The beginning of the 2024 Minnesota Legislative session and our collaboration with organizations across the state have reminded us of the significant role digital advocacy plays. As more time is spent online and the world continues to evolve, digital advocacy has become an essential aspect of our work.

Here are a few key points to consider when incorporating digital advocacy into your next public affairs campaign:

Reach and Accessibility

Digital platforms provide organizations and coalitions with a vast audience, especially those who cannot be reached through traditional methods. With more people relying on digital channels for information, it is essential for issue-based campaigns to have a robust digital presence. These platforms offer targeted advertising, social media, and video content, which can help reach specific demographics. They also provide a two-way communication channel, allowing to engage with supporters and advocates directly. To summarize, digital platforms offer a unique opportunity for political campaigns to reach a broad audience, interact with voters in new ways, and achieve a significant impact with their messaging.

Targeting and Personalization

Digital platforms enable organizations to personalize messaging based on demographics, interests, and behaviors of specific voter groups. This approach can be more effective in mobilizing supporters. Personalized messaging helps us create a stronger emotional connection with the audience and deliver the message directly to them. Digital platforms also provide real-time feedback, allowing us to adjust their messaging strategy and optimize outreach. In brief, digital platforms have made it easier for organizations to connect with supporters at a personal level, making it a powerful tool for modern advocacy campaigns.

Engagement and Mobilization

Social media and other digital platforms facilitate direct engagement between organizations and supporters. Using these channels to mobilize supporters, organize events, and encourage supporter actions. Additionally, digital tools such as email campaigns, peer-to-peer texting, advocacy actions, and digital advertising can help organizations stay connected with supporters and keep them informed about essential developments.

Real-Time Feedback and Data Analysis

Digital advocacy is a powerful tool for us to gather feedback from voters through social media interactions, online surveys, and other digital channels. This feedback can help adjust messaging and strategies in real-time to better resonate with advocates and supporters. Moreover, digital platforms provide valuable data and analytics that can be used to track progress, measure the effectiveness of outreach efforts, and refine tactics accordingly.

Cost-Effectiveness

Digital advocacy is a more cost-effective advertising approach compared to traditional forms like television and print media. This is because digital platforms offer cheaper advertising options, and campaigns can target their spending more accurately to reach a more relevant audience. This is especially useful for smaller campaigns or candidates with limited resources. It also allows us to pivot when our objectives change.

Counteracting Misinformation

In the digital age, misinformation and disinformation spread quickly online. Digital advocacy allows organizations to combat false narratives and misinformation by providing accurate information directly to advocates and engaging in online discussions to correct misinformation.

Overall, digital advocacy plays a crucial role in modern elections by expanding the reach of campaigns, enabling personalized communication with supporters and advocates, facilitating engagement and mobilization efforts, providing valuable data and feedback, offering cost-effective advertising options, and helping to counteract misinformation.

To leverage the power of digital advocacy effectively for your next public affairs campaign, consider partnering with our experienced team. We specialize in maximizing reach, optimizing engagement, and utilizing data-driven strategies to achieve impactful results. Contact us today to learn how we can help elevate your advocacy efforts.

As we settle into the new year, yet a third year challenged by COVID with political discord everywhere, I find that I must constantly remind myself that there is more we share than divides us. Yet so many of our most pressing public policy issues appear more intractable than ever.

To paraphrase an old quote, too often as we try to advance new policies in Minnesota we discover that there is a 12-foot gap between where we currently stand and where we want to go. While it is a significant concession when someone offers to bring forward a 6-foot board, it is also insufficient to the challenge.

Even when multiple groups step forward with their 1- or 2-foot boards, we’re not going to make it across the chasm. The challenge is 12 feet, and nothing less moves us forward.

We need to bring a balance back to our public discussions, acknowledging real challenges and the threat they represent to our shared economic prosperity while admitting that we also have to identify priorities and focus action where it is both needed and can be accomplished.

