Showing posts with label Philadelphia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philadelphia. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

8 ways to improve health care for adult heterosexuals

In November 2014, the Office of HIV Planning held focus groups with adult heterosexuals. The groups discussed the men’s and women’s experiences with health care, their ideal health care experience, and HIV testing in Philadelphia.  The full analysis and recommendations can be found here.

A low perception of HIV risk persists among heterosexuals in Philadelphia, despite the fact that there are almost equal numbers of heterosexuals living with HIV/AIDS (3,153) as men who have sex with men (3,140). However in recent years, diagnoses of HIV among heterosexuals have been decreasing in Philadelphia, from 316 in 2010 to 254 in 2014. Despite declining numbers of new infections in the overall heterosexual population, racial disparities among heterosexuals are stark. In 2014, there were 5,105 Black heterosexuals living with HIV/AIDS in Philly, 8 times as many as Whites (612) and 5 times as many as Hispanics (985). In 2014, there were 4,026 Black women living with HIV/AIDS, 7 times more than White women and 5 times more than Hispanic women.

According to the CDC, sexual risk among heterosexuals is quite common, including unprotected anal and vaginal intercourse and recent diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections. Many people have high-risk sex but do not recognize their own risk. In Philadelphia, 82% of men in the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System sample had vaginal sex without a condom and 36% had anal sex without a condom in the previous year. For the women in the same sample, 86% had vaginal sex without a condom and 21% had anal sex without a condom in the previous year.

Racial disparities in HIV infection rates are not due to behavior alone. Powerful social factors like poverty, gender inequality, racial segregation and discrimination, and gender norms drive the epidemic in African American and other minority communities. Geography and racial segregation matter because people tend to socialize with people similar to themselves. This is a major factor in how HIV is concentrated in certain geographic and cultural communities. When examined geographically, areas with significant numbers of people living with HIV/AIDS are often areas with concentrated poverty and minority populations.

One of the major themes of the focus group discussions was how trauma impacts individual’s access to and comfort with medical care. Trauma is prevalent among many of the same communities that are most at risk for HIV including those in this report: women of color, African American men, especially those who have experienced homelessness and incarceration. The effects of trauma on health are varied. Trauma may cause healthcare avoidance, particularly for survivors of intimate partner violence. Health exams can be invasive and trigger traumatic responses, because of feeling a lack of control over one’s body. Evidence is growing that trauma negatively impacts immune function.  Trauma is associated with poorer metal health, substance abuse, ART adherence and immunologic outcomes.

 The following recommendations are based on the experiences and opinions of the focus group participants as well as the current literature and epidemiological data in Philadelphia (see full report for all references). These recommendations seek to address health disparities and decrease the number of new HIV cases in Philadelphia.

1. Trauma-informed care should be the standard of care. Considering the pervasive experiences of trauma for men and women of low socio-economic status (childhood and adult), all healthcare settings should work towards a trauma-informed culture.

2. Sexual and reproductive health care must be trauma-informed. All women should be screened for current intimate partner violence, as well as childhood and past sexual and emotional abuse. Appropriate referrals should be made for mental health and social support services.

3. Honor and maintain a patient’s dignity in all care settings. Patients who feel they are treated with dignity and are active participants in healthcare decision-making are more likely to adhere to treatment and trust their medical provider.

4. Holistic care that includes services for mental and physical health is essential for long-term health and continued engagement in primary and HIV care. Social support should be integrated into all health care settings, whether through case management, navigation services or peer support. Service providers should consider incorporation of childcare and respite services in services targeted to women, considering their caregiving responsibilities.

5. Continue and expand current efforts to make HIV testing routine in all primary care.  Efforts should ensure routine screenings are happening in communities where HIV is most prevalent. Routine testing doesn’t rely on patient disclosure or recognition of HIV risk behaviors and will increase the likelihood that individuals are diagnosed and linked to care in a timely matter.

