Connect with us

Published

on

States are plowing billions of dollars into a high-stakes health care experiment thats exploding around the country: using scarce public health insurance money to provide housing for the poorest and sickest Americans.

This story also ran on CNN. It can be republished for free.

California is going the biggest, pumping $12 billion into an ambitious Medicaid initiative largely to help homeless patients find housing, pay for it, and avoid eviction. Arizona is allocating $550 million in Medicaid funding primarily to cover six months of rent for homeless people. Oregon is spending more than $1 billion on services such as emergency rental assistance for patients facing homelessness. Even ruby-red Arkansas will dedicate nearly $100 million partly to house its neediest.

At least 19 states are directing money from Medicaid the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people into housing aid and addressing the nations growing homelessness epidemic, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Even though theres little agreement that this will provide a long-term fix for vulnerable patients health or housing, the Biden administration is encouraging other states to jump in. Several are in the pipeline, including Tennessee, West Virginia, and Montana and New York got the green light from the federal government in January.

Using health care funding to house people is a big philosophical debate, said Alex Demyan, assistant director of Arizonas Medicaid agency. We know health care cant solve all the problems, but we also know that housing agencies are maxed out and we have enormous need to help stabilize people.

Homelessness jumped 12% in the U.S. last year, to an estimated 653,104 Americans, the highest level on record, even as the nation dramatically increased its inventory of permanent housing and temporary shelter beds.

As people languish on the streets, often struggling with addiction, severe mental illness, and untreated chronic diseases, health care officials and political leaders are turning to health insurance money for relief. They argue that housing aid will improve health and save taxpayer money by keeping people out of institutions such as nursing homes, hospitals, and jails.

But evidence supporting this argument is mixed.

For instance, in a trial by researchers at the University of California-San Francisco, homeless people in Santa Clara County, California, who were randomly assigned to receive long-term housing and services used the psychiatric emergency department 38% less than a control group over four years while increasing their use of routine mental health care. But participants were still hospitalized at high rates and continued to rely on the emergency room for routine medical care or rest.

State Medicaid programs have long dabbled in housing, but with the blessing and encouragement of the Biden administration, they are launching more services for more people with heaps of new state and federal money. The trend is part of a broader White House strategy that encourages Medicaid directors to offer social services alongside traditional medical care, with the goal of making their residents healthier.

A health care dollar can do more than just pay for a doctor visit or hospital stay, Xavier Becerra, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told KFF Health News. We should be using the federal health care dollar for wellness care: Get them before they get ill, and keep them healthy. Is there anyone who would deny that someone who is homeless is going to have a harder time also keeping their health up than someone who is housed with running water and heat?

Becerra acknowledged these initiatives as experiments. But he said the federal government can no longer ignore the rampant death and disease that is plaguing homeless populations around the U.S.

Were simply saying, State, if you can prove to us that with this Medicaid dollar you will improve someones health or health outcome, then you have essentially served the purpose of the Medicaid program and youre saving taxpayers more money, he said.

But not all health care leaders or even homelessness experts believe this is the best use of Medicaid money, especially by a safety-net program that faces routine criticism for failing to provide basic health care to many enrollees.

If youre on Medicaid, you often have to wait months and months for a specialty visit, even if its a life-threatening concern, so I worry about what people wont be able to get because of this, said Margot Kushel, a leading homelessness researcher and primary care doctor at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center who primarily treats low-income patients.

Its not that I dont want the money to be spent, but is it best spent in health care? she asked. It’s much better than nothing, but it’s far from providing the long-term housing and stability that people really need.

Kushel said the danger is that most Medicaid housing assistance can be used only once or is time-limited, such as rental payments, which typically end after six months.

By the time folks get into housing, theyre already really, really sick, she said. What happens at the end of six months when rental assistance like free rent runs out? Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing. Your Email Address Sign Up

Housing as Health Care

Across the country, state Medicaid programs are stretching the definition of health care and getting into the business of social services, delivering a range of nontraditional benefits such as healthy home-delivered meals for patients with diabetes and air filters for patients with asthma.

