Community Paramedicine Continues to Mature in AZ

Community paramedicine has been a paradigm shift for the use of paramedics in the US- and Arizona has been a national leader.  It’s a new model in which paramedics function outside their usual emergency response & transport roles- delving into the world of primary care.  As the health care world increasingly shifts toward prevention and well care- the system will increasingly demand more folks that can function in a community health (primary care and prevention) role.  Community paramedicine is increasingly being recognized as a promising solution to efficiently increase access to care (especially for underserved populations). 

For example- paramedics could shift from a sole focus on emergency response to things like: 1) providing follow-up care for folks recently discharged from the hospital to prevent unnecessary readmissions; 2) providing community-based support for people with diabetes, asthma, congestive heart failure, or multiple chronic conditions; and/or 3) partnering with community health workers and primary care providers in underserved areas to provide preventive care. 

One component of Community Paramedicine is known as “Treat and Refer” and it has really taken a step forward in the last couple of years in Arizona.  A couple of years ago the initiative was launched under the leadership of AzPHA Members David Harden, Terry Mullins, Dr. Ben Bobrow and others at the ADHS.

It’s called the Arizona Treat and Refer Recognition Program and was developed in partnership with the ADHS Bureau of EMS & Trauma Systems, AHCCCS, and the EMS community. Organizations that earn Treat and Refer recognition implement the program under the direction of their medical director and chief executive.  Once recognized, the EMS Agency can seek reimbursement from AHCCCS for the services they provide.  You can check out the AHCCCS website to learn more about provider registration.

Five EMS agencies have now been recognized as Treat & Refer EMS agencies. The T&R Program establishes a means for recognized EMS agencies demonstrating optimal patient safety and quality of care by matching treatment, transport, and care destination options to the needs of the 9-1-1 patient; and provide recognized EMS agencies the opportunity to seek reimbursement from AHCCCS.

The ADHS Bureau of EMS & Trauma Systems offers a pre-application technical review service to EMS agencies considering applying for recognition. The service includes a comprehensive review of EMS agencies’ education modules, standing orders, patient follow-up process, and performance improvement/quality assurance process.

Arguments Due Wednesday for November’s Ballot Propositions

Do you feel strongly about any of the upcoming voter initiatives or referendums that will be on the November ballot?  Do you have some solid arguments that could persuade fellow Arizonans to see things your way? 

If so, you’re in luck.  The AZ Secretary of State’s Office has made it easier than ever for you to post an argument for or against any of the measures- but you’ll need to act before Wednesday at midnight. 

Arguments for or against proposed ballot measures for the 2018 General Election can now be submitted electronically through the new Ballot Measure Argument Submission Portal available at https://ballotarguments.az.gov/

The fee is just $75 per argument and can be paid online.  They also dropped the notarization argument that had previously existed.  Your ballot measure argument will be printed in the publicity pamphlet that is mailed out to registered voters. I submitted comments in favor of the Clean Energy Amendment and the Campaign Disclosure Initiative- (on behalf of myself) and the process was simple and straightforward.

Here’s the listing of the 2018 Initiatives, Referenda & Recall Applications.  I’ve summarized the measures that submitted sufficient signatures last week:

The Stop Political Dirty Money Constitutional Amendment PDF establishes voters’ right to know the identity of all major contributors who are trying to influence the outcome of Arizona elections. Contributors will no longer be able to hide by transferring their money through intermediaries. Anyone spending more than $10,000 to oppose or support candidates or ballot measures must disclose everyone who contributed $2,500 or more promptly, publicly and under penalty of perjury.

The Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona Amendment PDF requires affected electric utilities to provide at least 50% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030. The Amendment defines renewable energy sources to include solar, wind, small-scale hydropower, and other sources that are replaced rapidly by a natural, ongoing process (excluding nuclear or fossil fuel). Distributed renewable energy sources, like rooftop solar, must comprise at least 10% of utilities’ annual retail sales of electricity by 2030. The Amendment allows electric utilities to earn and trade credits to meet these requirements.