As a public affairs practitioner, I believe that the answer often lies in stronger communication and more effective engagement with stakeholders, including members of the public.

• What do stakeholders really know about a problem?
• Why is it important to them?
• How will you create value that they share in?
• What can they do to help?

Look to Rent Stabilization for Lessons

Take the recent fight that erupted in Minneapolis and St. Paul over rent stabilization. At its core, there is a shared view that the lack of affordable housing in the Twin Cities is the biggest impediment to addressing many of our most pressing problems: educational achievement gaps, workforce availability, racial equity, economic growth, and shared prosperity.

But like shards of glass, almost any way community leaders try to pick up the pieces it’s almost impossible to avoid a cut. Three months have passed since the election and leaders in both cities remain deeply divided over how best to address this need.

In Saint Paul, voters (where only about one third of registered voters showed up to the polls) supported a rent control ordinance that is arguably the most aggressive in the entire country. A majority of the City Council opposed the ordinance and continue to express frustration at the lack of clear direction.

Yet, the actions of proponents and opponents alike stem from a shared sense of urgency and a rejection of the creeping incrementalism that has allowed the problem to grow steadily worse despite the growing spotlight focused on it.

How, then, when there is widespread agreement that the problem must be addressed, is there more acrimony than consensus? I cannot help but believe that the split can be attributed in large part to a lack of communication and ineffective engagement.

This issue raised a lot of emotions, but few residents truly understood the proposed ordinance or the implications for future investment in St. Paul. As I tried to process the election results and what I know of the efforts to support or oppose the rent control ordinance, I landed on the following five themes.

1. Messaging appeared focused on claims that “rent control is bad” or “rent control doesn’t work.” These were not bad messages, but they were not enough. Opponents of the ordinance needed other messages and other voices, particularly from smaller landlords and community members concerned about affordable housing.Given that the referendums in St. Paul and Minneapolis were very different, voters also needed to hear more about why these differences mattered. Perhaps less impactful, and certainly more complicated, there was also just not enough public discussion about the risks versus rewards of a referendum.
2. Medium/Channels. The opposition campaign seemed to rely almost exclusively on mailers. Other important channels for communicating, including digital messaging, targeted cable ads, and grassroots engagement were underutilized if employed at all.There was considerable social media chatter, but it did not feel like opponents were present in these discussions.
3. Faces/Voices. A majority of the city council members opposed the passage, but their opposition needed to be more visible. As noted above, opponents also should have engaged voices beyond business leaders.When an issue engages voters’ emotions, at least some of your messaging must also engage those emotions.
4. Admittedly I do not have strong insight into how closely opponents or proponents of the ordinance coordinated their efforts to lobby city leaders, but a strong coordination between what is communicated to the public and what is shared with community leaders is always essential.While no amount of coordination might have swayed voters one way or the other, closer coordination can eliminate wiggle room for any leaders hoping to safely stand in the middle of the intersection.
5. Finally, with regard to timing, the main push just came too late. While I appreciate that most voters do not pay a lot of attention until just before they vote (if then), early voting had been going on for four to six weeks before strong public declarations of opposition were raised.How many ballots had been cast before the first mailer ever hit voters’ mailboxes?

The most important question at this point is how St. Paul and Minneapolis will proceed going forward. Rent stabilization is important, but we need a solution that will cross the entire chasm, helping renters stay in their homes while also encouraging and supporting greater investment in housing.

Leaders on both sides need to go beyond proposing single, simplistic solutions and instead open communications that will result in comprehensive solutions that will get us from where we are to where we need to go.

Of course, hindsight is almost always 20/20 and there are always different ways to approach any issue advocacy effort. The need to communicate and engage effectively with decision makers, however, whether they are voters or elected officials, never changes.

November 2nd, 2021 was an important day in the United States of America. People across the country headed to polling stations to cast their ballots for school board elections, levy proposals, as well as choices for mayors, city councils and even governors. Candidates accepted defeat or celebrated victories – with a few places too close to call, as the ballot-counting continues. The importance of the day was that it felt so normal: the craziness of the allegations of election corruption we endured for months after the election one year ago have faded into the echo-chambers of internet sites most of us never see.