While the federal government historically has banned the use of Medicaid money for direct rent payments, that has changed.

In 2022, Arizona received federal approval for an initiative called H2O, which will prioritize homeless people and those at risk of losing housing who also have a mental health condition and chronic illness. When it launches in October, it will primarily provide two services: rent payments for up to six months; and transitional housing, which can include shelters with intensive services.

Arizona saw a 5% jump in homelessness in 2023 from the previous year. Its program will supplement a separate state-funded Medicaid initiative that provides 3,000 rent vouchers for people in southern Arizona who have a severe mental illness and are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. About 5,000 people are on the waiting list for a voucher.

Weve seen such positive health outcomes and cost reductions as a result, so it made total sense to us to expand our work in that space, Demyan said. That program slashed ER visits 45% and reduced hospital inpatient admissions 53% at the six-month mark after patients started receiving services, while increasing less costly preventive care 56% and saving $4,300 per member, per month, according to state data.

California, home to nearly 30% of the nations homeless population, saw a nearly 6% jump in homelessness in 2023, to about 181,000 people.

The state launched its massive CalAIM initiative in 2022 to offer a wide variety of social services to a small sliver of the states roughly 15 million Medicaid enrollees. A large share of the resources are going to housing services for homeless people or those facing eviction, such as covering security deposits and enlisting case managers to hunt for available apartments. State leaders are also asking the Biden administration for permission to provide six months of rent.

If youre saddled with a great deal of either physical or behavioral health conditions, whether its diabetes or HIV, high blood pressure or schizophrenia, without housing, its really hard to stabilize those conditions, said Mark Ghaly, secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency.

But he cautioned that Medicaids core focus must remain getting people healthy, even if theyre living outside, which is a monumental and expesive challenge because conditions like diabetes, heart disease, and HIV require continuous treatment and often multiple medications.

I do not think that health care is responsible for solving homelessness in California or anywhere else, Ghaly said. But if housing instability or lack of housing is one of the key drivers getting in the way of being healthy, then absolutely we need to pay attention to it.

Health insurers that provide Medicaid coverage in California can choose whether to provide housing services, but Oregon is requiring Medicaid insurers to do so.

Homelessness grew 12% in Oregon from 2022 to 2023, but the state is targeting patients at risk of becoming homeless. Participants will be eligible for six months of rent and other services when the program launches in November, said Dave Baden, deputy director of the Oregon Health Authority.

Were really trying to focus on people teetering on the brink, Baden said. If youre already homeless, you really need longer, sustainable housing dollars to keep that person housed.

Its not just states experimenting with this approach. Kaiser Permanente is one of the health systems that has invested its own funds into housing. In recent years, the health care giant has committed hundreds of millions of dollars to help maintain or build thousands of affordable housing units, in addition to providing housing-related Medicaid benefits for its members.

We have to do something. The crisis is out of control, said Bechara Choucair, its chief health officer. Are you covered by Medi-Cal?

We want to hear about your experiences and, with your permission, may incorporate your story into our coverage. Please tell us what it has been like for you as you have sought and received care, including the good and the bad, the obstacles and the successes.Share Your Story

Mission Creep

Sherry Glied, a professor at New York University and former Obama administration official who is an expert in health care economics, warned in a recent health policy analysis of mission creep in health care. She cautioned that health care institutions getting into the business of social services could be a dangerous distraction.

Glied pointed to at least 57 health systems and 917 hospitals around the country that have launched social service initiatives, with most focusing on housing. Because many institutions struggle to meet patient safety and quality care standards, Glied argued that they should instead improve basic care and leave housing to social service organizations that specialize in this work.

Providing people with food or housing is pretty far removed from the core mission of health care, she told KFF Health News.

