Tackling the Opioid Crisis: What State Strategies Are Working?
/in Policy Blogs Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Health Coverage and Access, Population Health, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health /by Kitty PuringtonAmong the many issues confronting new state governors and their administrations, the opioid crisis may be one of the most urgent and complex, and may leave the most devastating legacy. Opioids kill 130 Americans every day. For state policy makers, the ripple effect of the crisis reaches beyond health care systems to impact public safety and corrections, child protective services, and other state agencies and functions.
- Tracking opioid prescribing
- Expanding access to Naloxone
- Increasing medication-assisted treatment
- Engaging corrections
- Ensuring treatment in rural areas
- Expanding Medicaid
As part of National Academy for State Health Policy’s (NASHP) work under a National Organizations of State and Local Officials cooperative agreement with the Health Resources and Services Administration, NASHP officials met with policy makers from a dozen states to talk about their challenges and most promising policy strategies to tackle the opioid crisis.
The group discussed and evaluated a range of policy approaches involving Medicaid, behavioral and public health departments, and governors’ offices. State leaders are on the front lines of the opioid crisis, and while the challenges and complexity of this work can be staggering, states generally share a few common goals: prevent addiction, stop people from dying, and get people into treatment.
With those common goals in mind, NASHP identified a few key strategies from the field that are showing results:
- Track opioid prescribing: While the majority of states now have prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), Florida was one of the first states to establish a PDMP. Since establishing its program in 2009 (and continuously refining it over the last decade), Florida has achieved a 69.3 percent decrease in the number of individuals having “multiple prescriber episodes” – doctor-shopping for multiple opioid prescriptions. Florida also recently implemented one of the country’s strictest limits on opioid prescribing. Legislation passed in 2018 restricts opioid prescriptions to no more than a three-day supply, with certain exceptions, such as for palliative care.
- Invest in harm reduction: In Massachusetts, the Department of Health launched an Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program. The program has trained more than 64,000 people to administer naloxone, invested in training for first responders, provided naloxone doses to community health centers, and participated in a bulk-purchasing program allowing communities to purchase naloxone at a significant discount. The program reports that close to 11,922 overdose reversals had occurred through the use of OEND naloxone kits.
- Build capacity for medication-assisted treatment (MAT). MAT– an approach that includes both medication, counseling, and other supports — is an effective and evidence-based treatment for opioid addiction. However, states have struggled to build sufficient capacity for MAT to address the enormous need created by the opioid crisis. Virginia is addressing this challenge and is starting to see results: the state implemented its Addiction, Recovery, and Treatment Services program through an 1115 waiver. The state is investing in a comprehensive continuum of care that supports primary care practices and a range of other community providers to deliver office-based MAT. Since implementing these wide-ranging delivery system reforms in 2017, the state has seen treatment rates for individuals with opioid disorders increase by more than 70 percent.
- Engage corrections: The first two weeks after release from a corrections facility can be one of the most lethal periods of time for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). States can take a number of steps to target and assist this high-risk population:
- Rhode Island offers MAT to inmates statewide. The program, which also includes linkages to continued treatment following release, has shown promising results. A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported a 60 percent reduction in post-incarceration, opioid-related deaths after the program was implemented.
- Although individuals are not permitted to receive Medicaid benefits while incarcerated, the Medicaid enrollment process can get started before their release. NASHP’s State Strategies to Enroll Justice-Involved Individuals in Health Coverage provides examples and resources for states to maximize Medicaid enrollment and link people to services as they leave corrections settings.
- Ensure access in rural areas: Access to addiction treatment in hard-hit, rural areas is especially challenging. Overcoming transportation barriers, attracting and supporting specialists, and combatting the stigma associated with accessing (and delivering) services, such as methadone treatment in smaller, more rural communities can be difficult. States are seeing success using the Project Echo model to help providers develop the capacity to deliver treatment. This model links clinical specialists with practitioners in rural areas, facilitating long-distance learning and peer-to-peer mentoring. New Mexico has used the Project Echo model for substance use disorder (SUD) since 2005, and ranks fourth in the country in the number of providers able to deliver MAT services, in spite of its ranking as one of the most rural states in the country.
- Expand Medicaid: States that have not expanded Medicaid may be missing an important policy lever to support access to SUD treatment. Recent research found that states that expanded Medicaid saw a significant increase in prescriptions used to treat opioid disorders. Prescriptions for opioids themselves experienced only a modest increase compared to other medications in those .
These strategies represent just a few of the many state innovations happening across the country as health policy makers confront the opioid epidemic. NASHP is continuing to work closely with states to support their opioid epidemic responses and will share other lessons learned in the months ahead.
States Utilize Cross-Agency Resources to Address Health Care Workforce Shortages
/in Policy Alaska, Indiana Reports Care Coordination, Chronic and Complex Populations, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health Coverage and Access, Primary Care/Patient-Centered/Health Home, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health, Workforce Capacity /by Natalie Williams and Kitty PuringtonThe National Academy for State Health Policy examined how Indiana and Alaska leverage their resources and build new partnerships to implement innovative, cross-agency approaches to bolster their health care workforces. These case studies explore:
- Cross-agency coalitions that develop and implement innovative workforce strategies;
- Opportunities to use data to identify and address workforce shortages;
- Strategies to support and promote a non-traditional health care workforce; and
- Options to support education and training for current and future health care workers.
