor health outcomes for children.
Rhode Island’s AE program takes into account the benefit of a two-generation (2Gen) approach to these issues. Under a 2Gen framework, services are provided to both children and the adults in their lives simultaneously to help families live healthy and productive lives. When screening children under age 12, Rhode Island’s SDOH screening measure can be applied to an entire household instead of to only the individual child. This can provide a better understanding of how to target interventions for the whole family going forward.
This year, a key change is happening within the AE program that may increase the number of children and families served by the program. The state is shifting to pay-for-performance (P4P) for the SDOH screening requirement. Beginning in Project Year 4 (PY4), there is a financial incentive for the AEs to increase their SDOH screening rates among their attributed populations. AEs needed time to develop their screening tools and build capacity around screening for SDOH before shifting the AE incentive metric to P4P. Other measures, including documented developmental screening for children younger than age 3, will also transition to P4P in PY4.
Though the SDOH screening requirements are specific to Medicaid AEs in Rhode Island, state officials expect the screening requirements to have a ripple effect. In primary care settings, for example, if a provider is administering the SDOH to AE-attributed patients, officials expect they are likely integrating the screening into their workflows and administering it to all of their patients. This has proven to be the case with other well-child practices. For example, the AE Coastal Medical, has implemented universal screenings across all of its practices to assess and identify needs around depression, anxiety, and SDOH.
Screening is only the first step in improving health-related social needs for children and families. One of the goals of the AE program is to use screening results and the improved understanding of its members’ circumstances to improve their overall health. Rhode Island is leveraging its Quality Report System (QRS), a tool for data collection, to calculate performance on the quality measure. This tool enables providers to drill down to the patient level to identify patients still in need of screening.
An upcoming strategy to help AEs coordinate better with community partners is the procurement of a community referral system that would help connect individuals to necessary resources. Such a referral network could be linked with the QRS in the future, making data collection, analysis, and referral a centralized process. Ultimately, this initiative may drive a broader conversation about how the state collects screening data across both public and private payers, and how this data can be used to improve the health outcomes of Rhode Island residents.
State Policy Center for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment and Access
/in Policy Featured News Home, NASHP News, Toolkits Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, COVID-19, Featured Policy Home, Health Equity, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health /by Jodi Manz and Kitty PuringtonHow States Use Federal Medicaid Authorities to Finance Housing-Related Services
/in Policy Blogs, Featured News Home Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Health Equity, Housing and Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Allie AtkesonTo address the housing needs of their Medicaid enrollees, states can leverage a variety of federal Medicaid authorities to deliver housing-related support services to individuals with disabilities and chronic conditions. This report explores the various federal waivers states used to increase supportive housing and reduce their Medicaid costs.
Background
Housing is an essential social determinant of health. Evidence shows a strong association between access to safe, affordable, and stable housing and positive health outcomes. Housing with supportive services, known as permanent supportive housing, supports individuals with complex medical needs and reduces emergency department use. Supportive housing also helps individuals remain stably housed over the long term.
There is also a strong return on investment for states that implement permanent supportive housing programs. By investing in supportive housing, states and localities can reduce health care, homeless shelter, and corrections costs. For example, Oregon reported a 12 percent savings in Medicaid expenditures one year after moving 1,625 individuals into affordable housing with support services. Many states support housing’s role in health by funding housing-related services in their Medicaid programs.
NASHP recently finished its three-year Health and Housing Institute with state officials from Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Oregon and Texas. The institute’s goal was to break down agency silos within states and strengthen services and supports that assist low-income and populations with complex conditions in becoming and remaining successfully and stably housed. Maximizing policy levers and authorities available through the Medicaid program was critical to increasing housing-related services and tenancy supports.
Priority Populations
States are currently engaged in supportive housing initiatives for people with disabilities, mental health diagnoses, substance use disorder (SUD), multiple chronic conditions, and those experiencing or at-risk of homelessness.
States are also focused on deinstitutionalization due to mandates set by the 1999 Supreme Court case, Olmstead, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Human Resources et al. vs. L.C.. The case stated that institutionalization of individuals with disabilities who can be served in the community is unjustified segregation. Research indicates that community-based settings are more cost effective, less restrictive, and provide better outcomes for individuals with disabilities than institutions. As a result, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued guidance, known as the Olmstead Letters, to help states identify services that support deinstitutionalization.
Medicaid and Housing-Related Services
Medicaid provides services for individuals with low incomes as well as specific populations, including those with intellectual, developmental, and physical disabilities. People who are homeless or at risk of homelessness generally qualify for Medicaid, especially in states with expanded programs for low-income adults. There is also increased national attention and resources for supportive housing for people with SUD. In November 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services released a report on housing-related services and supports under state Medicaid programs as a part of the Substance Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities (SUPPORT) Act. This report identifies federal authorities to provide housing-related services to people with SUD.