It is still disappointing to me that too many otherwise rational political actors have never made explicit their acknowledgement that Joe Biden won, fair and square, in 2020. They have been allowed to undermine our democratic process without paying any price for that dangerous choice. But if we are able as a nation to renew our fealty to democratic decision-making and the rule of law, maybe I just need to get over my disappointment.

Part of the challenge for us moving forward is that, like sports, politics is experienced differently by segments of the citizenry. Using professional sports to set the frame: there are those of us who enjoy watching games with friends, casually tracking how our home teams are doing. But it is ‘just sports,’ right? Then there are those of us for whom it is much more serious business: identity with a team is visceral and unconditional. When our team wins, it is because they are awesome. When they lose, it is because the officials were unfair or incompetent. Most wouldn’t literally bleed for their team, though in the case of some post-championship crowds, it has come to that. And of course, professional sport is also a very big business, almost monopolistic in its ability to create and extract wealth for those who own the teams.

Politics has many of the same dynamics. For most of us, it is simply the way we are persuaded to vote on how the government should prioritize things: what we want to be funded, what we want to be allowed or banned. Voting is considered the foundational act of being a ‘good citizen,’ and I am inspired every election day when millions of us show up to do our duty. But for others, it is nearly blood-sport: opposing sides are demonized, those who simply manage the processes are badgered and manipulated, and the predictions of doom associated with losing are hyperbolic. And the power-brokering that happens beyond public scrutiny is disturbing to contemplate. Unlike professional sports, there are no private sector ‘owners’ of the political process – or there shouldn’t be.

Yet as Winston Churchill soberly commented 75 years ago, democracy is worthy of our support and our trust. It is the best way for us to ‘rule ourselves’ in a world where one’s own interests must co-exist with others.’ A key to its success over time, however, is that it requires that its citizens act in their own self-interest. And that, of course, requires that citizens be both well-informed and engaged.

We have real work to do on our democracy: a country as large, complicated and diverse as this one will always be challenging to lead. Striving to illuminate different aspirations for our path forward – and then allowing all our citizens to be part of deciding which path to take – that is the American political process that we need to demand and support. Congratulations on our 2021 election cycle.

If you have a need in the Public Affairs space, Tunheim is here to help. Fill out our contact form to get in touch with members of our Public Affairs team.

Ok, I am not actually going to do that (though I DO still have boxes filled with VCR tapes somewhere).  But I have found myself in recent days striving to put news into perspective so I can decide what I really think about recent developments: global cyber-terrorism, continuing hyper-partisan stalemates, blaming social media for rising resistance to facts and science. And three movies from my ‘coming of age’ years keep popping into my head, suggesting relevance to what we are going through right now. If you are looking for perspective (or a trip back to the ‘80s), give them a look.

In order of their release dates (and I have checked, they are all available either via streaming or from Amazon):

Alan Alda was a young, progressive U.S. Senator and, as the title suggests, we follow him succumbing to each of the forms of seduction that we have become somewhat callous in observing in the political sphere: power, influence, personal integrity (I don’t remember it being so much about money, but I suppose it was in there). Barbara Harris plays his wife with great presence, but it is a young Meryl Streep that captivates: she is smart, ambitious and perhaps free of obsession with consequences. I was a young U.S. Senate staffer myself when the movie came out; I recall thinking that there were parallels in the whirl around me. I left for the private sector the next year, though not because I thought intrigue would be any less evident there.

In the same way we now understand that our national economy is inextricably tied into global markets, this movie came out as awareness rose that our futures were tied to oil producers, and to Saudi Arabia, in particular. Based on that economic reality, Alan Pakula directed a thriller that also included some of the steamiest scenes I can recall (between Jane Fonda and Kris Kristofferson!). I can honestly report that my understanding of the global nature of banking was initiated by watching this one (a few times, in fact). Hume Cronyn played the part of a finance titan who realized too late that we had been abandoned by those we thought we controlled. I have been waiting to see it happen in real life ever since – and of course, 2007 came close.