The Invest in Education Act PDF increases the classroom site fund by raising the income tax rate by 3.46% on individual incomes over a quarter million dollars (or household incomes over half a million dollars), and by 4.46% on individual incomes over half a million dollars (or household incomes over a million dollars); designates 60% of new funds for teacher salaries and 40% for operations; and adds full day kindergarten and pay raises for student support services personnel as permitted fund uses. 

Save Our Schools PDF asks voters whether to validate a 2017 Bill passed by the Legislature (Chapter 139 SB 1431) that greatly expanded Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (commonly referred to as private school vouchers) and removed the existing ESA enrollment cap, increasing it annually by 0.5% of total public school enrollment through 2022 and capping ESA enrollment in 2023.

The Protect AZ Taxpayers Act PDF would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit state government, as well as county, municipal and other political subdivision governments and taxing districts, from imposing or increasing any transaction-based taxes, fees, stamp requirements, or assessments on any service performed in Arizona, or on the gross receipts of sales or gross income derived from any service performed in Arizona.

AZ Vaccination Exemptions Continue to Increase

Despite numerous interventions in the last year designed to improve immunization rates among AZ school children- we continue to lose ground.  Last week the ADHS released their latest school reporting data on vaccine exemption rates (medical, personal and religious).  Here’s a 2 page summary of some of the results.  This year’s report covers the 2017-2018 school year (the data was submitted by the schools to the Department in the Fall of ’17). The data show that:

  • Immunization rates have decreased across age groups from 2012 to 2017;

  • Non-medical exemption rates continue to be highest in public charter schools, followed by private and public schools in 2017; and 

  • Non-medical (e.g. personal and religious) exemption rates have increased from 2016: going from 3.9% to 4.3% for pre-school; 4.9% to 5.4% for Kindergarten and 5.1% to 5.4% among 6th graders.

The Arizona Public Health System has done a remarkable job turning the data reported by schools into actionable information.  My favorite is the Personal Belief Exemptions Map.  Parents can also look up the exemption rates in individual schools.  But there are also data for: Arizona Reporting Schools Coverage; County Kindergarten Coverage; County 6th Grade Coverage; County Child Care Coverage; Whooping Cough Immunization Coverage Map; and a Measles Immunization Coverage Map.

 

Interventions to Reduce Vaccine Exemptions

The ADHS has significantly overhauled their vaccine exemption form to better inform parents about the risks that they are taking for their child and for their child’s classmates and the community by choosing not to vaccinate their kid. Other interventions (by the Arizona Partnership for Immunizations) have included working with school administrators to help parents overcome any barriers that might be preventing them from getting their children vaccinated and by reducing “convenience exemptions,” in which parents sign a waiver because they can’t get their children immunized in time to meet school requirements.

I’ve also heard that there is an Immunization Education Course under development by the ADHS that’s designed to serve in lieu of a new exemptions form has been built and piloted at some schools in Maricopa County.

During the 2015 legislative session, Representative Mendez sponsored HB 2466 which would have required all public schools (including charter schools) to maintain a website to post the rates of their pupils’ immunizations against vaccine preventable diseases.  It never even received a committee hearing.  Back in 2012 a Bill that would have required a doctor’s signature to get a personal exemption failed. 

A couple of years ago California eliminated personal exemptions entirely.  While the rate for personal exemptions rose after the personal exemption was eliminated, a study In study in JAMA back in 2017 found that the rate of medical exemptions for immunizations for incoming kindergartners rose the year after California eliminated the personal-belief exemption, but vaccination rates did improve substantially – especially in high income enclaves that had the highest personal exemption rates. 

By the way- last week the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles found that California didn’t violate freedom of religion or the right to an education when it eliminated most exemptions.  The court said that… “Compulsory immunization has long been recognized as the gold standard for preventing the spread of contagious diseases”.  The court said the new law was not discriminatory and was a valid measure to protect public health.