Peter Lee, another former Obama administration official and the founding executive director of Californias Obamacare exchange, said health care providers should consider offering some housing and social services, but he fears such initiatives may divert money from traditional medicine and prevent patients from getting adequate care.

In the past five to 10 years, there has been a lot of recognition that health is about much more than actual health care. Very true, Lee said. The question is how do you address those issues while health care itself is not doing too great. The brass tacks of this is making sure people with diabetes have great diabetes care, that people get checkups in time, that people can get the regular health care they need.

State Medicaid programs, which provide care to at least 80 million Americans, often struggle to deliver basic medical services, such as childhood dental visits and breast cancer screenings. In California, the state spending the most on housing services, children on Medicaid did not have timely access to care for mental health or substance use in 2022, according to an audit published in November.

Despite these shortfalls, most of the states that have been given the federal go-ahead to experiment with housing services have secured funding for five years. California is among the states that hope to make the benefits permanent.

Though a Republican presidency could interrupt this trend, states say theyre committed even if their initiatives dont pass a traditional cost-benefit analysis.

The singular focus on a financial return on investment is not as clear as it was previously, said Cindy Mann, a federal Medicaid director under Obama.

States are just seeing how little sense it makes to treat people and then release them back to the streets without the support they need.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Angela Hart: ahart@kff.org, @ahartreports Related Topics California Health Industry Insurance Medi-Cal Medicaid Public Health Arizona Arkansas California Legislature Homeless Legislation Montana Oregon Tennessee West Virginia Contact Us Submit a Story Tip

Continue Reading

Business

Budget means ‘difficult decisions’ already being taken, retail chiefs warn

Published

on

By

Budget means 'difficult decisions' already being taken, retail chiefs warn

Dozens of retail bosses have signed a letter to the chancellor warning of dire consequences for the economy and jobs if she pushes ahead with budget plans which, they say, will raise their costs by £7bn next year alone.

There were 79 signatories to the British Retail Consortium’s (BRC’s) response to Rachel Reeves’ first budget last month, a draft of which was seen by Sky News last week.

As farmers prepared to launch their own protest in London over inheritance tax measures, the retail lobby group’s letter to Number 11 Downing Street was just as scathing over the fiscal event’s perceived impact.

It warned that higher costs, from measures such as higher employer National Insurance contributions and National Living Wage increases next year, would be passed on to shoppers and hit employment and investment.

The letter, backed by the UK boss of the country’s largest retailer Tesco and counterparts including the chief executives of Sainsbury’s, Next and JD Sports, stated: “Retail is already one of the highest taxed business sectors, along with hospitality, paying 55% of profits in business taxes.

“Despite this, we are highly competitive, with margins of around 3-5%, ensuring great value for customers.

“For any retailer, large or small, it will not be possible to absorb such significant cost increases over such a short timescale.

More from Money

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

PM vows to defend budget decisions

“The effect will be to increase inflation, slow pay growth, cause shop closures, and reduce jobs, especially at the entry level. This will impact high streets and customers right across the country.

“We are already starting to take difficult decisions in our businesses and this will be true across the whole industry and our supply chain.”

The budget raised employers’ National Insurance contributions by 1.2 percentage points to 15% from April 2025, and also lowered the threshold for when firms start paying to £5,000 from £9,100 per year.

It also raised the minimum wage for most adults by 6.7% from April.

The BRC has previously pleaded for the total cost burden, which also includes business rates and a £2bn hit from a packaging levy, to be phased in and its chairman has said the measures fly in the face of the government’s “pro-business rhetoric” of the election campaign.

Official data covering the past few months has raised questions over whether the core message since July of a tough budget ahead has knocked confidence, hitting employment and economic growth in the process.

The government was yet to comment on the letter, which pleaded for an urgent meeting, but a spokesperson for prime minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously stated in response to BRC criticism that the budget “took tough choices but necessary choices to fix the foundations, to fix the fiscal blackhole that the government had inherited and to restore economic stability.”

