Get the latest on the blog

The blog is updated weekly with George Handzo's latest thoughts on healthcare chaplaincy.

Get Updates in your Inbox

* indicates required
Email Format


It Is About the Money

I have devoted a lot of time and energy over the past several years to the development of the "evidence" for spiritual care and chaplaincy. That means mainly guidelines and studies with numbers. We have made some major gains over that time. The 3rd edition of the NCP guidelines[i] and the research of Tracy Balboni[ii] and colleagues and Deborah Marin and colleagues[iii] are major examples. The case for the inclusion of spiritual care and chaplaincy is much more compelling today than it was ten or even five years ago. And yet, despite the fact that spiritual care is named as a required service in virtually every model for palliative care, study after study continues to show that chaplaincy (and to a lesser degree, social work) lag behind and are the most often omitted members of palliative care teams[iv].  

In an interview discussing this study, Dr. Sean Morrison said:

We've seen really a tremendous growth in the number of advance practice nurses that are in the field. We've also seen a growth, you know, an accompanying growth in terms in of the number of physicians. But where we, as you said, we still have a lot of room for improvement is both in social work and in chaplaincy. And it's perhaps not surprising that those are the two disciplines where they can't bill for their services. And I think a large part of the lack of growth in those two areas is because of finances[v].

Recently I reviewed and submitted comments on two documents outlining guidelines for community palliative care.  In both, spiritual care was included. In one case, the document stated that spiritual care should be provided "when reasonable". In the other case, "availability" was all that was required. Further investigation convinced me that at least a part of the issue in each case was the presumed costs of chaplaincy. This will certainly amuse or anger many chaplains who know how little money most institutions invest in spiritual care and how cheap it is. While we should continue to develop "evidence" in all forms, we need to go after the money issue directly and aggressively.

Why is this happening? What is missing?

There is no silver bullet here of course but at least in part, I think we have not focused on making the business and financial case justifying the value of what we do. Years ago, the values of health care, the reimbursement structures and the lack of spiritual care research would have made that task impossible in a convincing way. I and others now believe that the situation has changed dramatically. It is now entirely possible and essential to the survival and growth of spiritual care that the case be made both in general terms and in terms that are customized to each institution.

What needs to happen for that case to be made in a convincing and widespread way?

1. We need to get over the attitude many chaplains still have that letting money drive our ministry is somehow beneath us or even unnecessary or something we can never build a case around.

2. We need to make common cause with social work. Neither chaplaincy nor social work can any longer afford to be engaged in turf wars over who does what in psychosocial-spiritual care. We need to get it straight, agree, and support each other. This will mean some swallowing of egos but it will benefit patients. Otherwise the game too often played by administrators of divide and conquer will continue.

3. Each of us needs to educate ourselves on the evidence for the cost effectiveness of spiritual care and chaplaincy at this time in health care. A paper recently produced by HealthCare Chaplaincy Network is a good place to start and a resource that can be passed on to administrators[vi].

4. Each of us needs to educate ourselves on what our individual institution is focused on in terms of cost savings and revenue generation, especially in light of the latest federal quality reporting options that have serious financial implications. Is it patient satisfaction? Is it care in the last month or 6 months of a patient's life? Is it increasing the percentage of patients with advance care plans? Whatever that is in our institution, we need to work at figuring out how chaplaincy can contribute and demonstrate that contribution in dollars made or saved.

5. We need to be pressuring our professional associations and certifying bodies to be involved both in resource development and direct advocacy. What resources and educational opportunities have your professional association offered membership on this topic? What direct advocacy are they doing both at the federal and state level? What support are they offering you directly to deal effectively with challenges in your institution? There are a dozen or so associations in the US that certify health care chaplains. How has your body collaborated with the other eleven in this cause?  (Hint: It is not true that all these bodies refuse to talk to each other.) Are we teaching aspiring chaplains the skills and knowledge they need to produce value added outcomes in health care chaplaincy and do our certification processes focus on making sure those skills and that knowledge are demonstrated- how to build a spiritual care service and do quality improvement for instance?

Again, this is not the time for turf wars or "we are the best" talk. We want to see all our associations grow and thrive.  What we should be caring about is how we are supporting each other in making a difference, not for our association, but for the patients we serve.




[i] The National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care 3rd edition 2013.

