Viewing offline content

Limited functionality available

Dismiss
United States
  • Services

    What's New

    • Register for Dbriefs webcasts

    • Unlimited Reality™

      Metaverse solutions that drive value

    • Sustainability, Climate & Equity

      Cultivating a sustainable and prosperous future

    • Tax

      • Tax Operate
      • Tax Legislation
      • Tax Technology Consulting
      • Global Employer Services
      • Legal Business Services
      • Tax Services
    • Consulting

      • Core Business Operations
      • Customer & Marketing
      • Enterprise Technology & Performance
      • Human Capital
      • Strategy & Analytics
    • Audit & Assurance

      • Audit Innovation
      • Accounting Standards
      • Accounting Events & Transactions
    • Deloitte Private

    • M&A and Restructuring

    • Risk & Financial Advisory

      • Accounting & Internal Controls
      • Cyber & Strategic Risk
      • Regulatory & Legal
      • Transactions and M&A
    • AI & Analytics

    • Cloud

    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

  • Industries

    What's New

    • The Ripple Effect

      Real-world client stories of purpose and impact

    • Register for Dbriefs webcasts

    • Industry Outlooks

      Key opportunities, trends, and challenges

    • Consumer

      • Automotive
      • Consumer Products
      • Retail, Wholesale & Distribution
      • Transportation, Hospitality & Services
    • Energy, Resources & Industrials

      • Industrial Products & Construction
      • Power, Utilities & Renewables
      • Energy & Chemicals
      • Mining & Metals
    • Financial Services

      • Banking & Capital Markets
      • Insurance
      • Investment Management
      • Real Estate
    • Government & Public Services

      • Defense, Security & Justice
      • Federal health
      • Civil
      • State & Local
      • Higher Education
    • Life Sciences & Health Care

      • Health Care
      • Life Sciences
    • Technology, Media & Telecommunications

      • Technology
      • Telecommunications, Media & Entertainment
  • Insights

    Deloitte Insights

    What's New

    • Deloitte Insights Magazine

      Explore the latest issue now

    • Deloitte Insights app

      Go straight to smart with daily updates on your mobile device

    • Weekly economic update

      See what's happening this week and the impact on your business

    • Strategy

      • Business Strategy & Growth
      • Digital Transformation
      • Governance & Board
      • Innovation
      • Marketing & Sales
      • Private Enterprise
    • Economy & Society

      • Economy
      • Environmental, Social, & Governance
      • Health Equity
      • Trust
      • Mobility
    • Organization

      • Operations
      • Finance & Tax
      • Risk & Regulation
      • Supply Chain
      • Smart Manufacturing
    • People

      • Leadership
      • Talent & Work
      • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Technology

      • Data & Analytics
      • Emerging Technologies
      • Technology Management
    • Industries

      • Consumer
      • Energy, Resources, & Industrials
      • Financial Services
      • Government & Public Services
      • Life Sciences & Health Care
      • Technology, Media, & Telecommunications
    • Spotlight

      • Deloitte Insights Magazine
      • Press Room Podcasts
      • Weekly Economic Update
      • COVID-19
      • Resilience
      • Top 10 reading guide
  • Careers

    What's New

    • Our Purpose

      Exceptional organizations are led by a purpose. At Deloitte, our purpose is to make an impact that matters by creating trust and confidence in a more equitable society.

    • Day in the Life: Our hybrid workplace model

      See how we connect, collaborate, and drive impact across various locations.

    • The Deloitte University Experience

      Explore Deloitte University like never before through a cinematic movie trailer and films of popular locations throughout Deloitte University.