I have long claimed this as my favorite movie: like much of my career, it is focused on the intersection of business, media and politics. Paul Newman stars, and starts as the victim at that intersection but cleverly navigates to turn the tables on journalism (Sally Field), powerful politicians and even the U.S. Justice Department. At the risk of being a spoiler, I must share the best line of the movie, uttered by Wilford Brimley playing an Assistant U.S. Attorney trying to clean up the mess: “At the end of this hour, two things will be true. One, we’re going to understand what happened here. And two, someone’s ass is going to be in my briefcase.” Ah, yes, accountability was still a thing back in 1981.

Make some popcorn and enjoy. If you’ve got favorites that might illuminate the roots of today’s challenges, please share!

If you have a need in the Public Affairs space, Tunheim is here to help. Fill out our contact form to get in touch with members of our Public Affairs team.

In addition, you may request a copy of the slides here.

“Minneapolis is not alone.”  That was the text message I received yesterday from a dear friend who lives in New York. While I very much appreciated her outreach, I think those of us who lead organizations and communities in this metropolitan area do, in fact, need to assume responsibility for taking on some very challenging work. Systemic racism and its corrosive consequences are not uniquely here – but they are here. And as a medium-sized metropolitan area in the middle of the United States, we have proudly competed above our weight-class for decades: dozens of major global companies headquartered or basing significant operations here; world-class academic and medical institutions situated here, attracting students and patients from around the planet. But now we are being recognized for something very, very disturbing and wrong: young black men are afraid to get out of their cars here when they are stopped by law enforcement. Daunte Wright was stopped for expired license tabs and was dead moments later.

As a professional, I have had the experience numerous times of being ‘handed the baton’ for a tough assignment. In truth I have probably sought out the role more times than not. And I believe there are many others like me: experienced competitors willing to risk failure to take on a new challenge. But this is different; this is not about stepping up and into a position of power and leading people toward a shared outcome. At the root, this is about ensuring that paths to power are opening to new leaders; ultimately, it is going to be about acknowledging – no, celebrating – a very different community than the one we live in today. It has to start, I think, with more of us acknowledging the new generation of American society.

We are more diverse, more multi-cultural, more interdependent than at any time in our history. My own belief is that reflecting more on that notion of interdependence may be the key to our shared fate. We need each other: as creators, as customers, as providers, as neighbors, as investors, as friends to enrich our lives. We’ve spent generations with too much focus on differences, and on the damage done by exploiting differences. There is work to do in determining how to atone for the past – but even more to be done in ensuring the full potential of our future. And that work must be led by those reflecting who we are, collectively, today.

We have a friend and former colleague who taught me an important lesson about where to start in this work: learning each other’s stories. We might think we know them, just by focusing on our differences; but we don’t, and so a willingness to ask about others’ stories may be a helpful way to begin ‘picking up the baton’ of your role as a leader or as a community member. Be open to the learning of shared experiences, but also to learning of experiences so different than your own that the learning itself changes you. And changes your vision for the future of your community. Shared fate is a very powerful concept for me: we’re going into the future together – so let’s commit to making it the best place for each and every one of us to be.

Women’s participation in the workforce doesn’t just impact them individually – it impacts our entire economy

This is the first in a series focused on women’s economic security. This post frames up the issue. Check back for subsequent posts where we’ll outline possible solutions and proposals, talk to Minnesotans leading in this area, and share how you can get involved.

As anybody whose logged into social media the past week can tell you, women are the topic du jour of late. March is Women’s History Month. This past Monday we observed International Women’s Day. Meghan Markle is our feminist icon of the moment. And women are struggling to find their place in our economy in an extraordinary way since the pandemic hit.