While Medicaid cannot pay for housing development or rent, with the exception of security deposits in some states, it can support services for enrollees to find and sustain housing. These services, defined by each state, can include:
- Education and training on the role, rights, and responsibilities of the tenant and landlord;
- Early detection and intervention for behaviors that may jeopardize housing, such as late rental payment and lease violations;
- Assistance with the housing recertification process; and
- Coordination with services and service providers for primary care, SUD treatment, mental health providers, and vocational and employment support.
Medicaid authorities allow states to test approaches to program financing and delivery by waiving Medicaid statutory requirements, and amending existing state plans. The following explores how states use Medicaid Section 1115 Demonstration waivers, 1915(b) Managed Care Authorities, 1915(c) Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS) waivers, 1915(i) HCBS state plan amendments, the 1915(k) Community First Choice Option, and Health Homes to finance housing-related services.
Federal Medicaid Authorities for Housing-Related Services
Section 1115 demonstration waivers allow for “experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects that are found by the Secretary to be likely to assist in promoting the objectives of the Medicaid program.” Section 1115 demonstrations allow states to test innovative models and address social determinants of health and are considered to be more flexible than other federal Medicaid authorities. Section 1115 waivers also allow states to target services for population groups and within specific geographies.
Section 1115 waivers must be budget neutral to the federal government, meaning the federal contribution cannot exceed the amount without the demonstration initiative. Savings generated from the demonstration can also be invested in other innovations, such as coverage expansions in state Medicaid programs. States are also required to conduct monitoring and evaluation of their 1115 demonstrations, findings that can be useful to other states looking into implementing similar demonstration waivers. Most 1115 waivers are approved for a five-year period and can then be renewed for up to three to five years.
Trends across housing-related 1115 waivers show that states target different groups, but primarily focus on individuals with high emergency department use, SUDs, and serious mental illness (SMI).
- Virginia recently added eviction prevention and housing transitional services for individuals with serious behavioral and physical health needs at risk of homelessness through a 1115 demonstration waiver. These services include:
- Individual housing and pre-tenancy services: Includes a housing assessment, financial literacy education, application assistance, an individualized housing support plan, and identification of resources to obtain housing.
- Individual housing and tenancy-sustaining services: Updating individual housing support plans as needed, assisting in securing independent living supports, educating about roles and responsibilities of tenants and landlords, making home modifications, linking to community resources, and providing annual pest eradication treatment as needed.
- Community transition services: Provides up to $5,000 per member per lifetime to help individuals obtain an independent community-based living setting. Allowable expenses include security deposits, home furnishings, and home modifications.
1915(b) Managed Care Authority
A section 1915(b) waiver is one avenue for states to implement a managed care program among other provisions. This waiver allows states to waive requirements for comparability, statewide access, and freedom of choice and it can be approved for two years. Savings achieved through managed care can be used to provide housing-related services.
As identified by the SUPPORT Act report, few states leverage the 1915(b) authority for housing-related services.
- In Colorado, the state’s Community Mental Health Services Program includes Assertive Community Treatment (ACT). ACT teams, staffed by licensed clinicians and peer specialists, provide 24/7 individualized services to adults with a serious mental health diagnosis including housing assistance.
1915(c) Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS) Waivers
Section 1915(c) HCBS waivers are designed to provide services in community-based settings rather than institutional settings. These waivers must provide services that cost less than services offered in institutions, protect individuals’ health and welfare, have adequate and reasonable provider standards, and are individualized and person-centered.
States can operate multiple HCBS waivers and define target groups by age or diagnoses and choose the maximum number of enrollees allowed. HCBS services can be offered to individuals earning up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). HCBS waivers can cover housing, pre-tenancy services, tenancy-sustaining services and transition services. States primarily use 1915(c) waivers to cover individuals with disabilities – not individuals at risk of homelessness, with chronic conditions, or SUD. This is due to the waivers’ requirement that individuals meet an institutional level of care for services. Some states, including Louisiana, operate different waivers for children and adults.
Louisiana currently operates four 1915(c) HCBS waivers:
- Children’s Choice Waiver: Covers housing stabilization and transition services for individuals with autism, intellectual disabilities (ID) and developmental disabilities (DD) for ages 0-20.
- New Opportunities Waiver: Provides housing stabilization, transition services, and $3,000 per member per lifetime maximum for security deposits and essential home furnishings.
- Residential Options Waiver: Covers in-home caregiving, community living supports, one-time transitional services, housing stabilization, and transition services for individuals of all ages with autism, ID and DD.
- Supports Waiver: Promotes housing stabilization and transition services for individuals of all ages with autism, ID, and DD.
1915(i) State Plan Home- and Community-Based Services
The 1915(i) state plan authority is similar to 1915(c), but allows states to provide HCBS services through a State Plan Amendment (SPA), rather than a waiver. States cannot limit the number of individuals eligible or geography for services and beneficiaries qualify through needs-based criteria, rather than institutional criteria used for the 1915(c). States can use age, disability status, diagnosis and/or Medicaid eligibility group to target their benefit for individuals earning below 150 percent of FPL.