[ii] Balboni, T. A., Paulk, M. E., Balboni, M. J., Phelps, A. C., Loggers, E. T., Wright, A. A., ... & Prigerson, H. G. (2010). Provision of spiritual care to patients with advanced cancer: associations with medical care and quality of life near death. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28(3), 445-452.

 [iii] Marin DB, Sharma V, Sosunov E, Egorova N, Goldstein R, Handzo G. 2015. The relationship between chaplain visits and patient satisfaction. Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy. 21 (1):14-24.

[iv] How We Work: Trends and Insights in Hospital Palliative Care

[v] "Sean Morrison and the Current State of Palliative Care",  GeriPal: Geriatrics and Palliative Care Blog, April 19, 2017.

[vi] Spiritual Care: What It Means, Why It Matters in Health Care. 


Making Our Voices Heard

As we all know, this is a time of great upheaval in our country. Some of that is related to the changes in federal government, but much of it is heavily influenced by other events and trends in our country and around the world. Health care certainly has its share of change and uncertainty. It is easy to focus on the threats that this upheaval brings and they are real. However, this kind of upheaval also brings opportunities that are easy to ignore and even when we don't ignore them, it is sometimes hard to figure out how to take advantage of them.

As I've gotten somewhat involved in this kind of advocacy recently, I've discovered opportunities and ways of giving input that I really had no idea about.

Myth #1 that I believed is that it is very hard or even impossible to give input on government regulation or proposed rules. Simply untrue. Virtually all proposed federal government regulations are open for public comment on line before final versions are adopted. Many meetings are open to the public. I am one of two chaplains who sit on the National Quality Forum's Standing Committee on Palliative and End of Life Measures. All of our meetings are open to the public in person or by phone and anyone so attending gets an opportunity to comment usually at the end of the meeting. Our minutes are available to the public on line. Many other health care related proceedings are also open to public comment. Admittedly, finding out about these opportunities is not easy, but over time one can learn.

Myth #2 that I believed is that legislators have no real interest in hearing from constituents.  All one has to do these days is follow the trials of members of the House of Representatives especially when they return home, and you know they do provide opportunities to hear from constituents and most know they should pay attention especially if they have two year terms.  For a while, Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, had a phone line open to gather comments on the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).  It was shut down apparently after being flooded with pro-ACA calls.

So there are opportunities but how best to take advantage of them? First, don't undersell the expertise we have and how much we know.  We know the obstacles that people face in coping with illness and injury and we know a lot about what would help them. Stating clearly and succinctly who we are and what we do generally gives us instant credibility on health care issues. We should never be timid about claiming our authority to speak.

Second, educate yourself on the issues of interest to you on the state and federal level that you might want to give input on/support/oppose. This again can be complicated but with some searching over time, one can get connected to information sources that specialize in issues we as chaplains care about. As an example, here in California where I live a bill that would mandate palliative care (and thus potentially spiritual care) for all recipients of Medi-Cal- the state Medicare system- passed the legislature some time ago but is now held up in the legislature's budgeting process. The bill known officially as SB1004 is only one page so very easy to understand. Following its progress is difficult. The way I have been doing it is to be in the media lists for an organization called the Coalition for Compassionate Care California ( that has championed palliative care as well as advance care planning. Again, this is a natural issue for health care chaplains and we should be weighing in on it The HealthCare Chaplaincy Network has been a co-signer of several letters supporting the implementation of this bill but this is a case of "the more the merrier." Certainly, similar issues and pathways exist in other states.

Finally, be clear about the "ask". At the end of the day, legislative agency staff who read your input want to know what you want them to do. Just complaining or just asking that "something" be done is a waste of time. So, on SB1004 we want them to implement the bill and make sure that spiritual care is a mandated service as part of that implementation. Being able to quote one or two studies here about how attending to spiritual issues is what patients want is helpful.

Yes, all of this takes time and effort.  But it SB1004 is implemented, it will be a huge benefit to many Californians and a model for Medicare providers in other states.

Its time to make our voices heard. 


What Should Spiritual Care Be Accountable For?

Much has been made of the changes that are coming to our federal government with the advent of this new administration. And indeed drastic change is here and uncertainty is the watchword of the day. Despite that, most authorities are convinced that some initiatives will not change and this uncertainty also constitutes an opportunity to provide change to the system.