By now, we’ve all seen the stories. Women have been forced out of the workforce at much higher rates than men since the pandemic began, both involuntary with layoffs and “voluntarily” (if you can call it that) to care for children who are out of school or sick family members. Our current economic recession has been branded as the “first female recession in the nation’s history,” and for legitimate reason. At a high level:

• Female unemployment hit double digits for the first time since 1948, with unemployment levels for BIPOC women being significantly higher than those of white women.

• In December 2020 alone, women accounted for all the nation’s job losses, losing 156,000 jobs while men gained 16,000. Furthermore, women of color accounted for nearly all these losses. In January 2021, another 275,000 women left the workforce.

• Women are driving involuntary job loss not only because we dominate industries (such as hospitality) that have been most impacted by the recession, but also because of discrimination when making decisions on layoffs, according to a University of Minnesota study.

• When it comes to voluntarily leaving the workforce throughout the pandemic, women were four times more likely to leave their jobs and three times more likely to sacrifice their careers for their family.

• Single mothers in particular are a sub-set of women facing incredible challenges due to the added stress of not being able to split home and child responsibilities with a partner. Single-parent homes already faced higher rates of poverty than two-parent households, with 30% of single mothers living below the poverty line and single parents spending more than two times their income on childcare.

While the pandemic has exacerbated women’s economic insecurity, it is not a new issue. Yes, women have taken great strides in our economy over the decades, and Women’s History Month is a great time to reflect on that progress and all the trailblazing women who fought for that (hello, Madam C.J. Walker). But the issues that are present now were present before, they just have a much larger spotlight shining down on them. Pre-pandemic, the median wealth of single white men under 35 was 3.5 times greater than that of single white women, and 224.2 times greater than the wealth of single Black women, according to the Brookings Institute.  Not only do women still make only about 80 cents on the dollar to men, but the balancing of work, family, and other caregiving responsibilities, coupled with the lack of a societal safety net in the U.S. to support women taking on these roles has led to these disparities.

A lack of universal paid sick and family leave pre-pandemic, and even more notably, the fact that this country was already facing a childcare crisis, are all underlying factors. As reported in the Washington Post, Princeton Economist So Kubota studied why the workforce participation rates of women have been decreasing over the past 20 years, and concluded that the rising cost of childcare resulted in a 13% decline in the labor force of women with young children, with similar results (12%) being concluded by the Center for American Progress. As we come out of the pandemic, it’s being estimated that between one-third to one-half of childcare centers may not reopen at all, due to added demands and precautions on already razor-thin margins. Fewer options for care are sure to result in higher rates, which further pulls women – especially low- to middle-income women – out of the workforce. And this isn’t just a problem for population centers, as the lack of affordable childcare options has been especially felt in Minnesota’s rural communities, with the industry at a breaking point.

It’s easy to look at the current economic disparities as a problem that is unique to women, but it’s much bigger than that. When women leave the workforce, settle for lower-paying jobs, or cut back on their hours, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, it has a domino effect that impacts future career opportunities, promotions, and equitable pay, which has consequences for not only the women themselves but also any children, spouses, or other family members that they support. But beyond that, and of consequence to everybody, it stymies economic growth. In order for the U.S.’s economic engine to thrive, we need women, especially BIPOC women, to be full participants in the workforce. The less women in the workforce, the less strong our state and nation’s economy. When women’s labor force rates drop, so does that of the country’s GDP.

To fully pull not only women, but our entire economy out of the current recession and achieve sustained economic growth at all levels, we must confront and work to address the underlying issues that are preventing women from being full participants in our workforce and economy at both the state and federal levels. This requires an acceptance and understanding that this isn’t just a pandemic issue. The good news is, there may be more momentum to finally tackle this than there has been in the past. The Walz-Flanagan Administration held a roundtable on this topic last week. Attorney General Ellison has instituted a task force focused on expanding women’s economic security. President Biden’s COVID relief package acknowledged the need, partially championed by Minnesota Senator Tina Smith. And there is no shortage of conversation happening at a state legislative and national congressional level, and within Minnesota’s advocacy and business spaces.