6. Include information about PrEP during pre- and/or post- test HIV counseling services. Individuals who test HIV-negative (for whom PrEP is appropriate) should receive information about where and how to access PrEP and provided with relevant referrals.

7. Community-level campaigns to raise awareness about HIV risk and prevention in the Black and Latino communities are needed. The campaigns should be broadly marketed to all members of the Black and Latino communities, not just to individuals of a certain risk profile or class. Local community leaders should be the messengers of the campaign.

      8. Provide adult health education in community settings to improve health literacy to decrease health disparities. Programs should include information about sexual health and HIV/STI prevention, hygiene, nutrition, sleep, and the importance of health screenings. Specific interventions should focus on the health needs of Black men. 

Monday, October 7, 2013

Notes from the 2013 Pennsylvania Health Access Network Conference

I am grateful to the folks at PHAN for pulling together an informative conference for PA advocates, providers, and public health wonks like me. We mostly talked about health reform and the Affordable Care Act, with enrollment starting on October 1. Here are some of my notes and impressions. I would love to hear from others who attended.


The conference theme of Cover the Commonwealth informed the whole day's programming. We talked and talked about health reform in PA, including Gov. Corbett's proposal to reform (and expand) Medicaid, Healthy Pennsylvania. We also discussed how to talk to people about health reform and new coverage options. I wrote a separate post about communication tips. You can see all the tweets from the conference at #PHAN13


Navigators and Certified Application Counselors


Every type of community organization and health care provider is encouraged to have Certified Application Counselors on staff to help individuals and families enroll in the Marketplace. You can find out how to become a Certified Application Counselor organization here. Keep in mind that there will be a delay between application and approval from CMS, I have heard 30-60 days. 

Three of the federally-funded Navigator organizations were on hand to talk about their plans to help enroll every eligible Pennsylvanian. They have some big goals and are going to need help to reach them. These organizations want to work with your CBO or community group, so contact them to set up a time for their navigators to come and help enroll your clients/members.

Resources for Human Development is focusing on the 10 PA counties with the most uninsured people. Philadelphia County has the most uninsured of any county (and the most people). 

Pennsylvania Association of Community Health Centers (PACHC) will support all the Navigators and Certified Application Counselors in the state. 

Mental Health Association of Pennsylvania will also have Navigators in the community throughout the state ready to help enroll people in the Marketplace. 

Medicaid

In mid-September, Governor announced his Medicaid reform plan, Healthy Pennsylvania. All we know about the reforms are contained in the concept paper, about 10 pages. So the details are unknown. Included in these reforms would be coverage for low income adults, regardless of health or disability status, essentially it is Medicaid expansion by another name. I can share with you my initial impressions and some of what I learned at the conference. Please remember that this is just a proposed plan, not a reality. The Governor must submit a Medicaid waiver application to the federal government for approval, which will take at least several months. At this point in time, Medicaid is going to work as it has, nothing new for the short term.

Proposed Medicaid reforms include requiring working-age, non-disabled recipients to actively looking for employment and/or enroll in a job training program. This kind of requirement is not allowed under current Medicaid law and is a big task to oversee and administer. Some people are thinking this could be a roadblock to federal approval.

Gov. Corbett would like to remove all co-pays associated with Medicaid coverage and start requiring a monthly premium (bill) based on income, no more than $25/month for an individual or $35 for a household. Many people would pay no premium or very little. 

With these reforms, Gov Corbett argues the state would be able to include more people in Medicaid, including low income adults. These newly-eligible recipients would be enrolled in the insurance Marketplace and given state/federal subsidies to pay for insurance just like other Pennsylvanians buying insurance through the state marketplace. These individuals/families would also be required to pay a monthly premium based on income. The will also have a choice to select a Marketplace plan or the Health Choices plans. 