    • Careers

      • Audit & Assurance
      • Consulting
      • Risk & Financial Advisory
      • Tax
      • Internal Services
      • US Delivery Center
    • Students

      • Undergraduate
      • Advanced Degree
      • Internships
    • Experienced Professionals

      • Additional Opportunities
      • Veterans
      • Industries
      • Executives
    • Job Search

      • Entry Level Jobs
      • Experienced Professional Jobs
      • Recruiting Tips
      • Explore Your Fit
      • Labor Condition Applications
    • Life at Deloitte

      • Life at Deloitte Blog
      • Meet Our People
      • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
      • Corporate Citizenship
      • Leadership Development
      • Empowered Well-Being
      • Deloitte University
    • Alumni Relations

      • Update Your Information
      • Events
      • Career Development Support
      • Marketplace Jobs Dashboard
      • Alumni Resources
  • US-EN Location: United States-English  
  • Contact us
  • US-EN Location: United States-English  
  • Contact us
    • Dashboard
    • Saved items
    • Content feed
    • Subscriptions
    • Profile/Interests
    • Account settings

Welcome back

Still not a member? Join My Deloitte

Social determinants of health and Medicaid payments

by Jim Jones, Sima Muller
  • Save for later
  • Download
  • Share
    • Share on Facebook
    • Share on Twitter
    • Share on Linkedin
    • Share by email
Deloitte Insights
  • Strategy
    Strategy
    Strategy
    • Business Strategy & Growth
    • Digital Transformation
    • Governance & Board
    • Innovation
    • Marketing & Sales
    • Private Enterprise
  • Economy & Society
    Economy & Society
    Economy & Society
    • Economy
    • Environmental, Social, & Governance
    • Health Equity
    • Trust
    • Mobility
  • Organization
    Organization
    Organization
    • Operations
    • Finance & Tax
    • Risk & Regulation
    • Supply Chain
    • Smart Manufacturing
  • People
    People
    People
    • Leadership
    • Talent & Work
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
  • Technology
    Technology
    Technology
    • Data & Analytics
    • Emerging Technologies
    • Technology Management
  • Industries
    Industries
    Industries
    • Consumer
    • Energy, Resources, & Industrials
    • Financial Services
    • Government & Public Services
    • Life Sciences & Health Care
    • Tech, Media, & Telecom
  • Spotlight
    Spotlight
    Spotlight
    • Deloitte Insights Magazine
    • Press Room Podcasts
    • Weekly Economic Update
    • COVID-19
    • Resilience
    • Top 10 reading guide
    • US-EN Location: United States-English  
    • Contact us
      • Dashboard
      • Saved items
      • Content feed
      • Subscriptions
      • Profile/Interests
      • Account settings
    08 November 2018

    Social determinants of health and Medicaid payments Steps states can take to factor social determinants of health into Medicaid payment policies

    08 November 2018
    • Jim Jones United States
    • Sima Muller United States
    • Save for later
    • Download
    • Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on Linkedin
      • Share by email
    • Accounting for the social determinants of health in risk adjustment
    • Steps states can take to incorporate SDoH into risk adjustment models
    • Accounting for the social determinants of health in P4P
    • Conclusion

    ​States that can successfully factor social needs into their health care payment policies may see health and well-being improvements among citizens while helping reduce health care utilization and spending.

    Greater use of the emergency room has been linked to homelessness,1 diabetes-related hospital admissions have been attributed to food insecurity,2 and social isolation has been identified as a risk factor for stroke and heart attack.3 These are just a few of the ways in which the social determinants of health (SDoH) contribute to health outcomes, health care utilization, and spending. These determinants, which include social, economic, and environmental factors such as income, housing, transportation, and education, account for roughly 20 percent of premature deaths in the United States.4

    Learn more

    Read more from the Government and public services collection

    Explore the Health care collection

    Subscribe to receive related content from Deloitte Insights

    Increased awareness of how SDoH can affect health outcomes has prompted many practitioners and policymakers to rethink health care delivery—especially for Medicaid beneficiaries, whose low incomes typically make them disproportionately likely to have health-related social needs.5 In fact, there are a number of broad-scale efforts now under way to identify and direct resources toward individuals with social needs. For example, some states are beginning to require managed care organizations (MCOs) to screen enrollees for social needs. Meanwhile, some providers and plans around the country are working with community-based organizations (CBOs) to link individuals to resources such as food pantries, housing supports, and transportation assistance.6 (For more information about social determinants of health, see figure 1.)