So, what are the possible solutions to finally addressing the need to even the economic playing field, and what needs to be done for them to become a reality? Check back next week to read my second installment where I’ll outline the ideas and proposals currently being discussed, and opportunities to make your voice heard.

Do you have comments about this topic, or ideas of how Tunheim can participate in addressing this issue? Email me at shinde@tunheim.com.

This blog post is the third and final of our legislative session preview series. To catch up on our previous  conversations, click here for housing and here for health care. Today’s focus is on energy.

As we entered the 2021 Minnesota Legislative Session, Tunheim started getting questions from our clients about what policymakers’ priorities would be, and what can be expected to happen, within specific policy areas. With legislative leaders focused on the budget and COVID leading up to Session, we wanted to dig deeper and engage with Committee Chairs and Commissioners in three key policy areas for us and our clients: housing, energy, and health care.

For our energy discussion, we reached out to the Temporary Commissioner of the state Department of Commerce and Senate and House Energy Committee Chairs and asked them to share their priorities for the state’s future energy policy, and possible legislative movement this Legislative Session. We heard back from Minnesota Department of Commerce Temporary Commissioner Grace Arnold and Minnesota House of Representatives Climate and Energy Finance and Policy Chair Jamie Long, whose input is reflected in the conversation below.

What do you see as the biggest needs for Minnesota to tackle as it pertains to energy?

At the Minnesota Department of Commerce, our goal is to ensure all Minnesotans have access to affordable and reliable energy service, while minimizing adverse impacts to the environment.

Over the past 15 years, Minnesota has transformed how we generate electricity. Use of renewable energy increased from 6 percent to 24 percent. By putting standards such as the proposal for 100 percent carbon-free energy by 2040 into law, we provide certainty for utilities as they manage market, economic, and technology changes.

The goal of the Walz Administration is to build on the success that Minnesota has already achieved in reducing dependence on fossil fuels and increasing the use of clean energy resources to power the state while ensuring reliable, affordable electricity.

Minnesota should continue the leadership position it has held on clean energy by moving boldly towards 100% clean energy. As a state that does not produce fossil fuels, we can build our economy and create good paying jobs with wind, solar, energy efficiency and more. We are not on track to meet our state’s climate goals and we must do much more to reduce carbon pollution across all sectors – from transportation, to buildings, to energy production. If we couple clean electricity with electrified transportation and heat for buildings, we can solve a big part of our state’s contribution to the climate crisis.

What are your energy priorities this Session?

In the 2021 legislative session, the Minnesota Department of Commerce is proposing the Clean Energy Package, which has four main provisions:

1) 100% Carbon-Free Energy Standard by 2040: By transitioning to 100% carbon-free energy by 2040, Minnesota utilities will lead the way to healthier air through significant reduction in greenhouse gases.

• The options and timing in this proposal give utilities the planning time and flexibility they need to reach 100%, while maintaining reliable and affordable electricity for all of Minnesota.
• This proposal prioritizes jobs, requiring the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to consider use of prevailing wages as a condition of receiving site permits for large wind projects.

2) Clean Energy First: Planned retirements and closures of many of Minnesota’s aging power plants has led to an opportunity to build a new energy infrastructure across Minnesota that is better for our health, environment and economy. The proposal broadens Minnesota’s current renewable preference statute, so that a utility can look first to clean energy resources for new electric power generation.

This policy mechanism establishes a regulatory pathway to not only achieve the 100% carbon free electricity standard, but also address other intersecting energy policy issues.

3) Energy Conservation and Optimization: Minnesota’s Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) has been highly successful, delivering real savings on customer energy bills, providing over $6 billion in net benefits to the state. Energy Conservation and Optimization (ECO) would expand the impact of the CIP program by allowing consumers to further reduce total energy costs by modifying the timing of their energy consumption through load management programs and by switching to more efficient technologies and lower carbon fuels.

