logo
Successful rural county health program could go statewide — if politics don't get in way

Successful rural county health program could go statewide — if politics don't get in way

USA Today10-02-2025

Successful rural county health program could go statewide — if politics don't get in way
Show Caption
Hide Caption
After losing her home to Helene, North Carolina woman sees community unite
Valerie White lost her home to Tropical Storm Helene, and has been living in a donated trailer. She reflects on how the community has united since the storm.
Successful rural county health program could go statewide—if politics don't get in the way
In 2022, North Carolina launched an experimental initiative to address the nonmedical health needs of low-income residents by using Medicaid dollars.
This first-in-the-nation effort, known as the Healthy Opportunities Pilot, has provided assistance to nearly 30,000 people across three largely rural regions of the state. Beneficiaries get deliveries of food, rides to doctor's appointments and other services that are designed to combat the various social, economic and geographic issues that contribute to health disparities.
Only 33 of the state's 100 counties are included in the pilot, but more communities could be covered if lawmakers vote to expand it.
The $650 million pilot was created through a waiver, issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, that allowed the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services to use federal Medicaid funds — usually earmarked for medical expenses — to address needs like food, transportation and housing. During the final weeks of the Biden administration, CMS approved a waiver extension that gives the department the option of taking the program statewide.
Kody Kinsley, the former NCDHHS secretary who spearheaded the program's rollout, said expanding the initiative will require the blessing of the N.C. General Assembly, which must agree to match whatever funding is ultimately provided by the federal government.
Still, he believes the results will justify the investment. Early research shows the state is spending about $85 less in medical costs per month for each person participating in the pilot. Participation in the program has also been 'associated with decreased emergency department utilization,' according to a report from the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina.
'This is something worth doubling down on,' Kinsley said in a recent interview with NC Health News. 'It's a huge investment for the federal government, but it's also a huge affirmation that our strategy is working.'
While the waiver extension allows the pilot to continue through 2029, the new administration in Washington has Medicaid cuts in its sights — making the program's future far from secure.
Boosting small businesses
Three agencies facilitate services for program participants in the pilot regions. These organizations — Access East, Community Care of the Lower Cape Fear and Impact Health — act as intermediaries, coordinating the distribution of goods and services through a network of more than 140 nonprofits and community partners.
Laurie Stradley, executive director of Impact Health, said the Healthy Opportunity Pilot is unique in that it was offered in rural areas of the state first, which is 'not always the norm for pilot programs.' Her agency is the largest of the three network leads, covering 18 counties across the mountainous Western North Carolina.
She said the pilot has had a 'ripple effect' on the region's economy. For example, the food participants receive through the program is often purchased from local growers.
'We've heard from some of our produce providers and some of the farms themselves that Healthy Opportunities allows them to make plans and have a market to sell their fresh local produce in a way that is more consistent than some of their other marketplaces,' she said. 'They know that they're going to get a consistent order from the nonprofits we work with.'
That weekly box of food has a ripple effect in the local economy in other ways.
'We had one mother say, 'You know, because I know that food box is coming on Friday, I feel safe paying my rent on Wednesday,'' Stradley said. 'Because she knows her family is going to eat, she can safely make that investment, which instantly improves her health stability and prevents her from getting behind in rent.'
Families in the program can also then redirect their dollars to paying utilities. Utility shutoffs are a common cause of people being evicted from their apartments, Stradley explained.
'If you know the power gets turned off, landlords are not often going to allow folks to stay in that space,' she said. 'So when we can help people get up to date on their utilities, then they're also more likely to be able to stay housed.'
But there's got to be somewhere for people to live in the first place, which was difficult in western North Carolina even before the remnants of Hurricane Helene ravaged the housing stock.
A lifeline after disaster
Participation in the Healthy Opportunities Program grew in the aftermath of Helene, which displaced many families in the region.