    Social determinants of health (health-related social needs) encompass a wide range of factors

    But another powerful, largely untapped way states can address social needs is through payment arrangements with MCOs, which cover nearly two-thirds of Medicaid beneficiaries nationwide.7 States that can successfully factor social needs into their health care payment policies with MCOs may begin to see significant improvements in the health and well-being of individuals who face socioeconomic and environmental challenges and help reduce avoidable health care utilization and spending.

    In this article, we discuss two complementary strategies states can use to address SDoH among Medicaid beneficiaries: risk adjustment and pay-for-performance (P4P). Both strategies are directed at MCOs. By factoring social needs into risk adjustment formulas, states can ensure that MCOs that have more members with social needs receive more money to take care of those members. This strategy also provides MCOs with the incentive to assess their members for social needs and capture data that can be shared with, and useful to, the state. Incorporating social needs measures into managed care P4P arrangements can help states develop, implement, track, and measure the impact of interventions that address health-related social needs.

    Because these strategies will require careful data collection and evaluation, it is unlikely states will be able to implement them immediately. But they can start on the path now. In this article, we outline the steps states can take to achieve these longer-term policy goals.

    Accounting for the social determinants of health in risk adjustment

    Under a managed care arrangement, a state pays a capitated rate—a fixed fee to an MCO for each person enrolled in the plan—and the MCO assumes the total cost of care for its population of Medicaid beneficiaries.8 States have traditionally considered age, gender, eligibility category, and region/locality when setting capitation rates. However, because financial risk varies based on the health of individuals covered by different MCOs, several state Medicaid programs apply risk adjustments to these capitation rates to offset the difference in cost between MCOs of providing health insurance for individuals who represent a relatively high risk to insurers. Under risk adjustment, an insurer who enrolls a greater than average number of high-risk individuals receives compensation to make up for extra costs associated with those enrollees. These risk adjustment models often account for enrollees’ medical histories and factor in chronic conditions, which tend to be strong predictors of care needs and expenditures.9 States typically gather health status information from medical claims, encounter data, and pharmacy data.10

    Though research demonstrates that socioeconomic status and social needs can influence health care utilization and expenditures, risk adjustment models typically do not account for these factors. Massachusetts is a notable exception (see sidebar, “Massachusetts incorporates two social indicators into their risk adjustment formula”). By incorporating social determinants into risk adjustment formulas, states can improve the accuracy of the relative rates they pay their MCOs while also providing MCOs with the incentive to assess their members for social needs and capture data that can be shared with the state and used to inform social interventions.

    Massachusetts incorporates two social indicators into their risk adjustment formula

    In 2016, Massachusetts implemented a new Medicaid payment model that incorporates housing indicators and neighborhood stress scores into its MCO risk adjustment formulas. In this state’s model, individuals who have had three or more addresses in a single calendar year, or individuals who are coded as “homeless” in a medical encounter record, increase an MCO’s risk score, resulting in higher payments to the plan. Neighborhood stress scores include a composite measure of “financial stress” from census data, based on addresses that are geocoded to the census block group or tract.11 Enrollees who live in neighborhoods with higher-than-average stress may also trigger higher payments for MCOs. Early evaluations of the Massachusetts model have found that adding social determinants and related variables to risk scores strengthens the predictive power of risk adjustment and yields more accurate payments to MCOs.12

    Steps states can take to incorporate SDoH into risk adjustment models

    A risk adjustment model could include factors such as housing instability, financial stress, food insecurity, social isolation, and low educational attainment. To date, no state has incorporated a robust set of SDoH-related indicators into its risk adjustment models. There are several possible reasons for this.

    First, since not all MCOs screen for social needs, states may lack data on such needs. Second, even when MCOs collect SDoH data, the screening tools organizations use can vary widely. They may be collecting different indicators, or two MCOs may define the same indicator in different ways. For example, one organization may define housing instability as chronic homelessness, while another defines it as frequent changes of address. Because risk adjustment models attempt to capture the relative risk of the population across organizations, MCOs must use the same indicators, defined in the same way, to make their comparisons. Without standardized definitions and data collection, states could struggle to develop and apply sound risk adjustment formulas.

