What Does the State Innovation Model Experiment Tell Us About States' Capacity to Implement Complex Health Reforms?

Policy Points To make progress implementing payment and delivery system reforms, state governments need to make genuine stakeholder engagement routine business, develop reforms that build on past successes, and ensure health reform is a top priority for bureaucrats and political leaders. To support state-led reform initiatives, the federal government needs to provide financial support directly to state governments; build bureaucratic capability in supporting state officials with policy design and implementation; develop more flexible, outcome-focused funding programs; reform its own programs, particularly Medicare; and commit to a long-term strategy for progressing payment and delivery system reforms.

CONTEXT

For decades, Americans have debated whether the states need federal government support to reform health care. The Affordable Care Act has allowed the federal government to trial innovative ways of accelerating state-led reform initiatives through the State Innovation Model (SIM), which was run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Innovation Center between 2013 and 2019. This study assesses states' progress implementing health reforms under SIM and examines how well the federal government supported them.

METHODS

Detailed case studies were conducted in six states: Arkansas, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. Data was collected from SIM evaluation and annual reports and through semistructured interviews with 39 expert informants, mostly state or federal officials involved in SIM. Preliminary findings were tested and refined through an online forum with health policy experts, facilitated by the Milbank Memorial Fund.

FINDINGS

States that made the most progress implementing reforms had a strong track record and managed to sustain stakeholder, bureaucratic, and political support for their reform agenda. There was a clear correlation between past reform success and success under SIM, which raises questions about the value of federal government support beyond providing funding. State officials said the federal government could better support states, particularly those with less reform experience, by providing tailored advice that helped state officials overcome problems designing and implementing reforms. State officials also said the federal government could better support them by reforming their own programs, particularly Medicare, and committing to a long-term strategy for health system reform.

CONCLUSIONS

States can make some progress reforming health care on their own, but real progress requires long-term cooperation between state and federal governments. Federal initiatives like SIM that foster cooperation between governments should be continued but refined so they provide better support to states.

Statewide Evaluation of Washington's State Innovation Model Initiative: A Mixed-Methods Approach

The Washington State Innovation Model (SIM) $65 million Test Award from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is a statewide intervention expected to improve population health, quality of care, and cost growth through 4 initiatives in 2016-2018: (1) regional accountable communities of health linking health and social services to address local needs; (2) a practice transformation support hub; (3) four value-based payment reform pilot projects mainly in state employee and Medicaid populations; and (4) data and analytic infrastructure development to support system transformation with common measures. A mixed-methods study design and data from the 2013-2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Surveys are used to estimate whether SIM resulted in changes in access to care, health behaviors, and health status in Washington's adult population. Semi-structured qualitative interviews also were conducted to assess stakeholder perceptions of SIM performance. SIM may have reduced binge drinking, but no effects were detected for heavy drinking, physical activity, smoking, having a regular doctor checkup, unmet health care needs, and fair or poor health status. Complex interventions, such as SIM, may have unintended consequences. SIM was associated unexpectedly with increased unhealthy days, but whether the association was related to the Initiative or other factors is unclear. Over 3 years, stakeholders generally agreed that SIM was implemented successfully and increased Washington's readiness for system transformation but had not yet produced expected outcomes, partly because SIM had not spread statewide. Stakeholders perceived that scaling up SIM statewide takes time to achieve and remains challenging.