Retail Enrollment Centers
With the ACA’s introduction of open enrollment periods for health coverage programs, the time was right for innovative outreach models to reach new populations. Retail enrollment centers (also called “pop-up retail shops”) were one outreach and enrollment tool developed by states that has shown early promising results. In the first two years of ACA open enrollment periods, at least three state-based exchange (SBE) states (Connecticut, Colorado, and Kentucky) created retail enrollment centers. State officials interviewed reported a number of positive impacts from enrollment center experience, including increased visibility, improved outreach impact, a greater than average effectuation rate due to motivated and prepared consumers getting the help they need in a one-stop shop, and ensuring an accessible, central, community-based location to support enrollment. In this chart, we’ve captured information from three states that successfully used pop-up retail shops to inform other states that may be considering them for future years.
The states featured in this chart have demonstrated how to quickly build effective retail enrollment centers. As SBMs, the Connecticut, Colorado, and Kentucky exchanges were uniquely situated to reach target populations and try dynamic, innovative outreach methods to increase enrollment. SBMs have more centralized control over multiple aspects of outreach and enrollment processes than other states because the responsibility and authority for outreach is housed within the SBM, allowing the SBM the ability to tailor communications to the unique enrollment and assistance landscape, opportunities and challenges facing that specific state.
NASHP gathered information to create this chart through key informant interviews, email queries to state officials, and research supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Enrollment 2014 project, a one year project in which NASHP interviewed state leaders and stakeholders in 10 states with early success in enrollment and supported engagement of FFM state officials in Medicaid, CHIP, and Insurance/Exchange agencies. Although the information below reflects the step-by-step considerations of building pop-up shops for outreach and enrollment into health coverage programs by SBE agencies, other state agencies may also use this model to develop retail enrollment centers for other programs. Has your state also used a retail enrollment center approach? Please let us know – we welcome information from other states with similar experience.
The states featured in this chart have demonstrated how to quickly build effective retail enrollment centers. As SBMs, the Connecticut, Colorado, and Kentucky exchanges were uniquely situated to reach target populations and try dynamic, innovative outreach methods to increase enrollment. SBMs have more centralized control over multiple aspects of outreach and enrollment processes than other states because the responsibility and authority for outreach is housed within the SBM, allowing the SBM the ability to tailor communications to the unique enrollment and assistance landscape, opportunities and challenges facing that specific state.
NASHP gathered information to create this chart through key informant interviews, email queries to state officials, and research supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Enrollment 2014 project, a one year project in which NASHP interviewed state leaders and stakeholders in 10 states with early success in enrollment and supported engagement of FFM state officials in Medicaid, CHIP, and Insurance/Exchange agencies. Although the information below reflects the step-by-step considerations of building pop-up shops for outreach and enrollment into health coverage programs by SBE agencies, other state agencies may also use this model to develop retail enrollment centers for other programs. Has your state also used a retail enrollment center approach? Please let us know – we welcome information from other states with similar experience.
| State | State Exchange Structure | Number/ Location of Stores; Hours of Operation; Selection Process | Staffing | Operational Costs & Expenses | Physical Plant | Number of People Enrolled at Stores; ROI | Development Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO | State Agency: Colorado Health Benefit ExchangeExchange Name: Connect for Health ColoradoStructure:Public non-profit established by state law |
Number/ Location: 1 store in Downtown Denver (Years 1 and 2) (1) Operating Hours: M-F: 10am-6pm Sat: 12pm-6pm Closed Sunday (except on open enrollment deadline)Location Selection:
|
Positions:
Note:Usually 4-5 workers at store
|
Operational Costs: $16,000 rental$42,314 operational (furniture, wifi, signage, security, etc.) Additional Expenses: Night security (amount not provided) |
Machinery/ Technology: Repurposed staff laptops & work cell phones; no new equipment purchased Retail Space: 2,000 sq. ft. 4 month lease (Nov. 1-Feb. 28) Process for Establishing:
|
Enrolled: 238 enrolled1,055 assisted (not including individuals who called or were assisted but didn’t want to be tracked) ROI:(2)$206.06 per enrollee$55 per customer assisted 2
Other Benefits:
|
Planning: Work-plan fully developed 3 months prior to launch Physical Plant: Scouted physical locations 2 months prior to launch; finalized location 1 month before launch Staffing:1 month to plan; planning began 3 months prior to launch Identified sign-up tool to fill unique shifts by brokers, navigators, and staff |
| CT | State Agency: Connecticut Health Insurance Exchange Exchange Name:Structure:Quasi-public entity established bystate law |
Number/ Location: 2 stores: New Haven & Hartford (Year 1) Operating Hours:10am-8pm most days Location Selection:
|
Staff Positions:
Staff Shifts:
|
Outfitting Stores: $136,000 for both stores Operating Budget (Per Year): $140,000 (not including staff time) |
Machinery/ Technology: 20 laptops per store (only about 15 in use at a time) Retail Space: 2,200 sq. ft each; 1-year lease Acquisition:Real estate agent helped survey properties/select space
Process for Establishing:
|
Enrolled: 7,639 enrolled15,191 assisted ROI:(3)$36 per enrollment$18 per individual assisted
Other Benefits:
|
Planning: **Physical Plant:**Staffing: ** |
| KY | State Agency:Exchange Name: Structure: | Number/ Location: 1 store in Fayette Mall, Lexington, KY (Year 2) Operating Hours:10am-9am (mall hours) Location Selection:
|
Positions:
|
Outfitting Stores: $60,000 (including reusable materials) Operating Budget (Per Year):Under $100,000 |
Machinery/ Technology:
Note:connectors and agents used their own equipment. 1540 sq. ft.; 4 mo. lease (Nov. – Feb.) Worked with a marketing firm and advertisements; approached the mall about a temporary lease.
|
Enrolled: Over 5,900 enrolled7,600 visited the store ROI:$27 per enrollment$21 per assisted
Other Benefits:
|
Planning: 2 months to plan; planning began 3 months prior to launch Physical Plant: 1 month to install fixtures and prepare physical plant (after the design/layout was finalized); began 1 month prior to launch Staffing:2 months of planning prior to launch; ongoing changes during first weeks of operation; by 6 weeks following launch the staffing plan was finalized |
Notes:
(1) Connect for Health Colorado also worked with five other retail centers staffed by other organizations. This chart only tracks the center fully run and operated by state agency staff.
(2) ROI determined by dividing overall cost by number of people helped ($58,000/1,055=$55); however, this ROI does not reflect actual cost per person assisted given larger volume of individuals that were helped not tracked in the system.
(3) Estimated based on $276 total annual costs divided by number of individuals enrolled or assisted. Note that this does not take into account the staff time invested in developing and supporting the center.
(4) Added consumer representative role 1 month after launch, upon realizing consumers needed help at the beginning of the process to route them to the right assisters for help.
(2) ROI determined by dividing overall cost by number of people helped ($58,000/1,055=$55); however, this ROI does not reflect actual cost per person assisted given larger volume of individuals that were helped not tracked in the system.
(3) Estimated based on $276 total annual costs divided by number of individuals enrolled or assisted. Note that this does not take into account the staff time invested in developing and supporting the center.
(4) Added consumer representative role 1 month after launch, upon realizing consumers needed help at the beginning of the process to route them to the right assisters for help.
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. 