One of the fundamental changes is the conversion of the basic health care payment model from what has been known as fee for service to the one now most often called value-based purchasing. Fee for service is fairly simple. The health care provider delivers a service like a test or treatment and gets paid a set fee. The more service is provided, the more the provider is paid. Value-based purchasing pays for service to the extent it is deemed to be of high quality and, paradoxically, for saving money. This new system comes with many, many unknowns not the least of which is how does quality get defined, who gets to define it, and how is it measured?

The current centerpiece of this change is the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act (MACRA) passed by Congress with overwhelmingly bipartisan support in 2015. (with now-Secretary Price voting for it). The regulations govern how providers are reimbursed by the federal government- mostly through Medicare Part B. MACRA replaces several value initiatives and payment models mainly with two alternative strategies for raising quality and lowering cost - the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and the Alternative Payment Models (APM).

I have to admit that when I first heard about MACRA and what it involved, my conclusion was that this has to do with provider reimbursement and since chaplains don't get reimbursed, this has nothing to do with us. That conclusion has proved to be completely wrong. The explanation is complicated but basically involves the reality that, in this new system, the provider which could be the hospital or a doctor's group or other, gets paid for delivering quality care and/or an outcome which is cost savings. However, how the outcome is attained is, for the most part, up to the provider. The provider can provide the service any way they choose. Naturally, they will seek to use the most effective and efficient method available. Thus, if the particular service can be provided more effectively and efficiently (i.e. at less cost) by a chaplain, then a chaplain can be hired to provide the service.

A quick description of MIPS and APMs. In MIPS, the provider chooses a number of quality measures to report on from a very long overall list. Many of the measures like patient satisfaction, having advance directives and helping reduce pain, can easily be influenced by chaplaincy care. If chaplaincy care turns out to be the most effective and least costly way of attaining this outcome, the provider may use that method. 

APMs are plans for providing service in which the provider assumes accountability for providing a certain set of services at a certain cost. This set of services may be palliative care or oncology care or pretty much anything. The services are also supposed to be patient-centered. The plans are pre-approved by the government and then any provider can adopt them if they want to.  Various organizations are now submitting plans for approval. Again, as with MIPS, if the inclusion of chaplaincy adds to quality and cost savings, it can be included in the cost that the plan can charge and the services for which it is accountable.

The key to being included in MIPS and especially in an APM is (1) to be able to specify exactly what work your service will do and what outcomes your service will assume accountability for and (2) to be able to precisely price the cost of the work.

So what seems to be the bottom line?  After talking to many people who understand this much better than I do, this is what I understand.

There is an opportunity right now when quality, patient-centered care is the name of the game to demonstrate that chaplaincy adds to both of these goals and can be net cost saving in the process. The outcomes we have always claimed we deliver including patient satisfaction and cost savings are now taken very seriously. Further, a system is coming to a place that will pay for those outcomes.

BUT to take advantage of this opportunity we will have to:

-Rid ourselves of unsubstantiated statements. "We are the best" or "our program works" without data to measure the results against valued health outcomes simply exposes us as a discipline which doesn't understand the values under which the current health care system operates. We must have data to substantiate every claim we make.

-Agree on the outcomes we can be and want to be accountable for. A year ago HCCN put forward a set of evidence-based quality indicators for discussion within the field. To date, no individual or association within the field has engaged that discussion or tested the indicators although the list has been very widely applauded and adopted outside of chaplaincy.

-Be clear what activities we will be accountable for in the service of these indicators.  And we need to agree on how to price what we do. What kind of budget does a hospital need for a professional chaplaincy service and what does that money buy?

Already there is one proposed APM covering end of life care filed for federal consideration that has no mention of spiritual care or chaplaincy. There is another that HCCN is providing input to. However, there is no way of knowing how many others are in process. There will be public comment periods of course but there is real danger that the health care system will move ahead without us even in a time when we have maybe the most clear opportunity in our history to be firmly integrated and paid for.

So what to do?

- Find the table in your institution (and there certainly is one) where these issues are being discussed. We know it is unlikely others will think of us for help here so we need to be there to raise our hand.

- Educate yourself on how your institution currently gets paid and for what and how do they plan to be paid in the future- MIPS vs. APM vs. Accountable Care Org vs. Medicare Advantage vs. Other.

- Think creatively with your chaplaincy colleagues about how you might volunteer chaplaincy to contribute to your institution's plans in this regard. What evidence-based case can you make for adding value to these activities?

There is an unprecedented opportunity here to integrate chaplaincy care and spiritual care into health care and have it reimbursed. However, no one is going to hand it to us. It will only happen if we do the work up front. This work can be done but it will not be easy because it ventures into territory we as a profession have never been in before. 