Read or download: Case Study: How Indiana Addresses Its Health Care Workforce Challenges
Read or download: Case Study: How Alaska Addresses Its Health Care Workforce Challenges
Additional resources:
- Read State Agencies Partner to Address Health Care Workforce Shortages, which highlights state and federal resources, such as Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funding, Section 1115 waivers, and federal and state loan repayment programs, that can be used to address workforce challenges.
Review presentations from #NASHPCONF18’s session: May the (Work) Force Be With You.
A Snapshot of the Key Health Policy Issues at Play in 2018 Governors’ Races
/in Policy Blogs Administrative Actions, Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Health System Costs, Integrated Care for Children, Integrated for Pregnant/Parenting Women, Maternal Health and Mortality, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Expansion, Population Health, Prescription Drug Pricing, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health, Social Determinants of Health, State Insurance Marketplaces, State Rx Legislative Action, Workforce Capacity /by Anita Cardwell
Photo credit: Shutterstock.com
With elections just three weeks away, governors’ races in 36 states – with 17 open seats – are down to the wire and important health policy issues, such as Medicaid expansion, stabilizing insurance markets, public options, and prescription drug price controls, are at play in most of them. The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) scanned candidates’ websites and press coverage to provide this snapshot of key health care election issues. While limited in scope and focusing only on major party candidates, this scan provides a glimpse of state campaign health issues that could be harbingers of policy action in 2019.
Addressing the opioid epidemic: No surprise to state health policy watchers, addressing the opioid epidemic remains a bipartisan priority for gubernatorial candidates. Strategies differ, but there is general support for more treatment and prevention. In Iowa, Democrat Fred Hubbell wants more support for local law enforcement and has called for the attorney general to hold pharmaceutical manufacturers accountable. In Oregon, Republican Knute Buehler seeks to cut opioid overdose deaths by 50 percent by investing in medication assisted treatment (MAT), peer counseling, and evidence-based strategies to address the crisis while incumbent Democrat Kate Brown cites her creation of a task force that is tackling these issues and her leadership to increase the availability of naloxone. In several states that have not expanded Medicaid, Democratic candidates are supporting expansion as a means to improve addiction treatment coverage.
Medicaid expansion: Seventeen states have not expanded Medicaid and that issue is front and center in many of these races. Candidates’ stances on the issue follow party lines, with Republican candidates opposing expansion and Democrats supporting it. A number of these states have open seats and highly competitive races. Whether pollsters have it right or not, these state campaigns provide insight into the current debate about Medicaid expansion.
In states with both highly competitive races and open seats, arguments for and against expansion follow similar themes. In Georgia, Republican Brian Kemp argues that the state can provide affordable health care without expanding Medicaid while Democrat Stacey Abrams has made expansion a top priority, noting its importance for coverage, mental health treatment, jobs, and support for rural hospitals. In Kansas, a recent plan to close a rural hospital is cited as one of the reasons to support expansion by Democrat Laura Kelly while Republican Kris Kobach opposes expansion. Oklahoma’s Democrat Drew Edmondson expresses strong support for expansion and he too cites the issue of rural hospitals’ financial challenges while Republican Kevin Stitt does not mention expansion on his website but seeks an audit of Medicaid spending. In Florida, Republican Ron DeSantis does not mention Medicaid on his website, but has stated opposition to expansion, while Democrat Andrew Gillum supports expansion. Democrats in South Dakota and Tennessee also support expansion and cite the plight of rural hospitals as a key factor.
In Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah, Medicaid expansion is on the ballot. In Maine, a successful citizen initiative in 2017 was stymied by outgoing Republican Gov. Paul LePage’s resistance, because the state legislature had not appropriated funds that met his conditions. After numerous court battles, LePage submitted a state plan amendment to expand Medicaid to the federal government, but urged them to deny it. In the state’s current gubernatorial race, Republican Shawn Moody mirrors LePage’s opposition while Democrat Janet Mills has made expansion a top campaign priority. In Idaho, Republican Brad Little says he will enforce expansion if that state’s ballot initiative passes, but he raises concerns about “uncertainty at the federal level.” In Nebraska, Republican incumbent Pete Ricketts strongly opposes expansion but concedes the issue is up to voters.
Medicaid work requirements: Support for work requirements generally follows party lines, but in Alabama Democrat Walt Maddox supports work requirements as part of his endorsement of Medicaid expansion. In Ohio, Republican Mike DeWine supports a “reasonable work requirement” for individuals newly covered by Medicaid expansion who are healthy and able to work.
Improving affordability of private coverage: Candidates have proposed a wide array of approaches to make health insurance coverage in the individual and small group markets more affordable.