'The folks that were already receiving some degree of services are finding that they have more needs,' Stradley said. 'Then we also have folks who are newly eligible for Medicaid and the Healthy Opportunities Pilot because they've lost jobs or housing or other points of stability in their home lives that have increased demand for HOP services.'
At the same time, the disaster made it harder to provide services — housing in particular.
'Formerly, we were doing housing navigation and support for a slice of the regional population, but now we have hundreds of families competing for spaces because their housing has been damaged or lost,' Stradley said. 'So it's also harder for those folks who are already eligible to get access to some of the services like home repairs, for example, because our contractors in this region are flat out of availability.'
Housing has long been one of the most difficult needs to meet in western North Carolina, owing in large part to the region's scant inventory of homes and dearth of affordable rental options.
'In the early days and the early allowances for healthy opportunities and housing, we really focused on people who were in unstable situations or unhoused,' Stradley said. 'What we're recognizing is that we need more emphasis on keeping people housed through things like home repairs and remediation.'
She offered the example of a family that has a young child with asthma.
'They get home from school and by after-dinner time they're starting to have some trouble breathing and starting to have an asthma attack — and they're going to wind up in the emergency room,' she said.
More: 'Onto the street': In a month, 5,000 have left FEMA Helene hotels in WNC; over 700 remain
The Healthy Opportunities Pilot can help that family tackle the environmental triggers in the house — such as mold, a common problem in the mountains. The family can get as much as $2,900 to address those issues, which is about the cost of one emergency room visit.
'There's a program in that called Breathe Right that helps to remove any moldy carpet or other mold mitigation that needs to happen in the house, and brings in filters to systems and vacuums that have a HEPA filter on them, hypoallergenic covers for pillows and all those sorts of things,' Stradley said. 'And then the child will see a great decline in emotional, environmental triggers. And then they're not going to the emergency room, [instead] staying in school, all those good things.'
Despite the challenges, Stradley said she's excited about the possibility of the pilot expanding to other parts of the state.
'We're already seeing indications that if we don't spend these funds on food and housing and transportation, we are going to spend these funds on clinical care, diagnosis and long-term health care,' she said. 'The more we can invest in making sure that young people have a safe place to sleep and healthy food to eat means that they are more likely to grow up and grow out of these programs.'
Model for the nation
The pilot is one of the first large-scale tests of whether providing nonmedical services can boost health outcomes and cut health care costs, and its results could inform Medicaid policies in other states.
'What every other state has done is really taken one specific domain and leaned in really hard,' Kinsley said, noting that initiatives in other states have focused exclusively on needs like food or housing. 'North Carolina has the widest list of services that can be paid for with these types of Medicaid dollars.'
The early success of the pilot, he added, has 'given the federal government confidence that we can take this statewide and continue to push forward.'
Kinsley's successor, NCDHHS Sec. Devdutta Sangvai, supports expanding the program to other regions of the state, but he said that's not going to happen overnight.
'We have this waiver now, which gives us options, and now we have to think about how we exercise the options that CMS has given us,' he said. 'It'll definitely require partnership with the General Assembly to understand where those priorities are.'
'The challenge,' he added, 'is we're not going to be able to do everything all at once, and we're not going to be able to do it at 100 percent all at once.'
In the coming months, Sangvai said, he hopes to build consensus around the program, which faces an uncertain future under the new presidential administration.
Trump has said little about his plans for Medicaid, but many of his cabinet appointees have signaled interest in cutting funding for the program — a move that would make pilot expansion a tougher sell for state lawmakers and force them to prioritize medical expenditures.
Stradley hopes that won't happen. She believes the pilot could 'become more effective and more efficient' if it's allowed to grow.
'There will be so much more opportunity for collaboration and coordination and reduction in the sort of administrative and overhead costs that come with the early stages of a pilot,' she said. 'We hear all the time that all eyes are on us, for those of us doing this work in North Carolina, and it's true. We really are shaping the way that this can be done, and other states are going to learn from us.'
More: After Helene, Asheville public housing evictions continue. Residents have 'nowhere to go'
More: State lawmakers considering $500 million more in Helene aid, half of Stein's request