Other items in the concept paper include a penalty of $10 for "inappropriate use" of the Emergency Room, reduction in the number of benefit packages offered to different categories of Medicaid enrollees from 14 to 2, and no changes to children's benefits under Medicaid/CHIP.

I encourage you to sign up for the PHAN newsletter to keep up to date on all the training and events they offer. They will be a great resource for health reform in PA. A member of PHAN will come to your organization to educate your clients or staff. You can also participate in webinars and conference calls.


Monday, July 29, 2013

Health Reform Resources: Enrollment Support and Marketplaces

As the start of open enrollment (October 1, 2013) draws closer, there has been a flurry of resources concerning how to help consumers screen for eligibility and enroll in Marketplace plans and Medicaid. Below you will find several new resources relevant to the Philadelphia region. Community-based providers and AIDS service organizations are encouraged to explore all the resources and opportunities available to assist with the transition to the era of health reform and new coverage options. You can explore our
other blog posts about health reform here.

Stakeholder Call with HHS and CMS about the Health Insurance Marketplace in PA - July 31, 2013

This second in a series of three calls is intended specifically for stakeholders in Pennsylvania. HHS and CMS regional officials will give brief updates on the operational execution of the Marketplace including systems readiness; consumer support and outreach.   

Certified Application Counselor Organizations

There are going to be opportunities for organizations to be trained and certified to provide counseling to enrollees. As a CAC organization, your staff and volunteers will help people understand, apply, and enroll  for health coverage through the Marketplace. There are three official trainings on how to become a Certified Application Counselor Organization over the next couple of weeks. Register at the links below.

Date
Time
Webinar Link



July 31, 2013
1:30 – 3:00 pm ET
August 6, 2013
1:30 – 3:00 pm ET
August 7, 2013
1:30 – 3:00 pm ET


Kaiser Family Foundation Issue Brief -- Helping people with HIV Navigate the Transition to ACA Coverage.

This issue brief is a summary of a roundtable discussion convened by Kaiser Family Foundation in March 2013 concerning planning for the coverage transition, helping people with HIV choose and enroll in coverage and troubleshooting during coverage transitions.
Key passages:
Pg. 5 - HIV community needs to plan for changes in the role of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program 
Pg. 5 - HIV community stakeholders need to be aware of their state's organizational structure and work to inform state policymakers about the needs of people with HIV and standards for HIV care.
Pg. 6 - HIV service providers may need to consider business re-design options to maximize their engagement with the health system.
Pg. 6 - Best practices and lessons learned from states and organizations that have begun navigating through HIV-related policy changes will help inform how to better plan for challenges that may occur
Pg. 8 - It may be important to differentiate between types of HIV enrollees in ACA coverage
Pg. 9 - While HIV providers and clinic staff are poised to play a central role in supporting coverage transitions, they may require specific training and support


Insurance Marketplace Pre-screening Tools and other Resources at HIVhealthreform.org

There are too many great resources on hivhealthreform.org to list here. One of the most interesting is the pre-screening tools (for both Medicaid-expansion states and those not currently expanding Medicaid coverage) from Duke Law Project.

Friday, July 26, 2013

Health Reform To-Do List

This presentation was designed specifically for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) who are uninsured or in need of affordable insurance options. Most of the information is general to PLWHA in the US, but some Pennsylvania information is included because the state is not expanding Medicaid coverage to low income adults (not at this time anyway). These slides are adapted from content developed by the Target Center. I highly recommend providers and consumers of Ryan White services check out the Target Center for great resources about Health Reform and so much more.

I created this interactive presentation in an effort to help more people understand how the Affordable Care Act, or "Obama Care" may affect them. It's intended to be used as a starting-off point to explore resources to help you make the best decisions for yourself and your family. Anything that is underlined is a link to something to help you understand your options or help plan for your new coverage in 2014. Please take time and explore the links.

If you have questions or comments, please be sure to leave comment here or email me. I will do my best to answer your question or lead you to a good resource.