In about one-third of the states, candidates are talking about a public option, the opportunity to buy-in to Medicaid, or other initiatives. In Alaska, Democrat Mark Begich wants to combine coverage for individuals on Medicaid, Medicare, TriHealth, and Indian Health Services into a single health care option. In Connecticut, Democrat Ned Lamont proposes strengthening the Access Health CT exchange by instituting a Medicaid buy-in option to lower costs by adding younger participants to the pool. In Illinois, Democrat J.B. Pritzker is proposing a public option/Medicaid buy-in — Illinois Cares — to allow every resident to buy low-cost health insurance. Pritzker wants to work with legislators and the health care community to design this public option as another choice on the health insurance marketplace. Minnesota’s Tim Walz, a Democrat, wants to provide a strong public health care option and suggests that MinnesotaCare, the state’s Basic Health Program, can already serve that role. In New Mexico, Democratic candidate Michelle Lujan Grisham supports “cost-effective, innovative approaches to providing affordable, high-quality health care to all New Mexicans,” including a Medicaid buy-in. Maine’s Democratic candidate Janet Mills proposes the Small Business Access Plan, a buy-in to public purchasers for small businesses and self-employed individuals.
Republican candidates, however, generally warn against a “government takeover” of health care and express concern about the high costs to taxpayers of such proposals.
A few Democrats express support for Medicare for All proposals and some identify incremental steps a state could take toward that goal. In Arizona, Democrat David Garcia supports a Medicaid buy-in as a strategy while Colorado Democrat Jared Polis seeks to “pioneer a western single-payer system” by partnering with other western states to develop a regional, multistate consortium to provide a common payer system to reduce prices, increase coverage, and improve care quality.
Premium rating rules: In Colorado, Republican Walker Stapleton said he would convene a task force to evaluate the state’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) rating regions, geographic boundaries, and departmental overlap. He opposes a single rating region supported by Democratic candidate Jared Polis, who is advocating a statewide geographic rating system and reconfiguration of rating zones with rural rate protections.
Reinsurance: In Georgia, both candidates support creating a reinsurance program to stabilize rates in the individual insurance market. Reinsurance is also supported by Democratic candidates in Colorado and Connecticut. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker lauds his state’s reinsurance program, Health Care Stability Plan, and notes the state is investing $200 million in market-based solutions to lower costs, which he predicts will reduce rates by 3.5 percent in 2019.
Market-based strategies: Many candidates support market-based solutions, including Colorado Republican Walker Stapleton, who would address rising health care costs for families by creating more insurance choices for consumers, such as association health plans (AHPs), short-term plans, and catastrophic coverage options. This approach is similar to strategies offered by Georgia’s Republican candidate Brian Kemp who would set “specific, achievable goals to lower the uninsured population by expanding choices” and indicates he would embrace AHPs if elected. Minnesota Republican Jeff Johnson believes MNsure has been a “complete disaster” and that new approaches are needed. He notes the “skyrocketing” cost of health insurance and lack of access to care and has proposed to request waivers to “abandon the provisions of Obamacare” because they limit choice and increase costs. He supports an interstate compact to buy and sell health insurance across state lines. Oklahoma’s Kevin Stitt similarly supports buying coverage across state lines.
A few candidates are focusing on retooling primary care. Florida Republican Ron DeSantis said he would back proposals to install direct primary care models, in which patients pay a monthly rate directly to doctors to cut out insurers. Kansas Republican Kris Kobach supports allowing patients to pay their doctors $50 a month for unlimited primary care visits.
Several candidates offer different approaches. In New Mexico, Republican Steve Pearce would encourage employers to provide health insurance by providing a tax credit for employees who work less than 20 hours per week. In New York, Republican Marc Molinaro suggests addressing high taxes on private health insurers to increase health care quality and affordability. In Rhode Island, Gov. Gina Raimondo recently issued an executive order directing the state to codify all ACA protections into state law. Her Republican opponent, Allan Fung, wants to keep the state-based exchange and control of insurance regulation in-state, and does not want to change the existing protections “whether it’s pre-existing conditions” or “taking away coverage” or changes in Medicaid eligibility. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan opposes any changes to the ACA that would “jeopardize Marylanders’ access to quality health care” and supports stabilizing the insurance market and keeping premiums down. In contrast, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster states that “Obamacare was an unprecedented encroachment on state sovereignty” and wants to ensure greater access and affordability through removal of anti-free market mandates and regulations to allow for investment, expansion, and ingenuity to lower health care costs. Maine’s Democratic candidate Janet Mills would protect against rollbacks of ACA protections and also supports “well-regulated” AHPs.
Reducing prescription drug costs: Addressing rising pharmaceutical costs is another issue that has bipartisan support. A number of candidates from both parties indicated support to lower costs on their websites while others present specific proposals.