    Despite these barriers, states can take several immediate steps to lay the groundwork for a risk adjustment model that considers a robust set of SDoH indicators (see figure 2).

    States can take the following steps to develop a risk adjustment model that incorporates SDoH indicators

    1. Use readily available data sources. While some SDoH data can be difficult to collect, states can find other individual- and aggregate-level indicators in a host of currently available data sources. These may include unstructured data stored in electronic health records (EHRs); health risk assessments collected by health plans and providers; integrated eligibility systems for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), child care, and Medicaid; and census data. (See sidebar, “SDoH data sources.”) States would need to standardize and integrate this data to make it meaningful, interpretable, and actionable.
    2. Develop a standardized screening tool that MCOs are required to use to screen for social needs. If all MCOs collect the same indicators, and those indicators define the same social needs in the same way, states would be able to compare populations served by different MCOs in a manner that ensures a fair distribution of capitation payments.
    3. Encourage providers to use ICD-10 Z codes to record social needs in EHRs. Providers use International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes to add virtually all patient diagnoses to EHRs. While most ICD-10 codes reference clinical conditions, symptoms, or procedures associated with health care delivery, a subset of these codes—Z codes—captures encounters related to social circumstances such as malnutrition or history of criminal conviction.13 Z codes are rarely used today, but they have the potential to serve as a valuable SDoH data resource.14 Recent Deloitte research shows that providers in a fee-for-service system may not have incentives to use the codes, and that state and federal regulations surrounding providers’ ability to collect and share data can conflict, leading to confusion among providers.15 States may be able to encourage the use of Z codes by requiring MCOs to enter into value-based care arrangements with providers, and by clarifying the rules governing providers’ collection and use of social needs data. (For more on Z codes, see the sidebar, "SDoH data sources.")
    4. Conduct actuarial analyses on the impact of social needs on Medicaid spending. By using available data sources and collecting additional data through a standardized screening tool and Z codes, states could begin to develop a more precise calculation of the relationship between various social needs and Medicaid spending. This, in turn, would refine states’ risk adjustment models over time. Ideally, they would do this work in cooperation with MCOs to keep the process transparent.

    SDoH data sources

    States can access a wealth of data to help determine the social needs of their beneficiaries. Below are data sources states can use to incorporate social needs into risk adjustment and pay-for-performance (P4P) models.

    • Integrated eligibility systems. States collect information on income, work history, and transportation access when developing employability plans for individuals enrolled in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Public Supportive Housing Systems include data on homelessness, housing needs and supports, and available housing inventories for individuals with varying needs. The Social Security Administration can provide work history, income data, and incarceration history. Additionally, worker compensation systems include information on health conditions related to employment and to barriers to employment. States can look internally to these and other data systems to extract valuable information on Medicaid beneficiaries.
    • Aggregate census data and other publicly available data sources. There is a strong correlation between where a person lives and his or her health and life expectancy. Organizations such as the US Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service, the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) collect many SDoH-related variables at the zip code or census tract level. Some of this data indicates characteristics of the neighborhood, such as availability of healthy food, the crime rate, or the housing vacancy rate. Other measures, such as the poverty and unemployment rates, are based on a random sample of people who live in a certain area.
    • Electronic health records (EHRs). Health care professionals add virtually all patient diagnoses to electronic health records (EHRs) using International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes. While most ICD-10 codes reference clinical conditions, symptoms, or procedures associated with the delivery of health care, a subset of these codes, Z codes (Z55-Z65), capture encounters related to social circumstances such as malnutrition or history of criminal conviction.16 EHRs may also contain a wealth of data garnered from assessments conducted by health care professionals. In addition, some researchers estimate that about 25 percent of patients have unstructured SDoH data stored as free-form clinician notes within their EHRs. This data could be extracted using tools such as natural language processing (NLP).17 As NLP becomes more sophisticated and Z codes are more consistently used, EHR data could become a richer source of SDoH data.
    • MCO member management platforms. MCOs collect a great deal of data on members’ needs during their member management initiatives, and then store this data in their electronic member management platforms. MCOs often conduct Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) with enrollees to identify risk factors and behaviors that may predict future health care costs and utilization. They often use the findings of the HRA to identify the most appropriate interventions for members who need them, for example, care management. HRA data, and subsequent data collected from members as part of care management and other initiatives, may include information about social needs and barriers.