Continue Reading

Business

What’s the beef with farmers’ inheritance tax?

Published

on

By

Row over how many farms will be affected by inheritance tax policy - as PM doubles down ahead of farmers protest

Farmers have left the fields for the streets of the capital in protest at changes to inheritance tax that will see death duties payable by some farmers on agricultural and business property.

The Treasury estimates the changes, revealed in the budget, will raise up to £520m a year. Farmers and campaigners say they threaten the future of thousands of multi-generational family farms.

Here, we take a look at the issues involved to explain why farmers are angry.

What is inheritance tax?

Inheritance tax (IHT) is ordinarily payable on estates at 40%. Estates passed to a surviving spouse or civil partner, charity or community sports club are exempt, and there are reliefs on property passed to children, relatives and others.

Estates worth less than £325,000 are not taxed, with a further £175,000 of relief given if a home is left to children or grandchildren, giving a total of £500,000 tax free. Currently around 4% of estates are liable for IHT.

What are the plans for inheritance tax on farmers?

More on Farming

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Farmers ‘betrayed’ over tax change

Since 1984 farmers and agricultural land and business owners have been exempt from IHT, thanks to a series of tax “reliefs” that can be applied to estates.

There are two broad categories, both offering 100% relief. Agricultural Property Relief (APR), covers land and farm buildings, and Business Property Relief (BPR) applies to livestock, machinery such as tractors and combine harvesters, and assets developed to diversify income, such as cottages converted to short-term lets, or farm shops.

From 2026 those 100% reliefs will end, replaced by limited relief for farmers on more generous terms than general IHT.

Estates will receive relief of £1m, with up to £500,000 of additional relief, as with non-farming estates. If a farm is jointly-owned by a couple in a marriage or civil partnership, the relief doubles from £1.5m to £3m.

Any tax owed beyond the level of relief will be charged at 20%, half the standard 40%. If farms are gifted to family members at least seven years before death no IHT is payable.

Why is the government acting?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Starmer the farmer harmer’

Those generous reliefs have made agriculture an attractive investment for those seeking to shelter wealth from the taxman. Jeremy Clarkson, the UK’s highest profile farmer – and opponent of the government’s plans – said as much when promoting his Amazon series about becoming the proprietor of Diddly Squat Farm in Oxfordshire.

“Land is a better investment than any bank can offer. The government doesn’t get any of my money when I die. And the price of the food that I grow can only go up,” he told the Times.

Mr Clarkson is far from alone. Private and institutional investors, along with so-called “lifestyle” farmers funding purchases from previous careers, like the former Top Gear presenter and his Oxfordshire neighbour, the Blur bassist Alex James, now dominate agricultural land purchases.

Figures from land agents Strutt & Parker show those three categories made up more than half of all agricultural land purchases in England last year, with just 47% bought by traditional farmers.

In the first three quarters of this year the figure is down to 31%, fewer than the 35% of purchases made by private investors. (Strutt & Parker stress that less than 1% of land changes hands every year and the majority remains in the hands of farmers and traditional landowners.)

The most valuable estates also receive the lion’s share of tax relief. Analysis by the Resolution Foundation shows 6% of estates worth more than £2.5m claimed 35% of APR, and 4% of the most valuable accounted for 53% of BPR in 2020.

In the budget the Treasury said “it is not fair or sustainable for a very small number of claimants each year to claim such a significant amount of relief”.

How many farms does the government say will be affected?

The government says around a quarter of farms will be impacted by the changes, based on the annual tally of claims for Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief made in the event of a farm owners’ death.

The latest figures for APR, for 2021-22, show that for estates worth more than £1m and therefore potentially exposed to the new regime, there were 462 claims, 27% of the total.