In Ohio, Republican Mike DeWine advocates for greater transparency of drug prices by bringing more attention on pharmacy “middle men.” His Democratic opponent, Richard Cordray, has also supported more transparency around pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) activities. In Colorado, Democrat Jared Polis seeks to improve support for the state’s all-payer claims database (APCD) and to use data to identify health care savings. He also advocates for increased transparency by requiring drug companies to publicly disclose pricing and would crack down on price gouging by forcing drug companies to justify price increases. Additionally, he proposes to set up a framework to import prescription drugs from Canada. Other Democratic candidates also support importation, including Drew Edmonson of Oklahoma, Tony Evers of Wisconsin, as well as Ben Jealous of Maryland, who supports a Prescription Drug Affordability Plan that requires drug companies to give notice when increasing prices and drug spending caps for Medicaid. Connecticut Democrat Ned Lamont wants to “take strong and multipronged action to reduce drug prices” and supports pricing transparency for manufacturers, including requirements that drug companies include their wholesale prices in advertisements. He also wants to limit coupon use in private insurance and cap out-of-pocket pharmaceutical costs. In contrast, his Republican opponent, Brad Stefanowski, opposes government regulation of prescription drug costs.
Two candidates propose expanding the state’s public purchasing role to lower costs. Nevada Democrat Steve Sisolak proposes creating Silver State Scripts — a consortium of private and public health plans that will negotiate for lower drugs prices, while New Mexico Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham seeks to pool state resources to reduce drug prices.
In Maine, Republican Shawn Moody proposes to lower prescription drug costs by providing greater access to generic drug alternatives. Democrat Janet Mills has a multifaceted plan to lower drug prices that includes investigating pooling public purchasers, increasing transparency and following the work in other states on importation and establishing payment caps to “step in quickly if solutions pioneered elsewhere take hold”. In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker wants to make permanent a waiver for SeniorCare, a program to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors, while Democrat Tony Evers proposes a rate review board and banning PBM gag clauses. In Oregon, Republican Knute Buehler has made drug pricing a major campaign issue. He wants to prosecute leaders of price-gouging pharmaceutical companies and would like to adopt a single formulary for all state taxpayer-funded drug purchasing. Incumbent Kate Brown cites her work in the past to support price transparency.
Social determinants of health: A number of candidates have targeted social determinants of health, including Arkansas Democrat Jared Henderson who proposes reducing teenage pregnancy and childhood poverty as ways to address long-term health care spending without reducing Medicaid enrollment. In Ohio, Republican Mike DeWine has a plan for wellness programs that would require Medicaid managed care plans to provide education and promote healthy benchmarks geared towards upstream prevention efforts. Colorado Democrat Jared Polis suggests moving toward global budgeting for hospitals, which would provide them with a set amount of revenue that could incentivize efficiency, innovation, and a focus on social determinants of health and preventive care. Oregon Republican Knute Buehler wants to coordinate investments, set financial expectations, and determine specific metrics in social determinants of health, such as workforce training, employment, community engagement, and housing. Democrat Karl Dean of Tennessee supports preventive health care and promoting healthy lifestyles, and as governor would focus on preventing childhood obesity because of its link to both chronic health problems later in life as well as social and emotional issues.
Delivery system and payment reforms: States have been actively engaged in a variety of reforms designed to improve how care is delivered and paid for –moving from a volume- to a value-based system – and a number of candidates have embraced these efforts. In Colorado, both candidates refer to the lessons learned from the state’s State Innovation Model (SIM) initiative. Democrat Jared Polis wants to use lessons from SIM to increase access to integrated physical and behavioral health care and supports moving Colorado Medicaid to a bundled payment system. He also proposes global budgeting for hospitals and using health information technology to measure hospital care quality and tie payments to community health improvement. Republican Walker Stapleton wants to build on the success of the state’s SIM work and continue expanding the state’s Regional Accountability Entities to make sure reimbursement systems promote the best patient outcomes. Ohio Democrat Richard Cordray plans to reform the Medicaid payment system to incentivize primary and preventive care in physical and behavioral health, and would invest in high-quality, value-based programs. Oregon Republican Knute Buehler wants to prepare for a third generation of Coordinated Care Organizations (CCOs) by aligning early learning hubs, regional solutions, and related social and health services. He also proposes to reorganize Medicaid mental health services payment and delivery to fully integrate mental and physical health through CCOs (with counties continuing to serve as providers) and tie CCO funding to outcomes. Tennessee Democrat Karl Dean would continue the state’s work to promote health care value over volume, which has included phased implementation of episodes of care for TennCare enrollees.
This snapshot suggests governors’ races are fueling spirited discussions about health policy and promises a lively 2019 as policymakers continue to address how to provide affordable, high-quality health care and improve population health. New governors’ ideas will be considered by state legislatures, whose political make-up will also likely change, as 80 percent of all state lawmakers are up for election in November. As voters make their choices, NASHP will continue to track and support policymakers who advance solutions to the current challenges of health care access, cost, and quality, and help identify new opportunities for state innovation.
Q&A: To Shape an Effective Response to the Opioid Crisis in Texas, You Need to Ask ‘Will It Work in Odessa?’
/in Policy Texas Blogs Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Health Coverage and Access, Healthy Child Development, Infant Mortality, Integrated for Pregnant/Parenting Women, Maternal Health and Mortality, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health /by NASHP Writers
Karen Palombo
Karen Palombo is the substance use disorder (SUD) team lead in the Texas Health and Human Services Commission’s mental health and substance use division who helps shape state intervention and treatment policies. Before joining state government, she worked in hospital, mental health, and SUD treatment settings for nine years as a licensed chemical dependency counselor. Her first-hand knowledge of SUD treatment challenges in a state with an expansive mix of rural and urban gives her a unique perspective into how a state policymaker can use data, relationships, and grassroots connections to design and promote effective programs.