Major Changes Proposed for Family Planning Grants

A few weeks ago HHS issued new proposed regulations for Title X (family planning) grants in the Federal Register. The new regulations would make many changes to the requirements for Title X projects and could profoundly change how family planning services are provided by significantly limit the network of providers who can qualify for funds; restricting the ability of participating providers from discussing and referring for abortion; and making other programmatic changes that could dramatically reshape the program and provider network available to low-income women.

If fully implemented, the proposed changes to Title X would shrink the network of participating providers and have major repercussions for low-income women in AZ that rely on these services for their family planning care.

Here’s an informative Issue Brief about the planned changes. The new proposed regulations and the place to submit comments are up on the Federal Register website through July 31.

Courts Overrule CMS’ Approval of KY’s Medicaid Work Requirements- Ruling Could Influence AZ’s Request

Kentucky was the first state to have a work requirement waiver approved by CMS (it was set to take effect yesterday- July 1, 2018).  But last Friday, a federal District Court Judge ruled that Kentucky’s CMS approved waiver which would have implemented work/community engagement requirements failed to address the purpose of the Medicaid program- to provide coverage and care. Medicaid is obligated under federal law to consider whether a waiver proposal advances the program’s objectives. 

Specifically, toward the end of the Decision, the court concludes that “…the Secretary must adequately consider the effect of any demonstration project on the State’s ability to help provide medical coverage. He never did so here.”  

When you read the Decision, you’ll see that the court basically concluded that when CMS approved the waiver, they didn’t consider its impact on the primary objective of the Medicaid program- which is to provide medical coverage and care. The court vacated CMS’ approval of the waiver and remanded it back to HHS (CMS).

While Kentucky’s waiver request isn’t exactly the same as  Arizona’s work and community engagement waiver request, there are many similarities. Both require some Medicaid members to meet work or community engagement requirements (AZ has more exempted populations than KY), both have reporting requirements, and both include lockout provisions for folks that don’t comply. The specific standards and exemptions are different, but both include the same basic requirements (except that KY includes some premium payments- which isn’t included in Arizona’s waiver request). 

This is certainly the beginning of a longer legal battle, but last week’s Ruling could very well influence CMS’ upcoming decision about whether (or when) to approve Arizona’s waiver request.

Legal Defense of the Affordable Care Act

A few months ago, Texas and 19 other states (including AZ) launched a new legal effort to eliminate the Affordable Care Act.  Fortunately, California and 15 other states intervened as defendants in the lawsuit, because they were worried that the President’s administration wouldn’t defend the ACA.

Earlier this month the Department of Justice filed a pleading that agreed with TX, AZ and the other 18 states.  Instead of defending the ACA as is customary, the DOJ argued that several crucial provisions of the ACA are unconstitutional and announced that it would not defend those provisions in court (3 career DOJ attorneys removed their names from the brief and one quit a few days later).  CA and other states will be defending the ACA and argue on its behalf in court. 

If the Intervenor states lose the case, insurers could invoke pre-existing conditions to refuse coverage or increase premiums and could underwrite coverage based on gender, age, and occupation.  

Here’s a useful summary of the case written by the National Health Law Program.

Cannabis v. Marijuana

 

Are Marijuana and Cannabis the same thing when it comes to Arizona Law?  The short answer is maybe not- and the distinction may be an important one for Qualified Medical Marijuana Patients in AZ.

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act provides qualified patients and dispensaries a number of legal protections under the voter approved  Act.  Interestingly, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act definition of “Marijuana” in A.R.S. § 36-2801(8) differs from the Arizona Criminal Code’s definition of “Marijuana” in A.R.S. § 13-3401(19). In addition, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act makes a distinction between “Marijuana” and “Usable Marijuana” A.R.S. § 36-2801(8) and (15).

