- ACA Implementation & State Health Reform
- Coverage and Access
- Federal/State Issues
- Medicaid and CHIP
- Population and Public Health
- Providers and Services
- Acute Care
- Assisted Living
- Behavioral Health
- Child Development Services
- Chronic Care Management
- Community Health Centers
- Developmental Screening
- Early Childhood Services
- EPSDT
- Family Planning
- Federally Qualified Health Centers
- Home & Community Based Services
- Long Term Services & Supports
- Medical Homes & Health Homes
- Mental Health
- Nursing Homes
- Oral Health
- Preventive Care
- Primary Care
- Safety Net Providers
- Quality, Cost, and Health System Performance
- ACOs
- Adverse Event Reporting
- Care Transitions
- Comparative Effectiveness
- Cost Sharing
- Delivery System Reform
- Fraud and Abuse
- Health Care Workforce
- Health Information Technology
- Managed Care
- Medical Homes & Health Homes
- Medical Malpractice
- Patient Safety
- Payment Reform
- Performance Measurement
- Provider Payment Policy
- Quality Oversight
- Specific Populations
- Adolescents
- Childless Adults
- Children
- Children with Special Health Care Needs
- Dual Eligibles
- Elders
- Families
- Low Income People
- Parents
- People with Chronic Conditions
- People with Developmental Disabilities
- Transitional Youth
- Vulnerable Populations
- Young Adults
- Youth
- Youth in Foster Care System
- Youth in Juvenile Justice System
-
Supporting State Policymakers’ Implementation of Federal Health Reform
States will have enormous short-term and long-term needs for assistance as they grapple with federal health reform legislation. Significant federal and private resources to support state-level implementation will be necessary. Implementation support must be defined and coordinated quickly. Technical assistance must be provided in a manner that corresponds with state needs. State officials should be involved in the design of technical assistance so that it is most effective given varied state circumstances, needs, and capacities. Technical assistance should inspire innovation among leaders even as it helps all states meet minimum standards of performance.November 2009» -
State Policymakers’ Priorities for Improving the Health System
This State Health Policy Briefing presents the issues identified by NASHP’s state leadership as their most significant priorities for improving their health systems. As Academy members discussed their priorities, a set of broader themes emerged. These larger policy goals are: Connect People to Needed Services; Promote Coordination and Integration in the Health System; Improve Care for Populations with Complex Needs; Orient the Health System toward Results; Increase Health System Efficiencies. This briefing also provides a more detailed list of states’ priorities presented in four major categories of state health policy: Coverage and Access; Health Systems Improvement; Special Services and Populations; and Long Term and Chronic Care.November 2009» -
A State Policymakers’ Guide to Federal Health Reform - Part I: Anticipating How Federal Health Reform will Affect State Roles
Many critical aspects of federal health reform will be implemented by the states. Through program design, regulations, policies and practices, state decisions and actions already play a profound role in shaping the American health care system. Both the House and Senate reform proposals would dramatically change the federal structure within which state health policy operates. Part I of this State Policymakers’ Guide provides a high-level view of existing state roles in the health care system and how federal reform will affect those roles.November 2009» -
State Health Policies Aimed at Promoting Excellent Systems: A Report on States’ Roles in Health Systems Performance
This report presents findings from the State Health Policies Aimed at Promoting Excellent Systems (SHAPES) project undertaken by the National Academy for State Health Policy with support from The Commonwealth Fund. The project built on the work of The Commonwealth Fund’s Commission on a High Performance Health System to explore the roles that States play in influencing key health system components such as insurance coverage, quality of care, and information and provider infrastructures.April 2008 -
Reauthorizing SCHIP: Principles, Issues and Ideas from State Directors
This April 2007 Issue Brief describes the current views of SCHIP directors on key issues being considered in the reauthorization process. While it does not capture all of the views of all of the states on all issues relevant to reauthorization, it represents the views of most states on issues of priority concern to them. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) deservedly enjoys broad support as a successful program. That success rests on a legislative foundation enacted as a result of careful bi-partisan compromise. Title XXI of the Social Security Act established a federal-state partnership program with a delicate balance of state flexibility and core program requirements. SCHIP was created with the goal of providing health coverage for low-income, uninsured children. This essential program, now serving more than six million, is up for reauthorization this year.April 2007 -
Health Reform in Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont: An Examination of State Strategies to Improve Access to Affordable, Quality Care
This issue brief was prepared by NASHP for the Maine Health Access Foundation to examine the progress of health reform in Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont and to compare these three states’ efforts. The brief was developed and written by Neva Kaye and Andrew Snyder. The brief includes information on:March 2007 -
SCHIP at 10: Progress and Results
This fact sheet briefly explores some of the choices states have made in program design over the past ten years, the success achieved in enrollment and helping to reduce the uninsured, and the improved results in access to care and health outcomes for children with SCHIP coverage.March 2007» -
ERISA Implications for State Health Care Access Initiatives: Impact of the Maryland “Fair Share Act” Court Decision
This paper from State Coverage Initiatives and NASHP explores the implications for state health care access initiatives of the federal court decision finding that ERISA preempt’s Maryland’s “Fair Share Act.” ERISA Implications for State Health Care Access Initiatives: Impact of the Maryland “Fair Share Act” Court Decision discusses in detail: • ERISA preemption principles, • The Maryland law and RILA vs. Fiedler court decision, • Implications for state health care access initiatives involving employers in financing, and • Arguments that may be raised to challenge and defend such state programs.November 2006» -
States' Limits and Options for Preserving and Expanding Children’s Access to Private Health Insurance Coverage
Published in May 2006, this fact sheet was originally prepared for the NASHP symposium on child health coverage that was held in March. It discusses challenges and opportunities for providing coverage through private health insurance options.May 2006» -
Basic Facts About Children’s Health Coverage
Published in May 2006, this fact sheet provides some basic information about how children are covered today, how many children are uninsured and who they are, and the cost of children’s coverage.May 2006»