What Does The Election Mean for Chaplaincy in Health Care?

It is probably a fair assumption that very few people in the US do not have strong feelings about the recent presidential election spanning pretty much the whole spectrum of human emotion. However, whether we are in deep mourning or jubilant celebration, it behooves us to attend to business.

While the consensus I am hearing from people deeply involved in health care policy and funding is that the changes in health care are not apt to be as cataclysmic as both candidates predicted if the other was elected, there will be new changes in what already was a fast-changing health care industry. There will also be a continuation of some of the changes already in progress. These changes, both new and continuing, do not need to be negative for spiritual care. Like all times of turmoil, the situation provides both opportunities and dangers.  But the changes are all coming fast- some even before Mr. Trump takes office. 

The trick for everyone in health care, including chaplains, will be to negotiate this uncharted territory while simultaneously avoiding the grave dangers and taking advantage of opportunities. It won't always be obvious which is which.

While a lot is up in the air, a couple of issues seem to be clear to most experts. First, the new administration along with a Republican Congress is likely to double down on reducing the growth in health care costs, mostly by tightening Medicare reimbursement even further. The Advisory Board, maybe the most respected think tank in health care has said, "This means providers have to maintain a relentless focus on taking excess cost out of their systems, eliminating unwarranted clinical variation, and rationalizing their fixed cost footprints." Cost containment is not news.  However, it is clear that the pressure is only going to intensify. We should expect that no one is safe- including chaplaincy and Clinical Pastoral Education. The key word here I think is "excess".  How is a hospital going to determine what is excess? I think the answer is in what seems to be the next issue.

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) passed Congress with huge bipartisan majorities in 2015.  Because of the bipartisan support and because it supports many Republican positions (unlike the ACA), it is expected to survive and maybe largely intact.  The final rule implementing MACRA was recently released and is becoming generally known as the Quality Payment Program  (QPP).  The key word here is "quality".  QPP might well be translated as "we are only going to pay for quality." How is quality going to be defined? Most likely, quality will be that which serves cost reduction (i.e. reduction of excess costs) and/or better medical outcomes (i.e. reduction of clinical variation which also cuts costs). This is where the movement to payment for value and away from fee for service that is already in full swing meets the new administration agenda for cost reduction. This is why QPP largely stays.

So what about chaplaincy? Put simply, the pressure on clinical chaplaincy and chaplaincy training to demonstrate the value to the institution is likely to ramp up significantly as institutions delve into every corner of their operation to cut costs and increase value. Chaplaincy, along with all other programs and services that cannot show the data to demonstrate their value as defined above, will run an increasing risk of being deemed "excess cost". The good news is that many providers of all disciplines see opportunities in QPP for chaplaincy and social work to contribute value by documenting the cost saving of what we are often already doing in the service of certain quality metrics, and thus actually increase our footprint. In other words, inactivity on the value issue is a real threat, but proactivity can make this a significant opportunity.  

To learn more about this important topic, chaplains should listen to  the free webinar, Update on MACRA Quality Payment Program:  What Palliative Care Providers Should Do Now” sponsored by the National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, the Center to Advance Palliative Care, the Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association, and Health Care Chaplaincy Network.   The webinar will be held on Tuesday, November 29 from 12:30 – 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Register for free at

So how does chaplaincy demonstrate its value? One course that is out of the question now is trying to get chaplaincy directly reimbursed for any service. Even in the current administration and certainly in the next any attempt to increase classes of providers or newly billable services will be seen as adding costs when all efforts are on reducing costs. Further, as we know, health care is increasingly a team game funded by bundled payments that are headed lower if anything.  In a team game, demonstrating the contribution of any single player becomes difficult.

However, there is a way. The paradigm is in research such as that done by Tracy Balboni and her team that has demonstrated that meeting spiritual needs at the end of life, which is what patients want, also reduces the use of aggressive care such as ICU stays and thus reduces costs. The next step is to demonstrate that this effect is larger and may be delivered more reliably when the team has a certified chaplain on board to lead the effort.

So what should chaplains be doing now?

Listen to the webinar on the 29th.

If you don't know already, educate yourself about how quality programs work. At least learn the language so you can participate in the conversation. Many institutions offer introductory courses for employees for free.

Get involved in the discussions in your institutions about what quality metrics your institution is going to report in the QPP. Many will need to start reporting in 2017. A good number of the options could be advanced by chaplain participation.