More than 340 claims were in the £1m-£2.5m band, with 37 claims from estates claiming more than £5m of relief, at an average of £6.35m.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Budget tax measures ‘fair’

For Business Property Relief, which also includes shares held on unlisted markets including the London AIM market, there were 552 claims for more than £1m, or 13% of the total, with 63 claims worth more than £5m in relief, at an average value of £8m.

While ministers insist smaller farms will be protected, the merging of APR and BPR seems certain to increase the value of estates for IHT purposes. New tractors and combine harvesters are six-figure investments, and farmers say rising land values mean the reliefs are less generous than the government maintains.

What do farmers say?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Farmer’s conditional support for tax shift

Farmers and campaigners say the government’s figures are far too low. The Country Landowners Association estimates 70,000 farms could be affected, a figure reached by multiplying average arable land value by the average farm size that they conceded should be treated with caution.

The National Farmers’ Union points to figures from the Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs, which show 49% of farms in England had a net value of more than £1.5m. On that basis almost 50,000 farm owners may need to consult an accountant.

The NFU’s central point is that the economics of farming mean levying inheritance tax could be ruinous for many. While farmers and agricultural landowners are asset rich, courtesy of their land, property and equipment, they are cash poor.

Average income in every category of cropping farms declined in 2023, with cereals revenue falling by 200% year-on-year, and average earnings across the board of less than £50,000.

For farms with meagre incomes facing hefty IHT bills and no tax planning, land sales may be the only option. That could be terminal for some family dynasties, but it would make IHT the final straw, rather than the root cause in an industry that, for far too many farmers, simply does not pay.

Continue Reading

UK

More prisoners are being transferred to less secure jails to tackle overcrowding crisis, Sky News understands

Published

on

By

More prisoners are being transferred to less secure jails to tackle overcrowding crisis, Sky News understands

The prison service is starting to recategorise the security risk of offenders to ease capacity pressures, Sky News understands.

It involves lowering or reconsidering the threshold of certain offenders to move them from the closed prison estate (category A to C) to the open estate (category D) because there are more free cell spaces there.

Examples of this could include discounting adjudications – formal hearings when a prisoner is accused of breaking the rules – for certain offenders, so they don’t act as official reasons not to transport them to a lower-security jail.

Prisoners are also categorised according to an Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) status. There are different levels – basic, standard and enhanced – based on how they keep to the rules or display a commitment to rehabilitation.

Usually ‘enhanced’ prisoners take part in meaningful activity – employment and training – making them eligible among other factors, to be transferred to the open estate.

Insiders suggest this system in England and Wales is being rejigged so that greater numbers of ‘standard’ prisoners can transfer, whereas before it would more typically be those with ‘enhanced’ status.

Open prisons have minimal security and allow eligible prisoners to spend time on day release away from the prison on license conditions to carry out work or education.

More on Prisons

The aim is to help reintegrate them back into society once they leave. As offenders near the end of their sentence, they are housed in open prisons.

Many of those released as part of the early release scheme in October after serving 40% of their sentence were freed from open prisons.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Overcrowding in UK prisons


They were the second tranche of offenders freed as part of this scheme, and had been sentenced to five years or more.

Despite early release measures, prisons are still battling a chronic overcrowding crisis. The male estate is almost full, operating at around 97% capacity.

Read more from Sky News:
Find out what it’s really like inside prison?
Prison recalls soar as justice system struggles
Campaigners demand IPP sentences are scrapped

Sky News understands there continue to be particular pinch points across the country.

Southwest England struggled over the weekend with three space-related ‘lockouts’ – which means prisoners are held in police suites or transferred to other jails because there is no space.

One inmate is believed to have been transported from Exeter to Cardiff.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The new government inherited a prison system on the point of collapse. We took the necessary action to stop our prisons from overflowing and to protect the public.

“This is not a new scheme. Only less-serious offenders who meet a strict criteria are eligible, and the Prison Service can exclude anyone who can’t be managed safely in a category D prison.”

Continue Reading

Trending