Friday, April 12, 2013

Towards more cost-effective HIV prevention planning

Some background: The Philadelphia Prevention Planning Group (PPG) and the City of Philadelphia's AIDS Activity Coordinating Office (AACO) work together to decide which communities have the greatest need for HIV prevention activities, and which interventions work best for those communities.  This is part of what we call "community planning."  AACO decides how the money gets spent and which organizations do the work, keeping in mind the community's needs and what is proven to work best. The PPG provides the community's voice to the process.

In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) approached the Philadelphia Department of Public Health (PDPH) to participate in the design and testing of a model for how to best spend HIV prevention funds to prevent the spread of HIV. The model was supposed to help health departments make cost-effective decisions to meet the goals of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy.  You can read more about the data used in the model and how the model influenced HIV prevention planning in the 2012 Philadelphia Jurisdictional Plan  (pages 93-95). 

AIDS.Gov recently released a podcast explaining this resource allocation model.  It also talks about the pilot project in Chicago, Nebraska, and Alabama, which is supposed to determine if the model works for those communities and to see if their experiences are similar to Philadelphia's.

The AIDS.Gov blog post explains more about the pilot project, HIV RAMP:

"That model was developed to help Philadelphia’s health department leadership identify the optimal allocation of HIV prevention funds across populations and prevention interventions that would prevent the most new HIV infections. Using local demographic and HIV epidemiological data inputs, and based on calculations of the cost per new infection averted, the model recommended the optimal allocation of the jurisdiction’s HIV prevention budget among several evidence-based interventions for the populations most impacted. Feedback from Philadelphia indicated that the model’s outputs served as a very useful “roadmap” to inform decision making for HIV prevention resource allocation within the jurisdiction, informing both applications for federal funds as well as efforts to strengthen local HIV prevention activities.
The current project, HIV RAMP, involves refining and piloting the original Philadelphia model in three additional jurisdictions that have different local profiles and HIV prevalence rates (Chicago, Nebraska, and Alabama), testing a technical assistance (TA) protocol to support jurisdictions in using the model, and assessing the feasibility of a software or online version of the model that could be more broadly used by other health departments.
“Because making decisions about how to spend HIV prevention funding is never ‘black and white,’ health departments need tools to help them decide how to support the best combinations of effective, evidence-based prevention strategies in their communities,” said Dr. Ronald Valdiserri, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health and Director of OHAIDP. “Through this pilot project, we hope to develop a practical tool that can help communities apply the principles of the NHAS on the ground.”

Here are some highlights from the Philadelphia jurisdictional plan's discussion of the model development, focusing on the results:

"Cost per new infection averted is an integral part of this resource allocation model. For HIV testing in a clinical setting, the cost per infection averted is $51,293, making it the second most cost-effective intervention for Philadelphia. Testing in non clinical settings for IDU (3) and MSM (1) rounded out the top three most cost-effective interventions for averting HIV transmission at $53,935 and $17,965, respectively. The least cost-effective interventions used in the model were behavioral interventions for HIV- high risk heterosexuals ($15,642,127) and IDU ($2,931,406). Behavioral interventions were not found to be as cost-effective as HIV testing, even for HIV+ individuals. Adherence to ART (4), retention in care (5), partner services, and linkage to care (8) were ranked in the middle of the list of interventions. 
The optimal resource allocations according to those calculations would avert 72 infections in the first year and 245 infections within five years. Testing in clinical settings would receive 39% of the resources and avert 20 infections in one year, 93 infections in five years. Retention in care would receive 29% of the resources and avert 27 infections in year one and 52 infections within five years....Two-thirds of the resources would be allocated to HIV testing in this optimal model, because of the cost-effectiveness of HIV testing (non-targeted), particularly for MSM and IDU communities.  These allocations would serve 1,930 HIV+ individuals and result in 792 new diagnoses. Return on investment ranges (prevention dollars only) from 1.21 in year one to 4.42 in year five....
Recommendations from the model include allocations decisions should be made by both cost and effectiveness. Testing should be prioritized in clinical and non-clinical settings. More resources should be allocated to interventions located in care-settings. Behavioral interventions for HIV- individuals are not allocated resources. Behavioral interventions for MSM can be allocated resources under certain conditions. "




