Under the Trump Administration, some Republican governors may look to move their Medicaid programs in a more conservative direction. In his latest column for Axios, Drew Altman discusses the arguments about Medicaid “work requirements” and why few people are likely to be affected by them in practice.
Disclosure: This is the opinion/facts from the Kaiser Family Foundation, not me. But I found this interesting. My opinion will be forthcoming.
Kaiser Family Foundation article:
Medicaid covers about 73 million people nationwide. Jointly financed by the federal and state governments, states have substantial flexibility to administer the program under existing law. Medicaid provides health insurance for low-income children and adults, financing for the safety net, and is the largest payer for long-term care services in the community and nursing homes for seniors and people with disabilities. President-elect Trump supports repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and a Medicaid block grant. The GOP plan would allow states to choose between block grant and a per capita cap financing for Medicaid. The new Administration could also make changes to Medicaid without new legislation.
1. HOW WOULD ACA REPEAL AFFECT MEDICAID?
A repeal of the ACA’s coverage expansion provisions would remove the new eligibility pathway created for adults, increase the number of uninsured and reduce the amount of federal Medicaid funds available to states. The Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling on the ACA effectively made the Medicaid expansion optional for states. As of November 2016, 32 states (including the District of Columbia) are implementing the expansion. The full implications of repeal will depend on whether the ACA is repealed in whole or in part, whether there is an alternative to the ACA put in place and what other simultaneous changes to Medicaid occur. However, examining the effects of the ACA on Medicaid provide insight into what might be at stake under a repeal.
What happened to coverage? The ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility to nearly all non-elderly adults with income at or below 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) – about $16,396 per year for an individual in 2016. Since summer of 2013, just before implementation of the ACA expansions, through August 2016 about 16 million people have been added to Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. While not all of this increase is due to those made newly eligible under the ACA, expansion states account for a much greater share of growth. States that expanded Medicaid have had large gains in coverage, although ACA related enrollment has tapered. From 2013 to 2016 the rate of uninsured non-elderly adults fell by 9.2% in expansion states compared to 6% in non-expansion states.
What happened to financing? The law provided for 100% federal funding of the expansion through 2016, declining gradually to 90% in 2020 and beyond. Expansion states have experienced large increases in federal dollars for Medicaid and have claimed $79 billion in federal dollars for the new expansion group from January 2014 through June 2015. Studies also show that states expanding Medicaid under the ACA have realized net fiscal gains despite Medicaid enrollment growth initially exceeding projections in many states.
What other Medicaid provisions were in the ACA? The ACA required states to implement major transformations to modernize and streamline eligibility and enrollment processes and systems. The ACA also included an array of new opportunities related to delivery system reforms for complex populations, those dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and new options to expand community-based long-term care services.
2. WHAT WOULD CHANGES IN THE FINANCING STRUCTURE MEAN FOR MEDICAID?
A Medicaid block grant or per capita cap policy would fundamentally change the current structure of the program. These policies are typically designed to reduce federal spending and fix rates of growth to make federal spending more predictable, but could eliminate the guarantee of coverage for all who are eligible and the guarantee to states for matching funds. States would gain additional flexibility to administer their programs but reduced federal funding could shift costs and risk to beneficiaries, states, and providers.
How would it work? Block grants or per capita caps could be structured in multiple ways. Key policy decisions would determine levels of federal financing as well as federal and state requirements around eligibility, benefits, state matching requirements, and beneficiary protections. Previous block grant proposals have determined a base year financing amount for each state and then specified a fixed rate of growth for federal spending. Under a Medicaid per capita cap, the federal government would set a limit on how much to reimburse states per enrollee. Payments to states would be based on per enrollee spending multiplied by enrollees. Spending under per capita cap proposals fluctuate based on changes in enrollment, but would not account for changes in the costs per enrollee beyond the growth limit. To achieve federal savings, the per capita growth amounts would be set below the projected rates of growth under current law.
What are the key policy questions? Key questions in designing these proposals include: what new flexibility would be granted to states, what federal requirements would remain in place, what requirements would be in place for state matching funds, what is the base year and growth rates, and how would a potential repeal of the ACA work with a block grant proposal? Given the lack of recent administrative data, setting a base year could be challenging. These financing designs could lock in historic spending patterns and variation in Medicaid spending across states, resulting in states deemed “winners” or “losers.”