The definition of “Marijuana” in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act is: “… all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant.”  The definition of “Usable Marijuana” is “…  the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks and roots of the plant and does not include the weight of any non-marijuana ingredients combined with marijuana and prepared for consumption as food or drink.”  The “allowable amount of marijuana” for a qualifying patient and a designated caregiver includes “two-and-one half ounces of usable marijuana.”  A.R.S. § 36-2801(1)

The definition of “Marijuana” in the Criminal Code is “… all parts of any plant of the genus cannabisfrom which the resin has not been extracted, whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant.”   “Cannabis” is defined as: “… the following substances under whatever names they may be designated: (a) The resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus cannabis, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or its resin.  Cannabis does not include oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any fiber, compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks of such plant except the resin extracted from the stalks or any fiber, oil or cake or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination; and (b) Every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such resin or tetrahydrocannabinol.” A.R.S. § 13-3401(4) and (20)(w)

This distinction is an important one for medical marijuana patients and dispensaries.  This week the AZ Court of Appeals in State v. Jones held that a medical marijuana cardholder was in possession of “hashish”, which he received for free when an employee at a marijuana dispensary in Phoenix had given it to him (the Act specifically allows for gifts of this size between patients). The case involves a transaction between two individuals and doesn’t address a transaction between a dispensary and a patient.

The court held that hashish is a resin extracted from the marijuana plant and therefore is Cannabis as defined in the criminal code. The case begs for an appeal.  It doesn’t mention concentrates or vape cartridges, and it states that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act protects patients in possession of allowable amounts of mixtures or preparations of medical marijuana… but it does call into question what protections patients have for what substances as well as what kinds of products are allowable for sale at dispensaries. 

I expect to see the Arizona Supreme Court quickly take up the case (and soon), as the ruling certainly needs to be resolved quickly- and only the Arizona Supreme Court is in the position to make the final call.

It’s too bad that a patient had to spend a year in jail for this issue to be resolved.

AzPHA Policy Update: Child Separation, Government Restructuring, House Health Budget Bill

APHA Policy Statement on Child Separation

More than 2,300 children have recently suffered the traumatic experience of being forcibly separated from their parents by the federal government.  Despite the fact that the president has issued an Executive Order to end the practice, thousands of kids are currently separated from their parents.  Some of them are in various facilities in Arizona.

The American Public Health Association (our parent organization) issued a statement last week regarding the policy of child separation recently implemented (and now suspended) by the federal government.  Rather than paraphrase- I thought I’d just block and paste it below:

“The Trump administration’s policy of separating parents and children at the U.S.-Mexico border will have a dire impact on their health, both now and into the future. 

“As public health professionals we know that children living without their parents face immediate and long-term health consequences. Risks include the acute mental trauma of separation, the loss of critical health information that only parents would know about their children’s health status, and in the case of breastfeeding children, the significant loss of maternal child bonding essential for normal development. Parents’ health would also be affected by this unjust separation.

“More alarming is the interruption of these children’s chance at achieving a stable childhood. Decades of public health research have shown that family structure, stability and environment are key social determinants of a child’s and a community’s health.

“Furthermore, this practice places children at heightened risk of experiencing adverse childhood events and trauma, which research has definitively linked to poorer long-term health. Negative outcomes associated with adverse childhood events include some of society’s most intractable health issues: alcoholism, substance misuse, depression, suicide, poor physical health and obesity.

“There is no law requiring the separation of parents and children at the border. This policy violates fundamental human rights. We urge the administration to immediately stop the practice of separating immigrant children and parents and ensure those who have been separated are rapidly reunited, to ensure the health and well-being of these children.”

 

AZ’s System for Regulating the Facilities Caring for Separated Children

Some of the children that have been separated from their parents by the federal government are being cared for in AZ at places run by an organization named Southwest Key. There are 13 such facilities in AZ.  They’re licensed by the Arizona Department of Health Services and classified as Child Behavioral Health Facilities.  Even though they’re licensed by the ADHS, the agency doesn’t conduct routine unannounced inspections at them because they’re accredited by the Council on Accreditation.