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

GOP's health care plan: We're all going to die, so whatever
GOP's health care plan: We're all going to die, so whatever

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

GOP's health care plan: We're all going to die, so whatever

If death and taxes are the only certainties, Joni Ernst is here to cut one and fast-track the other. 'We all are going to die," she said. You might think that's a line from a nihilistic French play. Or something a teenage goth said in Hot Topic. Or an epiphany from your stoner college roommate after he watched Interstellar at 3 a.m. But that was actually the Iowa Senator's God-honest response to concerns that slashing Medicaid to achieve President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' would lead to more preventable deaths. The full exchange at a May 30 town hall included one audience member shouting at the stage, 'People will die!' And Ernst responding, 'People are not — well, we all are going to die, so for heaven's sake.' That's not a health care policy — that's a horoscope for the terminally screwed. As you can imagine, the internet didn't love it, because losing your health should not trigger the equivalent of a shrug emoji from someone elected to serve the public good. But rather than walking it back, Ernst leaned in, filming a mock apology in a graveyard because nothing says, 'I care about your future,' like filming next to people who don't have one. Opinion: Nurses are drowning while Braun ignores Indiana's health care crisis Ernst's comments aren't just philosophical musings. She's justifying policy choices that cause real harm. If passed, this bill would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, remove health coverage for up to 7.6 million Americans. That's not just 'we all die someday' territory. That's 'some people will die soon and needlessly.' What makes this even more galling is that the people pushing these cuts have access to high-quality, taxpayer-subsidized healthcare. Congress gets the AAA, platinum, concierge-level government plan. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are told to try their luck with essential oils or YouTube acupuncture tutorials. Honestly, it felt more like performance art than policy: 'Sorry about your grandma getting kicked out of her assisted living facility. Please enjoy this scenic view of her future! LOL!' We're not asking you to defeat death, senator. Death is both inevitable and bipartisan. But there is a broad chasm between dying peacefully at 85 and dying in your 40's because your Medicaid plan disappeared and your GoFundMe didn't meet its goal. Fundamentally, governing is about priorities. A budget is a moral document. When a lawmaker tells you 'we're all going to die' in response to a policy choice, they're telling you 'I've made peace with your suffering as collateral damage.' And if a U.S. Senator can stand in a cemetery and joke about it, you have to wonder — who do our federal legislators think those graves are for? Opinion: Indiana DCS cut foster care in half — and now claims children are safer This isn't just about one comment or one bill. It's about a mindset that treats healthcare as a luxury rather than a right. If death is inevitable, then access to healthcare you can afford is what helps determine how long you have, how comfortably you live, and whether you get to watch your kids grow up. Healthcare isn't about escaping death. It's about dignity and quality of life while we are here. Ernst got one thing right: death will come for us all. But leadership, real leadership, is about helping people live as long and as well as they can before that day comes. You want to make jokes, Senator? Fine. But if your punchline is 'You're all going to die anyway,' don't be surprised when your constituents realize the joke's on them. Kristin Brey is the "My Take" columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Joni Ernst films graveyard video after telling sick people "we all die" | Opinion

We Saw Medicaid Work Requirements Up Close. You Don't Want This Chaos.
We Saw Medicaid Work Requirements Up Close. You Don't Want This Chaos.

New York Times

time5 hours ago

  • New York Times

We Saw Medicaid Work Requirements Up Close. You Don't Want This Chaos.