4) 50% Carbon Reduction by 2035 in Existing Buildings Goal: This newly proposed goal will be realized through the continuation of the most effective current energy savings programs; and through the development.

The first bill we are likely to take up is the Energy Conservation and Optimization (ECO) Act, a bipartisan bill to improve our state energy efficiency laws that passed the House last session. I am optimistic this can be an early success for the House and Senate collaborating on energy policy. We will also focus on promoting clean energy, electric vehicles, and energy efficient buildings.

Looking at this Session, with it being a budget year and dealing with COVID, what do you think can realistically be done this year in this policy area? How do you predict things will play out?

On January 21, Governor Walz, Lt. Governor Flanagan and the House and Senate DLF Energy Leads rolled out our clean energy package with this press release, which explains why this Clean Energy Package will succeed in the 2021 session.

It’s worth repeating the importance of this Clean Energy Package for our children, our communities and our earth.

Our energy systems are rapidly changing and we can’t afford to stand still at the legislature. I believe the House and Senate can come together on meaningful improvements to our energy laws to keep Minnesota at the forefront of energy innovation. We also have the opportunity through the Renewable Development Account to make smart investments in deploying clean energy in Minnesota.

Tunheim would like to give our sincerest thanks to Temporary Commissioner Arnold and Representative Long and their respective staff for participating in this energy conversation, and for their service to the State of Minnesota and its citizens.

If you have questions on how what was shared here means for your organization or how you can help achieve policy goals in the energy and climate space email me, Tunheim Senior Consultant Sarah Hinde, at shinde@tunheim.com.

This blog post is the second in our legislative session series; to catch up on our housing policy conversation from last week, click here. Today’s focus is on health care, with energy to soon.

As we entered the 2021 Minnesota Legislative Session, Tunheim started getting questions from our clients about what policymakers’ priorities would be, and what can be expected to happen, within specific policy areas. With legislative leaders focused on the budget and COVID leading up to Session, we wanted to dig deeper and engage with Committee Chairs and Commissioners in three key policy areas for us and our clients: housing, energy, and health care.

For our health care discussion, we reached out to Minnesota Department of Human Services Commissioner Jodi Harpstead, Minnesota Senate Health and Human Services Finance and Policy Chair Michelle Benson, and Minnesota House of Representatives Health Finance and Policy Chair Tina Liebling and asked them to share their thoughts on the state’s most urgent health care needs and the possible solutions that may be explored this Legislative Session. Their input is reflected in the conversation below.

What do you see as the biggest needs for Minnesota to tackle as it pertains to health care?

COVID-19 has highlighted the life-and-death consequences of understanding that my health is directly dependent on the health of my neighbor.  It has also brought out in sharp relief our long-standing disparities in social drivers of health and health outcomes. As a state, we have seen and experienced these disparities, we have measured and tracked them, we have noted their profound impacts on individuals and families in our communities, but we have not moved the needle on them in the right direction. Addressing these disparities, especially with respect to social drivers of health, is our most pressing need.

We have also learned about the importance of exploring alternative ways to access care, including through the use of telemedicine. Federal and state waivers gave us a rare opportunity to quickly expand telemedicine services for Medicaid enrollees during the pandemic. Our statewide study of these services indicates support for continued use of telehealth as an option for some services.

The most pressing need for our state right now is the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines so we can move to return our state to pre-pandemic normalcy. Once vaccines become readily available and we begin recovering from the effects of COVID-19 then we must work quickly to ensure stability in our health care system. Our health care system has been forced to undergo dramatic changes during the pandemic, and we need to restore some stability in our health care infrastructure.  Additionally, we must also work to close health disparities. The inequalities in our health care system have become very clear during the pandemic. We need to implement proven practices to reduce disparate outcomes.

The pandemic has exposed the deep dysfunction, waste, and inequity in our health care system.  The biggest need right now is to ensure that health care is accessible and affordable everywhere in the state, regardless of people’s employment status.

What are your health care priorities this Session?