     

    Accounting for the social determinants of health in P4P

    While accounting for SDoH through risk adjustment may improve the accuracy of payments from states to MCOs and incentivize MCOs to collect data on their members’ social needs, it does not incentivize MCOs to address those needs. To ensure that the needs of beneficiaries are not only identified but met, states can require or incentivize MCOs to implement SDoH interventions. States are beginning to move in this direction: Among the 39 states with comprehensive risk-based MCOs, 19—or roughly one-half—currently require their MCOs to screen for social needs and refer beneficiaries to social services.18 While screening and referrals are an important step, it’s even more important to ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries are actually completing the screening assessments, and that the interventions implemented successfully address social needs. States could use a combination of contractual requirements and incentive payments to achieve this goal.

    In existing arrangements with MCOs, states often offer bonus payments or other incentives to MCOs that succeed in measurably improving access to care, disease management, and clinical outcomes. Such P4P arrangements may also reward measurable reductions in preventable health care utilization and total cost of care. To date, however, these quality incentive programs have primarily focused on clinical measures alone.19 By also including SDoH in their P4P initiatives, states could encourage insurers and providers to address the social needs that research has linked to health outcomes.

    Optimally, states could set up a P4P arrangement that rewards MCOs for demonstrating that their SDoH interventions produce better health outcomes and reduce utilization and spending. It is important for states to recognize that if MCOs are to respond to payment incentives to address SDoH, bonus payments would need to exceed the investment costs. States would also have to rigorously monitor and evaluate these initiatives in order to provide accurate payments; before states can put such measures in place, they would need to standardize a set of quality metrics related to social determinants and assess which interventions work. By taking an incremental approach, states could gradually work their way toward implementing P4P arrangements for interventions that meet social needs (see figure 3).

    An incremental approach states can use to develop interventions that meet social needs

    1. Identify metrics. States should identify which process and outcome metrics should be used to evaluate the most effective interventions for specific social needs. Process measures should focus on actions taken by MCOs. For example, they might include the percentage of beneficiaries screened; the number of referrals the MCO makes to resources such as food pantries or job training services (based on identified social needs); or the number of partnerships established with community-based organizations. Outcome measures focus on results. They might include enrolling a beneficiary in a social service program such as TANF or SNAP, helping a beneficiary retain stable employment, or helping a beneficiary find permanent housing. Besides gathering data, states could use existing sources of research and analysis to help determine how different SDoH interventions may affect health outcomes, such as the County Health Rankings and Roadmaps’ “What works for health” tool.20
    2. Require states to use a standardized screening tool. States should develop or identify a standardized screening tool, potentially incorporated into their integrated eligibility system, and require that MCOs use it to screen Medicaid beneficiaries for social needs. This step could improve risk adjustment, and could be just as crucial for establishing P4P programs. Standardization would enable states to make apples-to-apples comparisons and discover which interventions work for social needs at scale. It could also help ensure that all organizations collect the same indicators, and that those indicators measure social needs in the same way.
    3. Pay-for-reporting. Before advancing to P4P, states could require MCOs to implement and provide data on programs with clearly defined SDoH goals, target populations, and metrics aligned to the state’s chosen SDoH measures, and in exchange reimburse MCOs for the expected associated costs. Based on the data that emerges from these programs, states could then refine their ideas about which metrics should be used in a P4P initiative and how often MCOs should provide reports. Armed with this knowledge, states would develop P4P initiatives that provide incentives for the interventions most likely to produce the best outcomes.
    4. P4P. States can link their payments to SDoH interventions and health outcomes in two ways: First, they could give bonus payments to MCOs that exceed benchmarks on state-defined SDoH-specific process and outcome measures. Second, they could tie incentives to interventions that improve health outcomes. States could use related quality measures to evaluate the impact of MCO SDoH interventions. For example, for interventions aimed at food insecurity among beneficiaries with diabetes, states could look for improved diabetes control; for interventions aimed at homelessness, they could seek reduced hospital readmission rates and less nonurgent emergency room visits.

