Advancing Children’s Coverage Toolkit
/in Policy Toolkits Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health /by NASHP StaffAs states take different approaches to implementing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and new coverage options primarily designed for adults, they may be challenged to maintain and further the progress made in children’s coverage. When the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was enacted in 1997, 25 percent of low-income children were uninsured in the United States.1 Since then, CHIP and Medicaid have significantly reduced the number of uninsured low-income children and youth to as low as 14 percent in 2012.2 The ACA brings significant change to the health insurance landscape, with the goals of expanding insurance coverage, streamlining enrollment processes, and increasing access to care. Within the new insurance landscape, it is important that states take into consideration the impact of their health reform-related decisions and approaches on children’s coverage.
Using the Toolkit
To begin exploring the Toolkit for Advancing Children’s Coverage through Health Reform Implementation use the right side navigation to explore specific topics.
Through longstanding work on Medicaid, CHIP, and private sector coverage, NASHP has supported, analyzed, and reported on state efforts to implement effective children’s coverage policies and programs. NASHP draws on years of experience fostering collaborative learning and serving as a key resource for state policymakers and other stakeholders.
Toolkit Goals:
- Provide a centralized source of information and tools relevant to the impact of the ACA on children’s coverage.
- Draw attention to some of the challenges states may be facing in maintaining and advancing children’s coverage while implementing the ACA.
- Assist states in considering policy actions to advance children’s coverage by compiling relevant research and state examples.
The Toolkit for Advancing Children’s Coverage through Health Reform Implementation complements NASHP’s June 2013 report, Health Care Reform and Children: Planning and Design Considerations for Policymakers. The report and toolkit highlight ideas learned through NASHP’s Children in the Vanguard initiative. Since 2011, this initiative has convened a network of state officials and children’s advocates to support their work in strengthening children’s coverage as health care reform decisions are made in their states. This work is supported by The Atlantic Philanthropies, dedicated to bringing lasting change to the lives of vulnerable or disadvantaged people.
Footnotes:
1Margo Rosenbach, et al., National Evaluation of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program: A Decade of Expanding Coverage and Improving Access. (Washington DC: Mathematica, September 2007)
2The Kaiser Family Foundation, statehealthfacts.org. Health Insurance Coverage of Low Income Children 0-18 (Under 200% FPL) (2011-2012). Accessed March 10, 2014.
Multi-Payer Resource Center
/in Policy Toolkits Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform /by NASHPPublic-private multi-payer pilots are unique opportunities to support high-performing delivery systems by creating alignment around payment, reporting, and infrastructure investments. Multi-payer projects benefit both payers and providers: Multi-payer projects spread transformation costs among all payers seeking to improve both quality and costs, creating a shared incentive to build essential infrastructure for delivery system improvement. In addition, multi-payer models can make it possible for practices to afford investments in staff and infrastructure that would otherwise be beyond their reach, aligning incentives and reporting requirements for large portions of providers’ panels – not just a small subset. States are a critical partner in multi-payer efforts, uniquely equipped to lead, plan, convene, and implement pilots. They have extensive purchasing power for Medicaid, CHIP, and state employees, and can play a role that no other payer can play—state participation, especially as a convener, enables competing payers to work collaboratively to establish a common initiative without risking antitrust violations.
The National Academy for State Health Policy has assisted states in advancing medical homes for Medicaid and CHIP since 2007 through a series of consortia and learning collaboratives, and began writing about and tracking state accountable care activity in 2011. Support for these initiatives, as well as funding for this resource center, has comes through grants from The Commonwealth Fund, most recently to support four states in building multi-payer medical home programs. NASHP is also a member of the evaluation team for the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Multi-payer Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration and ACA Section 2703 Health Homes program.
Now is a time of opportunity for states to pursue multi-payer medical home initiatives. Recent initiative of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) – including the State Innovation Models program, the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative, and the Multi-payer Advanced Primary Care Practice demonstration – promote multi-payer collaboration on payment and delivery system reform. This resource center aims to support states as they confront five key decision points along the road to multi-payer programs:
- Stakeholder Engagement and Pilot Convening: This page features resources on engaging payers, providers, and other key stakeholders (PCAs, consumers, hospitals, etc.), including navigating antitrust concerns.
- Developing Infrastructure and Community Linkages: This page features resources on building community infrastructure to support multi-payer pilots, including information technology, shared practice supports, and behavioral health integration.
- Payment: This page features resources on payment methodologies to support practices participating in multi-payer payment and delivery system reform programs.
- Attribution and Enrollment: This page features resources on identifying and attributing patients to practices for participation in multi-payer models.
- Evaluation: This page features resources on evaluating state multi-payer initiatives.
Please also see the Forming Partnerships section of NASHP’s Medical Home Map and the Authority and Governance sections of NASHP’s State Accountable Care Activity Map.
Related NASHP resources include the Medical Home Map and State Accountable Care Activity Map, both funded by The Commonwealth Fund, and the Integrated Delivery System Toolkit, funded by the Kaiser Permanente Community Benefit and hosted on State Refor(u)m.
Do you have resources to share or suggestions to improve the usability of this resource center? Please help us develop a center that is responsive to your needs. Email skinsler@oldsite.nashp.org with your input.
Patient Safety Map & Toolkit
/in Policy Maps, Toolkits /by NASHP StaffHealth care in the United States is not as safe as it could, or should, be. States have many opportunities to improve patient safety and safeguard the public; as large purchasers, regulators, conveners, and providers of health care services, they work independently, coordinate with other state agencies, and partner with the private sector.
ABCD Resource Center
/in Policy Maps, Toolkits Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health /by NASHP StaffSign 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. 























































































































