Many of the Republicans pushing for Medicaid work requirements — permanent program cuts that will strip up to 14 million people of their health care coverage — likely have no idea what it takes to comply with them. We do. As legal aid lawyers, we were on the front lines helping low-income people in Arkansas keep their health care coverage when the state rolled out work requirements in 2018. The policy caused chaos for everyone involved: people receiving Medicaid, hospitals and health clinics, pharmacies, social services organizations and state agency caseworkers. No officials serious about governing should willingly create such problems for their own state. Over 18,160 people in Arkansas lost coverage in only five months before courts halted the policy. Many were our clients. Adrian McGonigal had chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, for which he received treatment. At the time he held a job working 30 to 40 hours a week at a poultry plant, which paid more than any other job he'd had before and should have satisfied the requirement. But the state's system for automatically identifying working people was faulty, and Mr. McGonigal struggled to navigate the complex monthly reporting system on his own. Unable to report his work, he lost Medicaid, couldn't afford his C.O.P.D. medications, wound up in the hospital emergency room several times, lost his job and never fully recovered. For the next several years he struggled in various minimum-wage jobs, earning much less than he had at the poultry plant. Sadly, he died in November. We saw many working people face similar challenges. Our clients ran the gamut of low-wage work: fast food workers, restaurant dishwashers and servers, construction workers, janitors, landscapers, motel cleaners, gas station clerks and nursing assistants. Many had disabilities, and their ability to continue working depended on getting treatment to manage chronic pain, asthma, injuries, cancer and mental health conditions. Some lost coverage simply because they couldn't navigate the policy's complicated requirements and labyrinthine reporting process. Others lost insurance because of the instability of low-wage work: Bosses cut their hours or laid them off without warning, limited public transit narrowed their options or they lived in struggling rural areas where jobs were hard to come by. When the state cut them off, their health worsened and many lost jobs, as well as the ability to work new ones. Nobody on Medicaid was free from the tumult. Despite outreach from the state, there was widespread panic, as people didn't know if they had the type of Medicaid that the new requirements applied to. People received confusing 10-page letters from the state Medicaid office, which often contradicted other coverage letters people received around the same time. The website to report compliance shut down every night at 9 p.m., and when it was running, it was so complex that we put together video tutorials to help people navigate it successfully. (Many still couldn't.) People spent hours on the phone or at agency offices trying to figure out their status or fix errors, often needing a lawyer's help. In some cases, they had to pester their employers for extra proof of wages or statements that met the state's requirements. All told, 18,164 people were terminated because of noncompliance with the work requirements, and thousands more people lost coverage because of related paperwork burdens. What's more, these penalties operated as a tax on key economic sectors. Hospitals and health clinics, many already barely surviving in rural areas, assumed additional costs to untangle billing nightmares, absorb more uncompensated care and help confused patients document their eligibility for coverage. Local nonprofits, including services for the homeless, domestic violence shelters, food banks, soup kitchens and senior centers, spent their scarce resources trying to help people comply. Pharmacists dealt with the desperation of people learning for the first time that they had lost coverage and would have to pay out of pocket for their prescriptions. The state Medicaid agency also bent under the weight. Agency management sloughed off the thankless and time-consuming tasks of cleaning up endless system errors, figuring out workarounds and calming frantic people to overburdened caseworkers. At one point, the state's call centers were so overwhelmed that the agency expanded its hours of operation, which still didn't prevent lengthy wait times. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Can Tackling Addictions Reduce Medicaid Costs?
Can Tackling Addictions Reduce Medicaid Costs?

Newsweek

time7 hours ago

  • Newsweek

Can Tackling Addictions Reduce Medicaid Costs?

