States continue to identify and pursue strategies to further reduce the number of uninsured, to make coverage more affordable for consumers and to improve access to care. Several proposals have been introduced at both the federal and state levels that would permit people above Medicaid eligibility levels to “buy in” to Medicaid or would leverage the Medicaid program to strengthen coverage across the individual market and Medicaid. This issue brief presents two possible models for a Medicaid buy-in program for states, and details the design considerations and authorities needed to implement each model.
State Health and Value Strategies (SHVS) hosted a Small Group Convening on April 12 and 13, 2018 in Minneapolis, Minnesota bringing together state officials and technical experts to discuss issues currently being confronted by state Medicaid agencies.
CHIP covers nearly 9 million children and is a key contributor to record-low levels of uninsurance among children. However, Congress only provided funding for CHIP through FY 2017, which ended September 30. After a series of short-term patches that left states with a great deal of uncertainty, Congress passed a six-year extension of CHIP in January. Three weeks later, on February 9, Congress extended the program for another four years, reauthorizing the program through FY 2027. This issue brief summarizes key features of the 10-year CHIP extension.
The nation’s opioid epidemic claimed more than 42,000 lives in 2016, and more than 2 million people in the United States have an opioid use disorder (OUD)—with nearly another 10 million at risk due to misuse of these drugs. Yet, only 1 in 5 people suffering from an OUD receive treatment. Today, Medicaid covers more than 1 in 3 people with an OUD, and program spending for people with an OUD in 2013 (before Medicaid expansion in many states) was more than $9 billion. In this issue brief, data from three states—New Hampshire, Ohio and West Virginia—highlight Medicaid’s role as the linchpin in states’ efforts to combat the opioid epidemic.
State Health and Value Strategies hosted a webinar on how states are utilizing a variety of approaches to require and assess the use of APM strategies through their contracted health plans. Beth Waldman from Bailit Health highlighted findings from a SHVS resource entitled State Medicaid Approaches for Defining and Tracking Managed Care Organizations Implementation of Alternative Payment Models. Staff from the Rhode Island Office of the Health Insurance Commissioner and Texas Health and Human Services Commission participated to share insights on their APM approaches.
State Health and Value Strategies is hosting a webinar on categorizing value-based payment models according to the LAN Alternative Payment Models (APM) Framework. Megan Burns from Bailit Health highlights findings from an upcoming SHVS resource for states, Categorizing Value-Based Payment Models According to the LAN Alternative Payment Model Framework: Examples of Payment Models by Category. The webinar provides real-world examples of what types of payment models fit within the LAN categories. Kat Latet, Manager, Health System Innovation at Community Health Plan of Washington participates and discusses the development and categorization of their APM.
Categorizing Value-Based Payment Models According to the LAN Alternative Payment Model Framework: Examples of Payment Models by Category
As the movement from volume to value-based payment progresses, more state purchasers are requiring their contracted health plans to implement alternative payment models (APMs) with the goals of improving the quality of care and reducing costs for taxpayers. The LAN APM Framework is an increasingly common method being used by states to measure plan progress toward implementation of APMs. This brief provides real-world examples of APMs within the LAN categories and can help states and other interested purchasers develop a common understanding of what types of payment models fit within the framework categories.
State Medicaid Approaches for Defining and Tracking Managed Care Organizations Implementation of Alternative Payment Models
As state Medicaid programs emphasize a focus on value-based payment, they are increasingly requiring their Medicaid managed care organizations to implement alternative payment models (APMs). This brief focuses on different ways in which states may set standard APM definitions to a) track MCO progress toward meeting state APM goals, and b) support comparison of APM implementation within a state and nationally.
New Work and Community Engagement Requirements: Overview of Federal Activity and State Considerations
On January 11th, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released a State Medicaid Director letter providing guidance for states seeking 1115 waivers that condition Medicaid eligibility on work and community engagement, quickly followed by approval of Kentucky’s 1115 waivers that include these requirements. Both the new guidance and recent waiver approval represents a significant departure from past Administrations’ positions. In this webinar, the State Health and Value Strategies program, together with technical assistance experts from Manatt Health, review the new guidance, including key design parameters, budget neutrality requirements, and monitoring and evaluation criteria. The webinar also discusses state legal, policy and operational considerations for implementing work and community engagement requirements and highlight key elements of Kentucky’s waiver approval.
States continue to develop strategies to strengthen coverage across the individual market and Medicaid. In recent months, we have seen several proposals at both the federal and state levels that would leverage state Medicaid programs as a key component of coverage stability and affordability strategies. The webinar highlights and defines potential policy options, including the “Medicaid Buy-in,” that states may consider to leverage Medicaid to achieve their goals with respect to coverage availability and affordability. We discuss the conditions that make each option more or less favorable for a state, and implementation issues or other considerations in play for states.