The state, of course, faces a budget shortfall. Balancing the state’s budget in a manner that mitigates the impacts of spending cuts on our residents who most need our support — many of whom also bore a disproportionate share of the health and economic hardships from COVID-19 — will be both a high priority and a tremendous challenge.

While we have a few proposals in to the Governor’s Office for consideration in the budget he and the Lieutenant Governor will release at the end of January, we can point to the report of the Health and Human Services Blue Ribbon Commission, co-chaired by the commissioners of health and human services, which included more than $100 million in savings strategies and additional strategies for improving administration of services and fostering health equity.

Minnesota’s Blue Ribbon Commission was, of course, disappointed in having its work interrupted by COVID and not being able to fully vet “health transformation strategies.”  Additionally, some healthcare strategies may need to wait for the health care market to settle out after COVID. In the meantime, many of the commission’s strategies are worthy of consideration during the 2021 Legislative session.

The other area that is a priority for us is the list of COVID waivers that was extended during a summer special session through June of 2021. The most interesting, of course, are those we call “tele-everything” that allow for a raft of remote healthcare services. Our Community Supports Administration has released a study of the efficacy of remote behavioral health, for example, for consideration by the Legislature as it considers extending tele-health waivers from 2020 into long-term policy.

Our first goal is working to end this pandemic and reopen our state. We want to evaluate the lessons we have learned from COVID-19 and how we can move forward. During the pandemic, we have seen incredible innovation in our health care system. We are really working on capturing and incentivizing innovation in health care. Next, we need to evaluate the gaps in our health care system and work to address those disparities. These goals will take longer than one legislative session but are a key priority of our caucus agenda.

Another goal we are focused on is reducing the price of prescription drug pricing. COVID-19 has distracted us from many ongoing health care challenges, but we cannot lose sight of the high costs of prescription drugs.

We also are working hard to hold the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services accountable. Strong legislative oversight is critical to ensure executive agencies function in an open and transparent way. Commissioner Malcolm, Commissioner Harpstead, and I have good working relationships, and I hope we can work together to reform and improve our executive agencies.

We will be working to make prescription drugs more affordable and to improve affordable access to healthcare for all, including behavioral health (mental health and substance abuse treatment).  Our new Preventive Health Division will take a closer look at ways to improve the health of Minnesotans outside the health care system.  We will continue our work with the governor and MDH/DHS to protect and improve the health and well-being of all Minnesotans.

Looking at this Session, with it being a budget year and dealing with COVID, what do you think can realistically be done this year in this policy area? How do you predict things will play out?

The Walz/Flanagan Administration and the Legislature have voiced their eagerness to pursue policy changes, many informed directly by our experience addressing COVID-19. However, especially for Health and Human Services, the federal government serves as a critically important partner in our work. Consequently, it is difficult to predict how things will play out at the Legislature until we have more information about how Congress and President Biden’s Administration will address the remaining financial and policy needs faced by residents and states. Those federal decisions will have a significant impact on the tools and resources available to Minnesota.

And, as mentioned above, some healthcare strategies may need to wait for the healthcare market to settle out after COVID.

This session is a complete roller-coaster and it is difficult to predict what will happen. I am hopeful we can work together to get a solid budget for the people of Minnesota. I believe setting realistic goals will be critical to accomplishing shared objectives this year.

A lot will depend on the February forecast—which is very uncertain at this point.  There is a lot of interest in using telehealth to expand access to services and possibly even reduce costs, but much work must be done to decide how this tool can best be used and paid for.  Without question there will be a need to find savings, and we hope to do that without reducing health care services to people who need them.

Tunheim would like to give our sincerest thanks to Commissioner Harpstead, Senator Benson, Representative Liebling, and their respective staff for participating in this health care conversation, and for their service to the State of Minnesota and its citizens. Stay tuned later this week for a policy spotlight on energy.

If you have questions on how what was shared here means for your organization or how you can help achieve policy goals in the health care space email me, Tunheim Senior Consultant Sarah Hinde, at shinde@tunheim.com.