If you want to learn more about the community planning of HIV prevention in Philadelphia, check out the Prevention Planning Group or come to a meeting.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

The Big Picture - February 2013

This post is part of a new monthly series published on the fourth Thursday of every month. It will provide an overview of themes and topics from the general meetings and committee meetings of the Ryan White Planning Council and Prevention Planning Group each month. To view meeting materials and presentations, please visit www.hivphilly.org.

Ryan White Planning Council (RWPC)

Every summer, the Planning Council (RWPC) makes contingency plans for how it will spend money for fiscal year, which starts the following spring. That way, they have a plan when they find out how much money they’ll be getting from the federal government. Grant awards come out at a different time every year, based on when the federal budget is finalized. As of the writing of this post on February 28, 2013, we have not yet received our full award for the fiscal year starting on March 1, 2013. This year, planning will be unusually challenging.

We are facing an impending sequester and the end of the continuing resolution (a type of continuation budget when Congress fails to make appropriations). Although the Ryan White program will still be fundable, the Ryan White Treatment Modernization Act is set to expire in the fall. While this could complicate our responsiveness to changes caused by the Affordable Care Act, government and community leaders decided not to seek reauthorization due to political and budgetary concerns. We’re also uncertain about the impact of Medicaid expansion – which, at this time, is very likely in New Jersey and unlikely in Pennsylvania. It could be called a perfect storm. (Learn more here.)

To prepare for a rocky year, the RWPC and its committees have pressed forward with their work. The Finance and Comprehensive Planning Committees have already begun to talk about the summer’s allocation process. The Finance Committee has agreed to hold two allocations processes this year: one in the traditional format, and a second that addresses potential changes caused by national-level issues. Since we are not sure how much money we’ll have for the year starting March 1, 2013, the Finance Committee recommended that we act as if we have received a 5% cut (a suggestion then approved by the RWPC).

Meanwhile, the Comprehensive Planning Committee looked at how the Ryan White service categories fit in the continuum of care. (Learn more about the continuum of care here.) The Needs Assessment Committee received a presentation from the AIDS Activities Coordinating Office (AACO) on its Client Services Unit (CSU) and quality management, so they would have a better idea of how to measure the effectiveness of the different services. The Positive Committee talked about disclosure and reviewed their goals and objectives. The Nominations Committee also discussed their policies and next steps in uncertain times. They’re also accepting applications for RWPC membership through the second week in March.

Prevention Planning Group (PPG)

In the second half of 2012, the PPG and RWPC jointly explored the idea of combining care and prevention planning in one body. This idea was tabled due to the uncertainty that surrounds the current planning environment. But, the PPG was still in need of a change. The CDC released new HIV Planning Guidance in July 2012, marking a shift away from the old duties of prevention planning.

In order to decide what the future of prevention planning should look like in Philadelphia, the PPG called two special February meetings: one on structure, and another on membership. A small group of dedicated members began the hard work of ironing out the details. They chose to recommend that the PPG have 12 – 20 voting members (plus non-voting members), who would meet every other month to plan for stakeholder engagement. They also recommended that the PPG build more flexibility into its process. (Read a summary of points from the workgroup meetings.)

When the PPG met in February, consultant Matthew McClain presented draft bylaws based on the recommendations from the two workgroups. He also created an outline of a work plan for the new group. After a thorough review of the bylaws, PPG members identified a few areas for change as well as their next steps. In coming weeks, the PPG will create roles and responsibilities for voting and non-voting members. They will also develop an application and scoring process, beginning with a special membership meeting.