Arizona law says that when a facility like this is accredited by an appropriate independent body, the ADHS shall accept the accreditation in lieu of a routine agency inspection. Specifically, ARS 36-424 (B) states that: “The (ADHS) director shall accept proof that a health care institution is an accredited health care institution in lieu of all compliance inspections required by this chapter if the director receives a copy of the institution’s accreditation report for the licensure period”.

However, the ADHS still has an obligation to investigate complaints at these facilities because ARS 36-424 (C) says that: “On a determination by the director that there is reasonable cause to believe a health care institution is not adhering to the licensing requirements of this chapter… (the ADHS) may enter on and into the premises…  for the purpose of determining the state of compliance with this chapter, the rules adopted pursuant to this chapter and local fire ordinances or rules.”

You can view the status of these facilities at www.azcarecheck.com and search for the words Southwest Key.  You’d be able to see the results of any complaint investigations or enforcement actions against these facilities- but not the backup accreditation documents from the Council on Accreditation.

 

Supporting Separated Children & Parents

A publication called “Child Trends” put out a blog last week entitled Supporting Children and Parents Affected by the Trauma of Separation that contains evidenced-based guidance for parents and officials.  Hopefully some of the persons within the federal government and care facilities are familiar with and are applying this important information (like Trauma Informed Care) in their policies and procedures like:

 

Federal Government Restructuring Proposed by President

Last week the President Trump unveiled a wide-ranging plan to reorganize many functions within the federal government.  The proposal is posted on the White House website.  It’s 132 pages long- but it’s formatted in a way that’s easy to follow – with an index and formatting that makes it easy to read.

It proposes reorganizing various federal government functions in a wide range of programs.  For example, it proposes creating a new Federal Food Safety Agency that would absorb the various USDA and FDA food safety programs- moving everything to a stand-alone food safety agency.

WIC and SNAP would move out of the USDA and into HHS. Environmental programs at the Department of Interior and the USDA would move over to the EPA.  It also proposes reducing the size of the US Public Health Service Commission Corps from 6,500 officers to 4,000 officers with a Reserve Corps for public health emergencies.  It also plans to merge the Education and Labor Departments to consolidate work force programs.

There are many, many other proposals, like privatizing the US Postal Service.

So far this is just a proposal from the President and his team.  Any such restructuring would need to be authorized by congress.  Here’s a link to the wide-ranging report.  Of course, we’ll continue to track the public health portions of this.  It seems super-unlikely to see any action before the November election.

 

Federal FY 19 Health-related Budget Bill

The House Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee released the FY19 House Appropriations report. The bill includes $177B in discretionary funding, which is essentially the same as FY18.  Here’s a summary:

CDC

The bill proposes total funding level of $7.6 billion, or $663 million decrease from FY18, but most of the decrease is due to the transfer of the strategic national stockpile to another part of HHS.

HRSA

The bill proposes a total funding level of $6.5 billion, a $196 million decrease from FY18. Title X Family Planning funding would be eliminated completely.  Primary Health Care would get a 7% decrease.

SAMHSA

The bill proposes a total funding level of $5.6 billion for SAMHSA, a $448 million increase above FY18, mostly because the Substance Abuse Block Grant and the State Opioid Response Grants would be significantly increased.

Policy Update: Family Planning, ACA Lawsuit, Work Requirements and Assault Weapons

Summer & Fall Public Health Activities in AZ

Interested in finding out about the various public health conferences, meetings and events this Summer and Fall?  

Bookmark our AzPHA Upcoming Events webpage.  It’s as simple as that.  If I’ve missed something- let me know at [email protected]!

 

Proposed Title X Funding Changes Likely to be a PH Burden

The US Department of Health and Human Services has proposed changes to the rules for the federal family planning services program, known as Title X.  If the new rules are adopted as proposed, it’ll require Title X family planning services to be physically and financially separate from abortion services.

Many family planning clinics offer both family planning and abortion referral services, and if the changes are ultimately implemented many of the programs would likely decide not to take Title X funding, which would have a big impact on the network of available services and they’d have fewer resources available for STD screening, treatment and outreach.

