Posted by kemanuel
Regardless how you voted, regardless whether you “accept” Trump as your president, and regardless with which party you are affiliated, we have a new President. And with a new President comes a new administration. Republicans have been vocal about repealing Obamacare, and, now, with a Republican majority in Congress and President, changes appear inevitable. But what changes?
What are Trump’s and our legislature’s stance on Medicaid? What could our future health care be? (BTW: if you do not believe that Medicaid funding and costs impact all healthcare, then please read blog – and understand that your hard-working tax dollars are the source of our Medicaid funding).
WHAT IS OUR HEALTHCARE’S FORECAST?
The following are my forecasted amendments for Medicaid:
- Medicaid block grants to states
Trump has indicated multiple times that he wants to put a cap on Medicaid expenses flowing from the federal government to the states. I foresee either a block grant (a fixed annual amount per state) or a per capita cap (fixed dollar per beneficiary) being implemented.
What would this mean to Medicaid?
First, remember that Medicaid is an entitlement program, which means that anyone who qualifies for Medicaid has a right to Medicaid. Currently, the federal government pays a percentage of a state’s cost of Medicaid, usually between 60-70%. North Carolina, for example, receives 66.2% of its Medicaid spending from Uncle Sam, which equals $8,922,363,531.
While California receives only 62.5% of its Medicaid spending from the federal government, the amount that it receives far surpasses NC’s share – $53,436,580,402.
The federal funding is open-ended (not a fixed a mount) and can inflate throughout the year, but, in return, the states are required to cover certain health care services for certain demographics; e.g., pregnant women who meet income criteria, children, etc. With a block grant or per capita cap, the states would have authority to decide who qualifies and for what services. In other words, the money would not be entwined with a duty that the state cover certain individuals or services.
Opponents to block grants claim that states may opt to cap Medicaid enrollment, which would cause some eligible Medicaid recipients to not get coverage.
On the other hand, proponents of per capita caps, opine that this could result in more money for a state, depending on the number of Medicaid eligible residents.
2. Medicaid Waivers
The past administration was relatively conservative when it came to Medicaid Waivers through CMS. States that want to contract with private entities to manage Medicaid, such as managed care organizations (MCOs), are required to obtain a Waiver from CMS, which waives the “single state entity” requirement. 42 CFR 431.10. See blog.
This administration has indicated that it is more open to granting Waivers to allow private entities to participate in Medicaid.
There has also been foreshadowing of possible beneficiary work requirements and premiums.Montana has already implemented job training components for Medicaid beneficiaries. However, federal officials from the past administration instructed Montana that the work component could not be mandatory, so it is voluntary. Montana also expanded its Medicaid in 2015, under a Republican governor. At least for one Medicaid recipient, Ruth McCafferty, 53, the voluntary job training was Godsend. She was unemployed with three children at home. The Medicaid job program paid for her to participate in “a free online training to become a mortgage broker. The State even paid for her 400-mile roundtrip to Helena to take the certification exam. And now they’re paying part of her salary at a local business as part of an apprenticeship to make her easier to hire.” See article.
The current administration may be more apt to allow mandatory work requirements or job training for Medicaid recipients.
3. Disproportionate Share Hospital
When the ACA was implemented, hospitals were at the negotiating table. With promises from the past administration, hospitals agreed to take a cut on DSH payments, which are paid to hospitals to help offset the care of uninsured and Medicaid patients. The ACA’s DSH cut is scheduled to go into effect FY 2018 with a $2 billion reduction. It is scheduled to continue to reduce until FY 2025 with a $8 billion reduction. The reason for this deduction was that the ACA would create health coverage for more people and with Medicaid expansion there would be less uninsured.
If the ACA is repealed, our lawmakers need to remember that DSH payments are scheduled to decrease next year. This could have a dramatic impact on our hospitals. Last year, approximately 1/2 of our hospitals received DSH. In 2014, Medicaid paid approximately $18 billion for DSH payments, so the proposed reductions make up a high percentage of DSH payments.
4. Physician payment predictability
Unlike the hospitals, physicians got the metaphoric shaft when the ACA was implemented. Many doctors were forced to provide services to patients, even when those patients were not covered by a health plan. Many physicians had to increase the types of insurance they would accept, which increased their administrative costs and the burden.
This go-around, physicians may have the ear of the HHS Secretary-nominee, Tom Price, who is an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Price has argued for higher reimbursement rates for doctors and more autonomy. Regardless, reimburse rate predictability may stabilize.
Posted in "Single State Agency", 1915 b/c Waiver, California Medicaid, CMS, Congress, Decrease in Medicaid Spending, Doctors, Federal Government, Federal Law, Health Care Providers and Services, HHS, HMS, Hospital Medicaid Providers, Hospitals, Knicole Emanuel, Legal Analysis, Legislation, Managed Care, Medicaid, Medicaid Advocate, Medicaid Attorney, Medicaid Audits, Medicaid Costs, Medicaid Providers, Medicaid Recipients, Medicaid Reform, Medicaid Reimbursements, Medicaid Services, Montana Medicaid, NC, NC DHHS, North Carolina, Obamacare, Physicians, Primary Care, Primary Care Physicians, Psychiatrists, Tax Dollars, Taxes, Uninsured
Tags: 42 CFR 431.10, Affordable Care, Affordable Care Act, Block grant, California Medicaid, Disproportionate share hospital, DSH payments, Federal funding, Federal Government, Federal portion of Medicaid, Health and Human Services, Health care, HHS, Managed care, Managed Care Organizations, Mandatory work requirements, Medicaid, Medicaid beneficiaries, Medicaid block grants, Medicaid Costs, Medicaid Eligibility, Medicaid enrollment, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid per capitat cap, Medicaid Providers, Medicaid Waiver, Medicaid waivers, Medicare, Montana Medicaid, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Per capita cap, Physicians who Accept Medicaid, Primary Care, Primary Care Physician, Privatization, Single state agency, Single state entity, Tom Price, Trump