How did you come to work in SUD treatment in direct care, and then at a state policy level?
During my undergraduate and graduate years, I worked at a short-term residential treatment center for kids removed from their parents. About 80 percent were over age 12 and they talked a lot about seeing their parents drunk and high all the time. They were often prescribed depression and anxiety medications, but what they were really dealing with was trauma. They talked about how when they became parents they would do things differently.
My next job was in child protective services, where I worked with grown-up versions of those same traumatized kids, who still didn’t have the skills to do things differently. They had limited support, a mistrust of government resources, inappropriate social skills, and none or few coping skills. I wanted to work on a policy level to address that.
How did you come to focus on women and children?
I thought if I could keep women and children together during recovery, it would have the most impact. When women and kids don’t stay together, we know kids are safe, but are they secure? Unfortunately, children going through the child welfare system learn not to trust adults because if they tell them about their parents’ relapse and abuse, their family is separated and they are removed. My goal is for health care providers to have the community resources they need available so they know who to call and how to respond when a pregnant woman with SUD walks in the door to make sure her whole family is treated.
Like many rural states, Texas has inconsistent state data on opioid overdose deaths. As a policymaker, how do you make the case for more targeted resources to improve opioid prevention and treatment when data is unreliable?
In some areas, we have very good data, for example, we’re one of only two states that track if alcohol and other substances were involved — even if it was not the direct reason for a child’s removal. When we don’t have data, we rely on relationships with the people on the ground who know the things we need to know. I make tours around the state all the time and have the luxury of sitting on lots of committees where I’m always making the case for data collection. If I’m talking to a hospital, I know to talk about poison control, emergency department data, and hospital costs. It makes us better data collectors and sharers, but it’s done on a regional basis and relies on relationships.
I also know that when I call our Medicaid office and say, ‘I’m trying to find out how long newborns with neonatal abstinence syndrome stay in NICUs at the hospitals where I have given a community presentation,’ my contact knows what code to use and she can tell me from her data indicators what is happening on a statewide basis vs. on a regional basis. When individual staff persons see why they collect the data they do — when they see it in a report — it starts to matter.
Is regional information critical in order to fine-tune program design in such a large state?
When you work in a state the size of Texas, with its diverse rural and urban populations, knowing what’s happening on a regional level is critical. The types of [illegal] drugs used vary between regions. In some areas, opioids never really arrived and cocaine never left. From a public health perspective, we need programs that work no matter what drug is used. When I’m talking to officials in Odessa, they don’t care about a statewide picture, they only care about what will work in Odessa.
Your state legislature meets every two years, how do you get the resources you need to redesign or launch programs for a rapid response to this epidemic?
As part of legislative recommendations, Behavioral Health Services division moved from the Department of State Health Services to the Health and Human Services Commission, which has led to better collaboration and communication to address behavioral health alongside primary health. We have been able to reconfigure our programs, and now have a foothold so our workgroups now touch all of these government programs that affect women. For instance, Texas Medicaid now reimburses for SBIRT [Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment] and postpartum depression screenings. We were able to assist in writing language about the Medicaid benefit, which screenings would be reimbursable, and suggested at one meeting that it would be important at well-child visits to be able to screen for postpartum depression. This is now a benefit in Texas. We probably would not have been involved in this process if not for the state agency re-organization.
How are you breaking down traditional siloes that impede a collaborative response to this crisis?
I have attended monthly workgroup meetings for four years waiting for someone to turn to me and say, ‘don’t you do that?’ If we’re not there to share what we do and learn how to collaborate, nothing happens. Our team members work with child welfare, public health, maternal child health, community health workers, train-the-trainer programs in local communities, homelessness, housing, and recovery programs, education departments, and workforce development. Serving on those committees makes us better data collectors and sharers. Data is everything, you never know what the scope of a problem is until you identify the data you need.
Can you give me an example of how has data collection has resulted in better state policy?
At our workgroups, we started hearing anecdotal information about women with SUD miscarrying in jails. [Pregnant women are at high risk of miscarriage if they go into withdrawal and do not receive medication-assisted treatment (MAT), such as methadone.]
The Texas legislature instructed the Texas Commission on Jail Standards to collect data on miscarriages starting in 2016. When data collection began, we started to get more calls from jail nursing staff asking how to get methadone to pregnant women. The data collection led to awareness and to development of new policies to address the problem. Most jails that have nearby methadone clinics are developing standard protocol for when [incarcerated] pregnant women report opioid use disorder.
We’re also collecting data for the MOM – Maternal Opiate Mortality study. We know opioid overdose is the leading cause of death for women after childbirth in Texas. We’re looking at what happens that made women relapse, we’re interviewing these women and their families, and identifying how the state can make sure women who leave Medicaid after childbirth continue to receive MAT. In 2020, we’ll use the findings to develop guidelines for providers to screen more high-risk women and work to reduce maternal deaths.