BTW: Title X funds have never been allowed to be used for abortions. The proposed rule is available for public comment until the end of July.  You can read more about the proposed rule and comment by visiting the Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Just follow the instructions to submit.  Your comments might not influence the outcome, but at least you’ll have done your part. That and voting this Fall.

 

Federal Government Won’t Defend the Affordable Care Act in Court

So far, the Affordable Care Act has survived the 2 court challenges that made it to the US Supreme Court.  Back in 2012 the ACA was upheld by the Supreme Court for the first time (by a 5-4 margin) in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius case.   It was upheld again in 2015 when (in a 6-3 decision) the Supreme Court upheld ACA’s federal tax credits for eligible Americans living in all 50 states (not just the 34 states with federal marketplaces).

But, there are additional challenges out there that haven’t made it to the Supreme Court yet. One that’s progressing through the courts is a challenge filed by 20 states (including Arizona) arguing that the ACA’s individual mandate is unconstitutional and key parts of the act — including the provisions protecting those with pre-existing conditions — are invalid. 

This week Attorney General Jeff Sessions acknowledged that while “the Executive Branch has a longstanding tradition of defending the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense,” the Attorney General will not defend the ACA from this challenge.  

The implications could be profound.  The ACA could potentially be completely overturned- or portions that require health plans to cover pre-existing conditions could be eliminated along with the mandate that persons have health insurance.

 

Medicaid Work/Community Engagement & Reporting Requirements

Any day now, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will be approving Arizona’s request to include work requirements and/or community engagement and reporting requirements as a condition of Medicaid enrollment.  The request filed by AHCCCS is required by Senate Bill 1092 (from 2015) which requires them to ask CMS’ permission to implement new eligibility requirements for “able-bodied adults”.

AHCCCS initially proposed implementing the following requirements for able-bodied adults receiving Medicaid services including: 1) a requirement for all able-bodied adults to become employed or actively seeking employment or attend school or a job training program; 2) requiring able-bodied adults to verify monthly compliance with the work requirements and any changes in family income; 3) banning an eligible person from enrollment for one year if the eligible person knowingly failed to report a change in family income or made a false statement regarding compliance with the work requirements; and 4) limiting lifetime coverage for all able-bodied adults to five years except for certain circumstances.

Hundreds of comments were submitted (including comments from AzPHA) urging the agency to consider modifications to the initial waiver request.  AHCCCS later issued a final waiver request which includes exemptions for:

  • Those who are at least 55 years old;
  • American Indians;
  • Women up to the end of the month in which the 90th day of post-pregnancy occurs;
  • Former Arizona foster youths up to age 26;
  • People determined to have a serious mental illness (SMI);
  • People receiving temporary or permanent long-term disability benefits from a private insurer or from the government;
  • People determined to be medically frail;
  • Full-time high school students older than 18 years old;
  • Full-time college or graduate students;
  • Victims of domestic violence;
  • Individuals who are homeless;
  • People recently been directly impacted by a catastrophic event such as a natural disaster or the death of a family member living in the same household;
  • Parents, caretaker relatives, and foster parents; or
  • Caregivers of a family member who is enrolled in the Arizona Long Term Care System

A subsequent letter from the AHCCCS Administrator suggested that they (AHCCCS) are suspending their request for a 5-year limitation on lifetime benefits (for some members) for now.  Here’s our letter from back in February of 2017. 

 

Kaiser Family Foundation Issue Brief on Work Medicaid Requirements

Last month the Kaiser Family Foundation published an Issue Brief regarding CMS’ recent decisions to grant states the ability to experiment with their Medicaid programs that condition Medicaid eligibility on work or community engagement. The Issue Brief examines evidence of the effects of the Medicaid expansion and some changes being implemented through waivers.

Many of the findings on the effects of expansion are drawn from the 202 studies included in our comprehensive literature review that includes additional citations on coverage, access, and economic effects of the Medicaid expansion.