This is an exciting, if tumultuous, time to get involved in community planning for the Philadelphia area. To learn more, follow the links in this post, attend one of the meetings listed on our calendar, or email info@hivphilly.org to find out how to get involved.

Friday, November 30, 2012

Celebrating Philadelphia's HIV Community

The HIV community is vibrant and varied.  It includes advocates, researchers, social workers, innovators, survivors, leaders, activists, protectors and defenders.  They face seemingly insurmountable challenges with courage and determination.  Most of them are never acknowledged for their work.  The Poz 100 addresses this on a national level.

In recognition of World AIDS Day, we would like to celebrate our area’s HIV community.  We are collecting reflections, interviews, and stories from the people that made history and will shape our future.  Your voice is important, and we want to hear from you.  You can participate by submitting an original blog post to hivphillywebmaster@gmail.com or completing a brief online interview questionnaire at http://tinyurl.com/d37dbzs.  Share a link to the blog with your friends and colleagues, and click “join this site” at the top right of this page.

We will post at least one new story each day for the month of December.  We’ve already got four awesome and inspiring posts lined up from people who prevailed when the world didn’t expect them to survive. 

Come back tomorrow to see our first post from someone who really practices what she preaches.




Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Map of Philadelphia HIV/AIDS Epidemic

The map shows the number of HIV cases by census tract (division of population used by the US Census Bureau).  This map is a part of the 2011 geographical risk analysis, which examined what community factors (crime, death rates, income, etc.) were associated with areas of high concentration of HIV/AIDS.  This analysis was done to determine where HIV prevention and care services are most needed. An explanation follows the map.

Map 1:  Number of Persons Living with HIV/AIDS in Philadelphia by Census Tracts and Neighborhoods



The strongest and most significant predictors of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) rates in Philadelphia (in order of significance) are:

1.       Neighborhood instability (areas with high numbers of demolished buildings or vacant properties, or with homes with discontinued water service)

2.       Crime rates related to drugs and/or sex;

3.       Socio-economic status (SES); and

4.       Personal crime rate (robberies and aggravated assaults)



Based on our analysis, high risk census tracts in Philadelphia are, therefore, predominately unstable, high crime, and low socio-economic status (SES) areas of the city.  Sixty-six census tracts in Philadelphia, or 17% of all tracts, are identified as high risk and high PLWHA areas, and ten census tracts are identified as very high risk with correspondingly high PLWHA rates. 

The neighborhood which contains the highest number of these tracts, and so is considered at the highest risk in the City, is Sharswood-Stanton in Lower North Philadelphia.  This is followed by Millcreek-Parkside, Strawberry Mansion, Poplar-Temple, Nicetown-Tioga and Hunting Park-Fairhill. 

There are, however, a number of census tracts that do not follow the general patterns found; some areas may have low rates of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) while they appear to be areas of high risk, while others may have high PLWHA rates in otherwise fairly low risk areas of the city.  Areas with high PLWHA and low risk are usually characterized by middle to upper-level socio-economic status with fewer Black residents, lower crime and relatively stable census tracts.  Most of these areas are near, or in, Center City. Factors unique to Center City make this area an outlier in terms of the risk analysis, while characterized with a high rate of PLWHA. 

Areas with low rates of PLWHA but very high risk indicators include areas within Paschall-Kingsessing, Upper-Kensington and Haddington-Overbrook neighborhoods. These tracts have very high risk levels, but lower PLWHA rates than other tracts with the same risk levels.  This analysis could not determine any neighborhood-level protective factors that contributed to lower rates of PLWHA but perhaps future research might provide some insight.

So what do you think?

Why do you think the map looks like it does?  Why is HIV concentrated in high risk communities?  Why is Center City unusual, in that there are high rates of people living with HIV/AIDS but the census tracts are considered ‘low risk’? Does the map match your experiences or observations?