    Conclusion

    As this article outlines, incorporating SDoH into risk adjustment models can allow states to more appropriately compensate health plans that disproportionately cover populations with a high burden of social needs and incentivize MCOs to collect social needs data on their members. Giving MCOs incentives to address Medicaid members’ social needs through an incremental approach that culminates in P4P or contractually requiring them to do so can enable states and MCOs to better understand the links between social needs and health, and develop programs that effectively address those needs.

    More broadly, if states incorporate SDoH into their health care payment policies, they can better address the socioeconomic barriers their citizens face, improve citizens’ health, and reduce avoidable health care utilization and spending. The step-by-step strategies outlined in this article can help states begin their journey toward achieving these goals.

    Authors

    Jim Jones is a specialist executive in Deloitte Consulting’s Operations Transformation practice, with deep subject matter expertise in Medicaid, insurance affordability programs, and human services programs. Jones is based in Chicago.
    Sima Muller is a senior consultant in Deloitte Consulting’s Operations Transformation practice. She is based in New York.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors would like to thank Melissa Majerol and Andrew Li for their contributions to the research and development of this piece, and for their writing support. In addition, the authors would like to thank Russ Pederson, Linh Thuy Dong, Amanda Lothrop, Tim FitzPatrick, Lindsay Farley, Matt Mardorff, and Bill Eggers for their insights and contributions.

    Cover image by: Lucy Rose

    Endnotes
      1. Zeynal Karaca, Ruirui Sun, and Herbert S. Wong, “Characteristics of homeless individuals using emergency department services in 2014,” Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, October 2017. View in article

      2. Hilary K. Seligman et al., “Exhaustion of food budgets at month’s end and hospital admissions for hypoglycemia,” Health Affairs 33, no. 1 (2014): DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0096. View in article

      3. Christian Hakulinen et al., “Social isolation and loneliness as risk factors for myocardial infarction, stroke and mortality: UK Biobank cohort study of 479 054 men and women,” Heart 204, no. 18 (2018). View in article

      4. Steven A. Schroeder, “We can do better—Improving the health of the American people,” The New England Journal of Medicine 379, no. 12 (2007): DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa073350. View in article

      5. Anna Spencer et al., Measuring social determinants of health among Medicaid beneficiaries: Early state lessons, Center for Health Care Strategies, December 2016. View in article

      6. Kathleen Gifford et al., “Medicaid moving ahead in uncertain times: Results from a 50-state Medicaid budget survey for state fiscal years 2017 and 2018,” Kaiser Family Foundation, October 19, 2017. View in article

      7. Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, MACStats: Medicaid and CHIP Data Book (Washington, DC: Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, 2017). View in article

      8. Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, Payment policy in Medicaid managed care, 2011. View in article

      9. Ibid. View in article

      10. Ibid. View in article

      11. Arlene Ash and Eric Mick, UMass risk adjustment project for MassHealth payment and care delivery reform: Describing the 2017 payment model, Commonwealth Medicine Center for Health Policy and Research, 2016, p. 6. View in article

      12. Ibid. View in article

      13. ICD10Data.com, “Factors influencing health status and contact with health services,” accessed October 8, 2018. View in article

      14. Josh Lee and Casey Korba, Addressing social determinants of health in hospitals: How are hospitals and health systems investing in social needs?, Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, 2017. View in article

      15. Ibid. View in article

      16. ICD10Data.com, “Factors influencing health status and contact with health services.” View in article

      17. Simon Beaulah, “Leveraging natural language processing to uncover social determinants of health insights,” MedCity News, April 13, 2018. View in article

      18. Gifford et al., “Medicaid moving ahead in uncertain times.” View in article

      19. Medicaid.gov, “Adult health care quality measures,” accessed October 8, 2018. View in article

      20. County Health Rankings & Roadmaps Program, “What works for health,” accessed October 8, 2018. View in article

    Show moreShow less

    Topics in this article

    Government , Health Care , Public Sector , Americas

    Public Sector State Health Services and Solutions

    Deloitte LLP's public sector state health care consultancy helps states address their most difficult health and Medicaid challenges, including managing costs, enhancing the individual care experience, and improving population health. Our teams offer expert Medicaid consulting and industry-leading insights, solutions, and business practices. Whether it's modernizing technology systems, aligning federal policies and standards, or helping states develop Medicaid waivers and transform their programs, Deloitte brings the innovative tools, subject matter expertise, and time-tested experience to help states achieve their missions and effectively manage their programs.