Regarding work requirements, the Brief concludes that “state-specific studies in Colorado, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania and most recently Montana and Louisiana have documented or predicted significant job growth resulting from expansion. No studies have found negative effects of expansion on employment or employee behavior. In an analysis of Medicaid expansion in Ohio, most expansion enrollees who were unemployed but looking for work reported that Medicaid enrollment made it easier to seek employment, and over half of expansion enrollees who were employed reported that Medicaid enrollment made it easier to continue working.  Another study found an association between Medicaid expansion and increased volunteer work in expansion states.

Furthermore, “work requirements have implications for all populations covered under these demonstrations. Those who are already working will need to successfully document and verify their compliance and those who qualify for an exemption also must successfully document and verify their exempt status, as often as monthly. States would incur costs to pay for the staff and systems to track work verification and exemptions.”

If you’re interested in the public health policy implications of our upcoming work/community engagement and reporting requirements, the KFF Issue Brief is a must-read.

 

Court Challenge to Kentucky’s Work Requirements being Heard this Week

Oral arguments are being heard this week in DC challenging Kentucky’s requirements that members work or participate in “community engagement” activities such as job training, school or volunteering. The case was filed in January by the National Health Law Program, the Kentucky Equal Justice Center and the Southern Poverty Law Center.  The outcome could have implications for AZ’s upcoming requirements.

Read National Health Law Program’s guide on what to expect from oral argument.

American Medical Association Endorses Assault Weapon Ban

The American Medical Association – Nation’s largest physician group – endorsed a ban on assault weapons as part of a package of measures aimed at combating the epidemic of gun violence in the US. The member driven initiative was endorsed at their annual policy conference. They also endorsed a ban on bump stocks, which basically turn semi-automatic rifles into automatic weapons. 

In a statement AMA Immediate Past President David O. Barbe, MD, MHA said: “People are dying of gun violence in our homes, churches, schools, on street corners and at public gatherings, and it’s important that lawmakers, policy leaders and advocates on all sides seek common ground to address this public health crisis, in emergency rooms across the country, the carnage of gun violence has become a too routine experience.”

 

AzPHA Public Health Policy Update

Save the date

90th annual azpha fall conference and annual meeting

Integrating Care to Improve Public Health Outcomes:

Primary Care | Behavioral Health | Public Health

October 3, 2018 

Desert Willow Conference Center

There’s widespread support for the goals of the Triple Aim: To deliver the highest quality care with an optimal care experience at the lowest appropriate cost. The key is developing systems of care that best achieve these goals. 

Our 90th Annual Fall Conference and Annual Meeting Integrating Care to Improve Public Health Outcomes: Primary Care | Behavioral Health | Public Health will explore efforts currently underway to integrate care and improve outcomes in Arizona as well as initiatives on the horizon to develop systems of care that best achieve the goals of the Triple Aim.

We’ll kick off our Conference with a presentation of the latest academic research that evaluates the outcomes of co-located and integrated models of behavioral care as part of primary care as well as evidence-based toolkits to assist practices including ways to measure progress. We’ll also be exploring how providers are implementing new strategies to integrate care via AHCCCS’ “Targeted Investment” program which provides financial incentives to eligible providers to develop systems for integrated care.

We’ll conduct a short AzPHA Annual Meeting over a delicious buffet lunch followed by our keynote address from the American Public Health Association President Joseph Telfair, DRPH, MSW, MPH.  In our afternoon sessions, we’ll learn about new initiatives to work with managed care in two key areas that impact health outcomes: tobacco use and housing and homelessness.

We’ll close with a panel discussion of key leaders among Arizona’s Managed Care Organizations as they discuss priorities and strategies for improving outcomes under the new integrated Medicaid contracts which will begin October 1, 2018.  The new contracts will require better coordination between providers which can mean better health outcomes for members.

After the conference we’ll have a hosted reception as we celebrate AzPHA’s 90th Anniversary!

I’m still working on the agenda, but I expect to have it fleshed out in a couple of weeks and have our registration site up and sponsorship packets out by the 3rd week in June. A summary of the conference is up on our homepage at www.azpha.org.