What would you recommend to other states that are working to develop more effective SUD programs?
What I’ve learned is you never stop going back into communities and asking them what they want and need. When you work at a state level, you often stop doing community outreach, asking questions, or attending forums. If people in the community don’t agree with what you’re trying to do on a state level, it’s not going to work.
The biggest issue for us is getting treatment to rural areas. Communities with more people have more money and more access to health care. Rural communities will tell you they know that people don’t care about them. That’s hard to hear when you’re sitting in a room listening to them, but as a state official, you really need to know what’s going on if you’re going to develop effective policies.
Conference Presentations 2018
/in Policy Annual Conference, Blogs Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Blending and Braiding Funding, Care Coordination, Children/Youth with Special Health Care Needs, CHIP, CHIP, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Health System Costs, Healthy Child Development, HIV/AIDS, Housing and Health, Integrated Care for Children, Integrated for Pregnant/Parenting Women, Long-Term Care, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, Prescription Drug Pricing, Primary Care/Patient-Centered/Health Home, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health, Social Determinants of Health, State Insurance Marketplaces, State Rx Legislative Action, Value-Based Purchasing /by NASHP StaffBelow is a full list of the Conference speaker presentations.
Preconference Sessions
- Sandra Robinson
- Daniel Cohen
- Kevin Cranston
- Kristina Larson
- Jacqueline Clymore
Heather Hauck
Joseph Kerwin
Pete Liggett
David Neff
Michael Wofford
Karen Robinson
Opening Plenary
Conference Sessions
Thursday Morning Plenary: Understanding the Health Care Cost Conundrum
Session 1: Making Waves in the Individual Market: How Did We Get Here?
Session 2: Sailing the Seas: State Efforts to Stabilize the Individual Market
Session 3: May the (Work) Force Be with You
Session 4: Cha-Ching! Lowering Rx Costs
Session 5: Medicaid Work Requirements: Considerations for States
Session 6: Shifting Sands at the Provider Level, What’s a State to Do?
Greg Poulsen
David Seltz
Erin Taylor
Session 7: Smart Shopping: How States Can Help Consumers
Session 11: Cross Currents: Integration of Oral Health and Primary Care
Session 12: A Class Act: Coming Together to Improve School-Based Health Services
Session 13: Staying Afloat: Keeping Moms Connected to Opioid and Substance Abuse Services
Session 14: Eat, Stay, Live: Connecting the Dots in the Social Determinants of Health
Session 15: Innovations in Rural Health Policy Options: Getting Care Where You Need It
Session 16: Getting to Shore: Using Data for Population Health
Session 17: Raising the Bar: Value-Based Purchasing to Address Population Health
Session 21: The Next Wave: Integrating Services for Individuals with Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities
Session 22: Growing Pains, Seeing Gains: Improving Youth Transitions
Session 23: Shore it Up: Strengthening the Long Term Services and Supports Workforce
Session 24: Put a Lid on It: Containing Long Term Services and Supports Costs
Session 25: All the Right Moves: Transitioning Individuals Out of Psychiatric Institutions
Session 26: More Gain, Less Pain: Managing Pain without Opioids and Managing Opioid Addiction
Overcoming Payment Challenges to Realize the Promise of Telehealth
/in Policy Blogs Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Health IT/Data, Health System Costs, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health /by Johanna Butler
Shutterstock.com
Telehealth– using telecommunications to improve patient care – has the potential to improve health care access and quality, especially in rural and medically-underserved areas. But inconsistent public and private insurance coverage and other challenges have hindered implementation of this promising health care tool.
The National Academy for State Health Policy’s (NASHP) Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Workgroup met recently to explore how these telehealth services can be effectively deployed, and discuss what new state policies and funding are needed to implement this health care resource.
The Patient Centered Outcome Research Institute’s (PCORI) portfolio of research into telehealth includes 70 PCORI-funded studies that focus on a variety of populations and telehealth intervention strategies. The workgroup reviewed two of the recently completed studies:
- One study compared the effectiveness of using telehealth to monitor African-American and Latino patients from disparity communities who had been hospitalized for chronic heart failure with patients from the same community who received usual care, without the telehealth intervention. The patients in the study group used telehealth self-management (TSM), which included weekly video-visits with a provider (accessed from the patient’s home) and daily patient self-monitoring, combined with usual care. The study found that TSM patients used the emergency department four-times less and had two-times fewer hospitalizations than the “usual care” group. Although the number of participants was small (104), the study showed potential for improving patient care and lowering costs.
- Another study tested the impact of video house calls on the quality of life and care of people with Parkinson’s disease. The study compared patients who received usual care with patients who received usual care and up to four video house calls with specialists over a 12-month period. Patients who received the virtual house calls found them convenient, however, they reported no differences in quality of life and their quality of care measures were similar to patients who received only usual care.