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Discussions around Medicaid costs have become more heated than ever in recent months as President Donald Trump's administration tries to push its budget bill through the legislative ranks. House Republicans have instructed the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to slash $880 billion in spending over the next decade, with Medicaid making up 93 percent of the committee's budget. As a result, the amount of money the federal Medicaid program needs to provide health care services for more than 70 million Americans has been under dispute, with some arguing there is significant waste and misuse of money in the system, while others have warned cuts would leave millions of vulnerable people without access to health care. While lawmakers continue debating the divisive legislation, experts have discussed with Newsweek whether there could be another way of reducing Medicaid costs—tackling substance use disorders. Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders require significantly higher health costs than those without—around $1,200 per month on average compared to $550, according to KFF. Around 7.2 percent of Medicaid recipients age 12 to 64 have a diagnosed substance use disorder, and treatment is key to addressing overdoses, deaths and other health or social complications, KFF reported. So could tackling substance use disorders in turn reduce costs for the Medicaid program? Here's what experts told Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva Why Are Medicaid Costs Higher for Those With Substance Use Disorders? The reason Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders have higher health costs is because they often also have additional health complications, Dr. Joshua Lynch, professor of emergency and addiction medicine at the University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, New York, told Newsweek. This could be physical health conditions, such as hypertension, high cholesterol and diabetes, or mental health disorders, "which can lead to more complex health care needs," he added. Those with substance use disorders also may "experience more fragmented care and more challenging access to high quality, lower cost care and preventative services," Lynch said. They may also struggle to work, or stay in work, and this may "contribute to increased reliance on higher-cost healthcare services," he added. Many Americans with substance use disorders also go undiagnosed, Brendan Saloner, professor of health policy and management at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. He added that those with substance addiction can have a lot of problems, such as the risk of overdose, or contracting blood-borne diseases like HIV or hepatitis C, as well as other issues, so "it's much better to get people into care proactively then to wait for their problems to become a crisis." The higher costs for those with substance use disorders, therefore, could "reflect the devastating physical consequences of substance use itself," Heidi Allen, professor of social work at the Columbia University School of Social Work, New York, told Newsweek, pointing to overdoses, increased vulnerability for chronic illness and exposure to infectious diseases. It's also not just about health complications, John Kelly, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and director of the Recovery Research Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, told Newsweek. "The nature of these disorders means also that, on average, in the Medicaid population, individuals suffering from substance use disorder tend to have more social instability in terms of secure housing, employment, and criminal justice complications. These all contribute to increased costs," he said. Could Tackling Substance Use Disorders Reduce Medicaid Costs? While tackling substance use disorders may not slash Medicaid costs in the short term, as it would require investment in prevention and treatment, it could have positive economic impacts in the long run. "Prioritizing substance use treatment for enrollees might not reduce Medicaid costs in the short term, since we would expect more Medicaid enrollees to engage with treatment, which itself costs money," Allen said. However, she added that "it could certainly improve the health of enrollees, which might result in Medicaid savings down the road." If patients also have access to high-quality treatment and are able to manage their condition, "they have a lower reliance on high-cost health care such as emergency visits and inpatient hospitalizations," Lynch said. He added that other comorbidities also become more manageable, while housing stability and employment turn more achievable. "All of these will lead to a decrease in overall Medicaid spending," he said. Kelly also said he thought that tackling substance use disorders could reduce costs for Medicaid, adding that "focus on earlier intervention, and better implementation of care coordination will result in reduced use of more expensive acute medical care services, as well as prevention of the contraction of more chronic disease such as alcohol-associated liver diseases, HIV and hepatitis infections." "I am very confident that it would help to prevent some long-term costs to the program and would have a huge impact on other non-health needs like employment and reduced incarceration," Saloner said. But he added that whether it fully pays for itself, or saves money, is a more difficult question to answer. "We have some older studies showing that substance use care can offset lots of costs to society, but purely from the perspective of the Medicaid budget it's hard to say. The quality of life gains make it very cost-effective, whether or not it's cost saving," he said. Carrie Fry, professor in the department of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Tennessee, told Newsweek: "Research shows that addressing substance use disorder with effective, evidence-based treatments reduces Medicaid costs." In order to cut Medicaid costs, Fry said, making it easier for people with substance use disorders "to start and remain on effective treatment" would be an important step in the process. "For opioid use disorder, this means expanding availability of medications for opioid use disorder including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone," she said. She added that only about half of Medicaid enrollees with an opioid use disorder receive evidence-based treatment in a given year. "So, treatment is an important first step to addressing the burden of substance use disorders in Medicaid and can reduce or prevent additional downstream costs," Fry said. She added that reducing the prevalence of substance use disorder via prevention will "require a more comprehensive approach to addressing broader social conditions that lead to increased risk of developing a substance use disorder."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store