We want to hear from you.  Share your knowledge and experiences to give context and meaning to this map.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

2012 Ryan White Allocations

Every year, the Philadelphia EMA Ryan White Planning Council (RWPC) hosts three Allocations meetings for each region in the Eligible Metropolitan Area (EMA) to plan its budget for the next year. One meeting is for the New Jersey counties (Salem, Camden, Gloucester, and Burlington), one is for the PA suburban counties (Bucks, Chester, Montgomery, and Delaware), and the third is for Philadelphia County. Each region receives a portion of the total EMA's funding that reflects their share of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, based on the most recent data available.

At the Allocations meetings, each region makes a plan for how they would spend their portion of the funding if the EMA received the same amount of money as last year, if they received a 5% decrease in funding, and if they received a 10% increase in funding. These plans are for the fiscal year that begins on March 1 of the next year. Each region can also make instructions to the grantee (the AIDS Activities Coordinating Office, or AACO) at its meeting.

After these three meetings, the Finance Committee of the Ryan White Planning Council (RWPC) meets to review each region's plan, including any instructions to the grantee. The Finance Committee can choose to recommend, recommend against, or make no recommendation on these plans (although the Finance Committee almost always recommends the regional plans with no changes). The Finance Committee then presents the allocations plans from all three regions to the RWPC, who then votes on the plans and the instructions to the grantee.

The allocations plans for next year were based on the 2009 number of living HIV/AIDS cases in each region. Based on this data, the PA suburban counties represent 14.20% of living HIV/AIDS cases in the EMA, while the New Jersey counties represent 10.55% of cases and Philadelphia represents 75.25%. These shifts provided the starting point for each region's decision-making.

Here's the breakdown for each region.

Philadelphia
Level-funding budget: Philadelphia chose to keep all services funded at the same levels in the case of level funding.

5% decrease budget: Philadelphia chose to spread a 5% decrease proportionally across all service categories (based on their level-funding budget).

10% increase budget: Philadelphia chose to give core service categories a 9% increase (based on their level-funding budget), while giving supportive service categories an additional 1% increase on top of their other 10% increase.

Instructions to the grantee: Philadelphia instructed the grantee to provide utilization data (to the Comprehensive Planning Committee) and expenditure data (to the Finance Committee) for the current and previous fiscal years. Philadelphia also instructed the grantee to clarify whether there were any organizations that provided treatment adherence services, but did not provide medical case management services.

PA Suburban Counties


Level-funding budget: The PA suburban counties chose to keep all services funded at the same levels in the case of level funding.


5% decrease budget: The PA suburban counties chose to spread a 5% decrease proportionally across all service categories (based on their level-funding budget).


10% increase budget: The PA suburban counties chose to spread a proportional increase across all service categories with the exception of transportation and drug reimbursement (based on their level-funding budget), because these categories had been underspent. They instructed the amount of the increase that would otherwise go to transportation and drug reimbursement (approximately $53,746) be placed into other categories as follows:


  • 25% into medical case management

  • 25% into ambulatory care

  • 50% spread across all remaining service categories

Instructions to the grantee: The PA suburban counties instructed the grantee to analyze outreach services in Chester city, with the results reported to the Comprehensive Planning Committee.


New Jersey Counties
Level-funding budget: The New Jersey counties chose to move funding from food bank/home-delivered meals (leaving a $5 placeholder) into state ADAP, as there were no providers currently able to provide food bank/home-delivered meals and the state ADAP program had received cuts.

5% decrease budget: The New Jersey counties chose to spread a 5% decrease proportionally across all service categories (based on their level-funding budget).

10% increase budget: The New Jersey counties chose to spread a 10% increase proportionally across all service categories (based on their level-funding budget).

Instructions to the grantee: The New Jersey counties instructed the grantee to review the efficacy of the medical case management model (to be reported to the Comprehensive Planning Committee), and to possibly expand the model to include triage.