Minnesota

NASHP identified 10 leading state quality improvement partnerships - interrelated broad-based partnerships, mostly with public and private sector representation, which have long-term, statewide, systemic quality improvement strategic intent, and transparent agendas. This issue brief summarizes results of NASHP's full report that examines these partnerships in Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

This issue of "In Focus" explores health technology especially how it relates to Transformation Grants. States that received grants from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to advance the use of electronic health records and e-prescribing programs confronted challenges other states are likely to face as they implement health information technology initiatives using funds from the Stimulus Bill.

Integrated Care Programs launched in five states in 2005 to coordinate acute and long-term services received by people enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid. States were granted $100,000 and technical assistance focused on performance measurement, rate setting and risk adjustment, and administrative simplification. Here, state programs are evaluated, federal progress in integrated care is surveyed, and future considerations are identified.

Quantitative and qualitative data are pulled together for a summary of the enrollment and implementation experiences of state DMIE projects through December 2008. The Kansas, Minnesota, Texas, Hawaii and District of Columbia programs are profiled and then a national summary and implications are presented. Another report tentatively scheduled for the spring of 2010 will analyze whether the program improved outcomes for individuals and evaluate the implementation and phase-down activities.

The Network consists of 10 regional centers funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), a division of the U.S. Department of Education. The mission is to provide information and Technical Assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to individuals, organizations and employers. They provide training materials, referrals, and a searchable database of legal documents, fact sheets and checklists.

Nearly every state provides at least some funds for services for low-income older adults or people with disabilities who have too many assets to qualify for Medicaid. AARP reports on how much each state spends on both multiservice and single-service programs. It also compares funding sources, eligibility criteria, services, cost management strategies, consumer direction, and other characteristics.

Medicaid currently fills in the gaps in Medicare’s benefit package for 8.8 million enrollees with limited income and resources (dual eligibles). Shifting aspects of this financing to the Federal government could save states money and create opportunities for better care management and coordination. Data tables show how much each state could save if certain financing roles were shifted.

In March of 2006, 144 Minnesotans with disabilities and their families gathered to voice their concerns and ideas about meaningful choices and to learn about promising practices in employment and day services. People shared their experiences, strategies and best practices. Common themes from the workshops are gathered here and include definitions of meaningful daytime choice, things that contribute to it, things that prevent it, things that need to be improved, and recommendations.

This spreadsheet provides a list of ADRC program sites and information about which organizations are operating the ADRC and the services and functions they provide. The list is organzied by state and then country.

The study compares monthly income for people receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to local median incomes and Fair Market Rent rates for modest units across the U.S. In 2008, there were 219 housing markets in 41 states where recipients of SSI, people with long-term disabilities and virtually no assets, would have to pay 100% of their income for a modest one-bedroom unit. Ten years ago there were 44 such markets in 13 states. Policy recommendations are given to reverse this trend.