Insurance Coverage Impacts Telehealth Implementation
Connected Health Policy, Medicaid
programs in 49 states and
Washington, DC provide
reimbursement for some form of live
video and 20 state provide
reimbursement for remote patient
While most state Medicaid programs cover telehealth, policymakers in the workgroup reported limited usage of telehealth by providers, citing inconsistent coverage as a potential reason for the lag in implementation. State officials attributed the limited uptake to providers’ hesitance to integrate telehealth when there is not uniform insurance coverage of telehealth across payers. Clinicians, not wanting to provide different types of care based on a patient’s insurance, may avoid telehealth because of the coverage disparity. Additionally, large hospital systems that operate in multiple states grapple with varying insurance coverage between states.
Many states have passed laws to better coordinate telehealth coverage in an effort to increase its utilization. For example, Washington State recently passed SB 5175 that requires all private insurers to cover telehealth services, creating better alignment across public and private payers. Currently, 34 states and Washington, DC require private insurers to cover some degree of telemedicine, such as e-visits, when a patient in one location virtually connects with a provider in another location. While Medicaid and some private insurers cover telehealth services, coverage varies greatly depending on the insurance plan, state requirements, local community resources, and patient circumstances. As a result, providers must navigate a patchwork of telehealth coverage.
Facility Fees and Telehealth
Workgroup members noted that hospitals and health systems may delay telehealth due to a lack of coverage for transmission or facility fees. Currently, health care organizations charge facility fees for patients’ use of hospital facilities and equipment. For telehealth services, some states allow coverage of transmission fees, which is the amount paid to the originating site for providing real-time communication.
– PCOR workgroup member
One state official cited providers’ reluctance to use telehealth if they do not receive a facility fee or compensation for the use of equipment during telehealth services. As of 2018, 32 state Medicaid programs allowed payment of a transmission or facility fee when telehealth is used, while other states may not cover these fees due to budget concerns. Many states that don’t currently reimburse transmission or facility fees have large rural populations (e.g., Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, and Wyoming). As a result, the inability to charge facility fees may pose an obstacle to enabling telehealth to expand access in rural areas. Some states have begun to troubleshoot this issue by creating carve-outs for Rural Health Clinics (RHCs) and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), which may serve as potential access points for rural communities to obtain telehealth services. Georgia’s Medicaid program allows RHCs, FQHCs, and Local Education Agencies to collect a facility fee when telehealth services are used. Similarly, Missouri’s Medicaid program allows FQHCs and RHCs to be reimbursed for facility fees when telehealth services are delivered.
Sustaining Pilot Projects
Many states have actively integrated telehealth through pilot projects. For example, the Alabama Department of Public Health Telehealth Program established telehealth clinics in most of the state’s county health departments by distributing telehealth “carts,” or mobile medical kiosks with video conferencing, and digital medical tools, such as a digital stethoscope, that allow patients to connect with remote specialists from local clinics. Alabama plans to install telehealth capacity in all 67 of its county health departments, and it has entered into partnerships for specific telehealth services, such as pre-colonoscopy counseling and monthly consultations with neurologists for children with special health needs. Other states, including Oregon, have supported telehealth pilots through delivery reform grants such as State Innovation Model Initiatives. While pilot projects help states advance their understanding of telehealth, including implementation challenges, time-limited grants or short-term demonstration projects are often not financially sustainable. Outside of sustained funding mechanisms, pilots often have only a limited impact on care delivery.
More research and work continues on telehealth initiatives, and NASHP will continue reporting updates in the months ahead.
Photo credit: Shutterstock.com.
State Strategies to Prevent and Respond to Disease Crises Through Medicaid and Public Health Partnerships
/in Policy California, Florida, Texas Reports Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Community Health Workers, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Population Health, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health, Social Determinants of Health, Workforce Capacity /by Tina Kartika
Florida Department of Health’s “Drain and Cover” campaign reminds residents to fight mosquitoes by draining standing water.
Protecting public health in an era when infections can quickly spread from remote areas to major world cities requires creative and well-orchestrated responses from national, state, and local governments. One of the critical partnerships states can forge before, during, and after such crises is between public health and Medicaid. This report, supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration, explores effective, collaborative approaches developed by California, Florida, and Texas that may help other states strengthen their Medicaid and public health partnerships to prevent and better respond to communicable disease crises.
Read or download: State Strategies to Prevent and Respond to Disease Crises Through Medicaid and Public Health Partnerships
Flurry of Bills Targeting the Opioid Epidemic’s Impact on Families Reach Congress
/in Policy Blogs Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Healthy Child Development, Integrated for Pregnant/Parenting Women, Maternal Health and Mortality, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, Primary Care/Patient-Centered/Health Home, Quality and Measurement, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health, Social Determinants of Health, Workforce Capacity /by Miara Handler and Carrie Hanlon
The bills provide key insights into Congressional efforts to help states tackle the opioid crisis. In the past month, the House passed the omnibus SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act by a resounding vote of 396-14, and a number of other related bills have recently passed their committees. Additionally, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee advanced the Opioid Crisis Response Act of 2018. These bills support families and children affected by opioid use disorder (OUD) and are an early indication of what programs may win approval in the coming weeks. Two key approaches stand out:
- Promotion of innovative, family-centered care models that serve women and infants together; and
- A focus on data collection and research related to the needs and experiences of children and youth.