Investigate what quality initiatives are ongoing or anticipated in your institution and be creative and proactive in making the case for how what the chaplains do contributes to these. When those initiatives succeed, patients will likely be better served and the role for spiritual care will be enhanced. 

I firmly believe that, if we are aggressive and strategic, we can not only negotiate this new health care environment without serious damage, but we can  genuinely emerge with spiritual care and chaplaincy more firmly integrated than ever before into health care. I strongly believe we can do it without selling the soul of our profession and compromising our historic relationship to patients in the process.  However, there is no time to lose. 


New WHO Guidance on Planning & Implementing Palliative Care: What Should Chaplains Know?

As many know, in May 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted an extensive new document (WHA 67.19) on palliative care that among other landmarks included spiritual care for the first time. Now, as is customary for WHO, they have issued a guidance document for those in the 192 member countries of the WHO to help them roll out palliative care in their countries. (Planning and implementing palliative care services: a guide for programme managers. (http://

This is a hugely important document for all palliative care providers including spiritual care providers. It reaffirms WHO's stand that palliative care is not just a "nice to have" in health care but a human right. This means that all countries should provide it.

   "Ensuring the accessibility of palliative care is not just an ethical obligation of health systems;         it is also an obligation under international human rights law. The right to palliative care and pain     relief is recognized under the human right to health." (p.6)

For the chaplain reader in North American, it is necessary to understand something about the international context for palliative care in order to understand a lot of why the guide is written the way it is. Readers will notice a significant emphasis on the availability and use of pain relievers- especially opioids. While opioids are maybe too plentiful in the US, they are often very hard to get in many countries because of severe legal restrictions. At the same time in many countries where treatment for diseases like cancer are hard or impossible to obtain, pain relief is all that can be done. As the guide comments on page 6,  "Unfortunately, countries have paid far more attention to their obligation to prevent abuse than to their obligation to ensure access for medical purposes."

For anyone who is at home with the complexities of US health systems, the extensive step-by-step advice on how to set up palliative care in a variety of settings may seem simplistic.  However, in many countries, these models that we often are so used to are rare or unknown.

Finally, chaplain readers will notice that the word, "chaplain" is largely missing. In fact, it is only used once, incongruously, in the list of recommended staff for pediatric palliative staff. The point to remember is that, in most of the world, "chaplain" is far less known than even in North America and Europe. The term does not even have an equivalent in many languages. More importantly, providing trained chaplains is not a model that probably most countries in the WHO can aspire to. Maybe the major challenge for spiritual care providers is how to provide what we would call "specialist" spiritual care as part of palliative care in these contexts.

That all said, the guide makes very clear that spiritual care is to be a part of the palliative care that is required. "Spiritual" is used over thirty times. On page 12, the guide states" Spiritual distress and existential concerns should be treated with the same level of intensity and priority as psychosocial and physical distress or pain. Support may involve a spiritual carer." Spiritual care is not a second-class citizen.

  "Spiritual care should be provided to patients (page 9) families (page 13) and 'professionals             providing care (including self'" (page 10)

    "Palliative care services should, therefore, at a minimum: .... assess and reassess patients for        physical, emotional, social and spiritual distress and   (re)assess family members for emotional,      social, orspiritual distress; ..address spiritual, psychological and social needs;" (page 9)

    "Spiritual "understanding" is described as one of the core tasks of the palliative team (page 60       and discussion of "spiritual suffering" is part of the sample curriculum for training all staff."             (page 87)

Thus the mandate to include spiritual care is quite emphatic and all encompassing. What is beyond the scope of this guide and seems to be the challenge for us in professional chaplaincy to come up with answers to are issues like:

            If professional chaplains are largely not an option, who are these "spiritual    carers" on the team going     to be?

            Where are they going to come from?

            How are they going to be trained?

            How is this training going to be delivered often over vast distances?

Answering these questions presents a colossal challenge but also a colossal opportunity to impact spiritual care around the world.  The WHO has set the bar but much is left to be done.

We in chaplaincy and spiritual care are seriously indebted to a large number of those listed in the acknowledgments who have long championed the inclusion of spiritual care in palliative care and who have yet again carried this inclusion forward.  Those best known to the US audience would include Kathy Foley, Diane Meier and Christina Puchalski but I personally know a number of others in the group who undoubtedly supported this inclusion as well.