The 1915(i) state plan option is considered to be more broad than the 1915(c) option, however states may struggle to create targeted service programs due to eligibility requirements. States can use risk of homelessness as a needs-based criteria, however eligibility must include other levels of functionality, such as behavior, cognitive abilities and medical risk factors.
- North Dakota’s 1915(i) state plan amendment (SPA) was recently approved to provide community transitional services and housing support services to individuals with a mental health or SUD or disability. Services include benefit application, lease applications, one-time expenses for furnishings and modifications, financial literacy training and education on the roles of landlords and tenants.
1915(k) Community First Choice (CFC) Option
The CFC state plan option was established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA and allows states to provide person-centered home- and community-based attendant services and supports. States receive a 6 percent increase to their Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for this option. States cannot cap the number of individuals participating and cannot target special populations. Eligible individuals must:
- Be eligible for Medicaid under the state plan;
- Meet an institutional level of care;
- If not entitled to nursing facility services, have an income below 150 percent FPL; and
- Enroll voluntarily.
Under the option, states can finance transition costs such as security deposits and home furnishings and other expenditures that support and individual’s independence.
- Oregon and Maryland cover these housing-related services in their CFC programs.
Section 2703 of the ACA allows states to develop health homes for Medicaid enrollees with chronic conditions. States can implement a health home through an SPA. Health home services are eligible for a 90 percent-enhanced FMAP for the first two years of the SPA. Health home services include these six core services;
- Comprehensive case management;
- Care coordination;
- Health promotion;
- Comprehensive transitional care and follow-up;
- Individual and family support; and
- Referral to community and social services.
Health homes do not expire like waivers and SPAs. As of December 2020, 21 states and Washington, DC were operating 37 health home models. Six states terminated their SPAs and are no longer offering health home services.
- California’s health home program provides housing transition and tenancy-sustaining services for individual with chronic conditions, mental illness, or chronic homelessness as defined by its SPA. Multi-disciplinary care teams must include a housing navigator to “…foster relationships with housing agencies and permanent housing providers, including supportive housing providers; partner with housing agencies and providers to offer the member permanent, independent housing options, including supportive housing; connect and assist the member to get available permanent housing; coordinate with member in the most easily accessible setting.”
State Examples
Conclusion
To address the housing needs of their Medicaid enrollees, states can leverage a variety of federal Medicaid authorities. These authorities allow states to target housing-related services for individuals with disabilities, SUD, SMI, and other chronic conditions. Research from supportive housing programs in Seattle, Santa Clara, CA, and New York City show that supportive housing programs help individuals achieve sustained housing.
It is also expected that there may be a shift in the approval of Medicaid authorities under a new Administration. Section 1115 waiver demonstrations generally reflect priorities identified by leadership at CMS. Under the Trump administration, 1115 waivers could be used to support work requirements and payments for individuals in institutions for mental disease, despite the deinstitutionalization priority recommended under Olmstead.
The Biden administration, supportive of the ACA and Medicaid expansion, is expected to support continued flexibility for states through 1115 waivers without block grants or work requirements. This additional flexibility could include coverage expansions and additional services, such as housing supports.
While these authorities allow for the financing of services for specific individuals, states cite the ability to work across health and housing sectors and data sharing as other important tools for supportive housing. The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) will begin a second health and housing institute this spring to support additional states in strengthening their services and supports that assist low-income and vulnerable populations in becoming and remaining successfully and stably housed.
For more information about NASHP’s health and housing efforts, visit its Housing and Health Resources for States center or contact Allie Atkeson.
Acknowledgement: This project was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U2MOA394670100, National Organizations of State and Local Officials. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the US government.
Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter
Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter
Washington, DC Office:
1233 20th St., N.W., Suite 303Washington, DC 20036
p: (202) 903-0101
f: (202) 903-2790
Contact Us
Phone: 202-903-0101

For individuals living with complex, often chronic conditions, and their families, palliative care can provide relief from symptoms, improve satisfaction and outcomes, and help address critical mental and spiritual needs during difficult times. Now more than ever, there is growing recognition of the importance of palliative care services for individuals with serious illness, such as advance care planning, pain and symptom management, care coordination, and team-based, multi-disciplinary support. These services can help patients and families cope with the symptoms and stressors of disease, better anticipate and avoid crises, and reduce unnecessary and/or unwanted care. While this model is grounded in evidence that demonstrates improved quality of life, better outcomes, and reduced cost for patients, only a fraction of individuals who could benefit from palliative care receive it. 























































































































