Innovative Care Models Promoted in the Proposed Legislation
Care delivery models that address the complex needs of families and children affected by opioid use are key to promoting recovery among parents and mitigating long-term impacts on children’s health.
The Senate’s Opioid Crisis Response Act of 2018 funds family-centered, residential treatment programs that serve women and infants together and provides grants and technical assistance to states to implement plans of safe care for substance-exposed infants.
- The bill also authorizes a program to support substance use disorder (SUD) prevention and recovery services for children, adolescents, and young adults, and requires the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to identify and disseminate best practices for serving this population in collaboration with the US Department of Education.
- Additionally, it provides demonstration grants to better integrate mental health care into schools — an important delivery site of care for children. By integrating mental health services into schools, states can promote access to services and support for children affected by trauma, including parental opioid use.
The House SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act would streamline services for pregnant and postpartum woman by enabling Medicaid financing of pregnancy-related services in SUD treatment facilities. It would also make it easier for Medicaid to finance community-based facilities where infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome could receive treatment along with their mothers. The bill also requires HHS to issue guidance and conduct studies to improve care for these populations.
Data collection and research into the opioid epidemic can shed light on the scope of the problem and opioid use trends, and they are critical for guiding policymaking and targeting effective interventions.
- The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act requires the Surgeon General to submit a report to Congress on the public health effects of the rise of synthetic drug use among individuals age 12 to 18. States can use this information to guide prevention efforts and target services and supports to address synthetic drug use and its impact on adolescents’ health.
- The Opioid Crisis Response Act supports data collection and research on prenatal substance misuse, including the long-term outcomes of children affected by neonatal abstinence syndrome. It also permits the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to collect and report data on adverse childhood experiences. These data and research could inform state decisions about resource allocation for OUD prevention or treatment services for infants, children, and families.
Many of these and other bills have bipartisan support, but it remains to be seen if these or other bills will be enacted. The strategies proposed in these bills were also discussed at a recent meeting about SUD and families for state and local officials from Maine, Mississippi, and West Virginia hosted by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), the National Association of County & City Health Officials, and the National Conference of State Legislatures as part of a cooperative agreement with the Health Resources and Services Administration.
Developing services for infants, children, and families is already underway in states, and new innovations and planning will begin if these bills become law. To learn more about how states are working to meet the needs of women, children, and families affected by SUD, attend the following sessions at NASHP’s Annual State Health Policy Conference, Aug. 15-18, 2018 in Jacksonville, FL:
- Turning the Tide: State Strategies to Meet the Needs of Families Affected by Substance Use Disorder, a day-long preconference on Aug. 15, 2018; and
- Staying Afloat: Keeping Moms Connected to Opioid and Substance Abuse Services 3:30-5 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 16, 2018
Stay tuned for two upcoming NASHP issue briefs and national webinars exploring this issue, scheduled for late summer and early fall.
NASHP’s State SUD Policy Institute Supports States to Address SUD in Federally Qualified Health Centers
/in Policy Alabama, Illinois, South Dakota, Virginia, Wisconsin Blogs Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health Coverage and Access, Health System Costs, Integrated for Pregnant/Parenting Women, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Population Health, Primary Care/Patient-Centered/Health Home, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health /by NASHP WritersNASHP congratulates the five states selected to participate in NASHP’s State Substance Use Disorder (SUD) Policy Institute:
- Alabama
- Illinois
- South Dakota
- Virginia
- Wisconsin
The State SUD Policy Institute, supported by a cooperative agreement with the Health Resources and Services Administration, will assist these five state teams to develop innovative strategies to increase access to and improve the quality of SUD treatment, recovery, and preventive services for Medicaid beneficiaries using federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). The institute began in September 2018.
Fast Facts:
What’s in it for states?
- Eighteen months of flexible, practical support and resources, including:
- Individualized assessments of states’ policies and regulatory barriers;
- Assistance developing a state action plan;
- State-specific supports and resources; and
- Opportunities to connect with peers and state, federal, and national experts while supported by NASHP’s in-house expertise.
Team composition: Each state team consists of a senior Medicaid official, a senior state behavioral health agency or division official; a senior representative from the state’s primary care association, and one FQHC representative. Additional team members may be included as needed.
More information: Interested states and partners can view an informational webinar, held July 12, 2018, that provided more information about the institute. To download the slides, click here. To view the webinar, click here. Email questions to Hannah Dorr (hdorr@oldsite.nashp.org).
Archived RFA and Application Questions
View or download the Request for Applications.
Download the Application Questions.
View frequently-asked-questions about the institute.
The institute is supported through the National Academy for State Health Policy’s National Organizations for State and Local Officials Cooperative Agreement with the Health Resources and Services Administration.
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. 























































































































