 

American Cancer Society Changes Colon Cancer Screening Recommendation

The American Cancer Society changed their recommendation for colon cancer screening by moving down the standard recommendation 5 years- suggesting that most people get screened at age 45. There are a couple of ways people can get screened, either using a sensitive test that looks for signs of cancer in a person’s stool or with an exam that looks at the colon and rectum (a colonoscopy).  The reason they changed the recommendation is because new data shows that cases of colorectal cancer for people under age 55 increased 50% between in the last 20 years (1994-2014).

However, just because the recommendation from the ACS changed doesn’t necessarily mean that insurers will begin paying for it between 45 and 49 years old.  For that to happen, the United States Preventive Services Task Force would need to recommend the change and list it as a Category A or B preventive health service.

In recent years, a prevention model of health has woven its way into the fabric of traditional models of care. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act the role preventive services has expanded significantly in the US health care delivery system.  Preventive health care services prevent diseases and illnesses from happening in the first place rather than treating them after they happen.

Category A & B” preventive services recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force  are now included (at no cost to consumers) in all Qualified Health Plans offered on the Marketplace. In addition, many employer-based and government-sponsored health plans have included Category A & B preventive services in the health insurance plans they offer to their respective members.

Currently, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends 49 Category A & B Preventive Health Services that include screening tests, counseling, immunizations, and preventive medications for adults, adolescents, and children.  The Task Force consists of a panel of experts representing public health, primary care, family medicine, and academia.  They update the list of recommended services by reviewing best practices research conducted across a wide range of disciplines.

You can also browse the USPHS website and check out the preventive services that they have evaluated but don’t recommend. Most of the services are broken down by age, gender and other risk factors.

 

Medicaid Program Scorecard Released by Feds

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released a new Medicaid program scorecard this week.  It includes some quality metrics along with federally reported measures in a Scorecard format.

The data that’s built into the state by state scorecard only uses information that states voluntarily submit.  There are 3 main categories (state health system performance; state administrative accountability; and federal administrative accountability) and lots of subcategories.

The most interesting part of the Scorecard I think are the State Health System Performance Measures portion.  Some of the subcategories that are reported in that category on a state by state basis are things like well child visits, mental health conditions, children’s preventive dental services and vaccination rates, and other chronic health conditions.

It looks like a good and valuable tool that will (if they continue to populate the scorecard) provide more transparency into the effectiveness of state Medicaid programs over time. The data that are submitted are voluntary – not compulsory – so that hurts the number of measures that states turn in.  It might be something that you’ll want to bookmark for reference in the future.

 

Federal “Right to Try” Law Passed and Signed

Congress passed and the President signed a new law this week that gives people with a terminal illness new options for treatment by allowing those folks a way to independently seek drugs that are still experimental and not fully approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

The new law basically gives terminally ill patients the right to seek drug treatments that remain in clinical trials and “have passed Phase 1 of the FDA’s but haven’t been fully approved by the FDA.  

Arizona voters have already approved a similar law (by a wide margin).  In 2014 AZ voters approved Proposition 303  (referred to the ballot by the Legislature) that makes investigational drugs, biological products or devices available to eligible terminally ill patients. The AZ law has uses the same definition of an “investigational” drug that the new federal law uses.

 

Western Region Public Health Training Center Grant Renewed

The Western Region Public Health Training Center was awarded a renewed grant as a center for the Regional Public Health Training Centers Program.  They’ll continue to be housed in the University of Arizona Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health and we will continue to assess the training needs and strengthen the skills of the public health workforce with their partners in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the Pacific Islands.

The training center has literally hundreds of trainings that focus on all sorts of health professionals and the public health workforce.  So no matter what your public health workforce training needs are – the thing to do first is to check the centers website to see if they have the course that you need.  Most likely they will.

________

I’m doing my best to populate the “upcoming events” part of our AzPHA website.  If you have an upcoming public health related event- please let me know and I’ll get it up on our website at: https://azpha.org/upcoming-events/