    Learn more
    Get in touch
    Contact
    • ​Russ Pederson
    • Principal
    • Deloitte Consulting LLP
    • rpederson@deloitte.com
    • +1 608 354-3181

    Download Subscribe

    Related

    img Trending

    Interactive 3 days ago

    Jim Jones

    Jim Jones

    Specialist Executive | Deloitte

    Jim Jones is a specialist executive in Deloitte Consulting’s Operations Transformation practice, with deep subject matter expertise in Medicaid, insurance affordability programs, and human services programs. 

    • jamesdjones@deloitte.com
    • +1 608 234 7371
    Sima Muller

    Sima Muller

    Senior Consultant | Deloitte

    Sima Muller is a senior consultant in Deloitte Consulting’s Operations Transformation practice. Her focus areas include Medicaid, population health management, and innovative programs to serve complex populations.

    • simuller@deloitte.com
    • +1 212 436 4456

    Share article highlights

    See something interesting? Simply select text and choose how to share it:

    Email a customized link that shows your highlighted text.
    Copy a customized link that shows your highlighted text.
    Copy your highlighted text.

    Social determinants of health and Medicaid payments has been saved

    Social determinants of health and Medicaid payments has been removed

    An Article Titled Social determinants of health and Medicaid payments already exists in Saved items

    Invalid special characters found 
    Forgot password

    To stay logged in, change your functional cookie settings.

    OR

    Social login not available on Microsoft Edge browser at this time.

    Connect Accounts

    Connect your social accounts

    This is the first time you have logged in with a social network.

    You have previously logged in with a different account. To link your accounts, please re-authenticate.

    Log in with an existing social network:

    To connect with your existing account, please enter your password:

    OR

    Log in with an existing site account:

    To connect with your existing account, please enter your password:

    Forgot password

    Subscribe

    to receive more business insights, analysis, and perspectives from Deloitte Insights
    ✓ Link copied to clipboard
    • Contact us
    • Search jobs
    • Submit RFP
    • Subscribe to Deloitte Insights
    Follow Deloitte Insights:
    Global office directory US office locations
    US-EN Location: United States-English  
    About Deloitte
    • About Deloitte
    • Client stories
    • My Deloitte
    • Deloitte Insights
    • Email subscriptions
    • Press releases
    • Submit RFP
    • US office locations
    • Alumni
    • Global office directory
    • Newsroom
    • Dbriefs webcasts
    • Contact us
    Services
    • Tax
    • Consulting
    • Audit & Assurance
    • Deloitte Private
    • M&A and Restructuring
    • Risk & Financial Advisory
    • AI & Analytics
    • Cloud
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    Industries
    • Consumer
    • Energy, Resources & Industrials
    • Financial Services
    • Government & Public Services
    • Life Sciences & Health Care
    • Technology, Media & Telecommunications
    Careers
    • Careers
    • Students
    • Experienced Professionals
    • Job Search
    • Life at Deloitte
    • Alumni Relations
    • About Deloitte
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy
    • Privacy Shield
    • Cookies
    • Cookie Settings
    • Legal Information for Job Seekers
    • Labor Condition Applications
    • Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

    © 2023. See Terms of Use for more information.

    Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee ("DTTL"), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as "Deloitte Global") does not provide services to clients. In the United States, Deloitte refers to one or more of the US member firms of DTTL, their related entities that operate using the "Deloitte" name in the United States and their respective affiliates. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of public accounting. Please see www.deloitte.com/about to learn more about our global network of member firms.

    Learn more about Deloitte's work for the US Olympic Committee