What are the implications? Capping and reducing federal financing for Medicaid could have implications for beneficiaries, states, and providers including: declines in Medicaid coverage or new financial barriers to care; limited funding for children (the majority of Medicaid enrollees) as well as the elderly and those with disabilities (populations that represent the majority of Medicaid spending); reduced funding for nursing homes and community-based long-term care (Medicaid is the largest payer of these services); reductions in federal revenues to states and Medicaid revenues for safety-net providers. A block grant would not adjust to increased coverage needs during a recession. Block grants or per capita caps would not adjust to changes in health care or drug costs or emergencies. Recently Medicaid costs have increased due to high cost specialty drugs and Medicaid has been used to help combat the growing opioid crisis.
3. HOW COULD MEDICAID BE CHANGED THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS?
The Administration could make changes to Medicaid without changes in legislation.
How can changes be made through guidance? A new administration can reinterpret existing laws through new regulations and new sub-regulatory guidance. While there are rules that govern how to change regulations, a new administration has more flexibility to issue or amend sub-regulatory guidance, such as state Medicaid director letters. Rules promulgated by the Obama administration could be rolled back or changed.
How can changes be made through waivers? Throughout the history of the Medicaid program, Section 1115 waivers have provided states an avenue to test and implement demonstrations that, in the view of the Health and Human Services Secretary, advance program objectives but do not meet federal program rules. Longstanding federal policy has required waivers to be budget neutral for the federal government.
What kind of waivers may be considered? Seven states are using waivers to implement the ACA Medicaid expansion, including Indiana. The Indiana waiver, implemented under then Governor Pence, includes provisions to impose: premiums on most Medicaid beneficiaries; a coverage lock-out period for individuals with incomes above the poverty level who fail to pay premiums; health savings accounts; and healthy behavior incentives. The Obama administration has not approved waivers that would require work as a condition of Medicaid eligibility. It also has denied Ohio’s waiver request to impose premiums regardless of income and exclude individuals from coverage until all arrears are paid on the basis that this would restrict or undermine coverage from existing levels. Many other states are using waivers to implement payment and delivery system reforms. The incoming administration could decide whether or not to renew existing waivers and can approve a new set of waivers to promote its own program goals.
Too often, I have heard an analogy about the Medicaid budget and a pig wearing lipstick. Normally it goes like this: “Are we just putting lipstick on an 800 lb. pig?”…and the Medicaid budget is the 800 lbs. pig, not the lipstick.
For those of you who do not know, I own a pet pig. She is a micro pig. Not a pot belly pig; those get to be 150 lbs. Oh, no. A micro pig; those stay very small. Our Oink is only 21 pounds.
Here is a picture:
Notice she does not have lipstick on. So when someone says, “Are we just putting lipstick on an 800 lbs. pig?” I think, “Is that so bad?”
I understand that saying to put “lipstick on a pig” is a rhetorical expression. An expression used to demonstrate that making a superficial or cosmetic change is a futile attempt to disguise the true nature of a product. However, Oink and I take offense, because she is so much more beautiful than the Medicaid budget (and much smaller).
Although my Oinky-Oink is only 21 pounds. The expression that I have heard most often involves an 800 lbs. pig. If our Medicaid budget were Oink’s size, the General Assembly would probably be home.
Seriously, here is my question on my “Pigs and Medicaid” blog:
How can we expect the General Assembly to create a “knowable” and “concrete” Medicaid budget when the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) cannot provide the General Assembly with accurate data?
Literally, DHHS cannot tell the General Assembly how many people are enrolled in Medicaid. Legislatures are being told to guesstimate. Guesstimate???
Between 2009-2012, North Carolina exceeded its approved Medicaid budget by 5.4 billion. In the last decade, our Medicaid spending has increased by more than 90%.
Not to mention DHHS has difficulty filling and retaining employees. Attrition is prominent. As of June 1, 2014, a quarter of the division’s 332 jobs were vacant; the average unfilled job had been open for 347 days, or nearly a year. In November, DHHS’ chief financial officer sent out a cry for help. The Medicaid office “does not have adequate staff with the necessary experience and skills to properly manage the … program,” Rod Davis wrote to the state budget office.
To compensate for too few employees, DHHS gave a no-bid contract to Alvarez & Marsal to help create a Medicaid budget. We all know how that turned out.
With the help of Alvarez & Marsal, DHHS proposed to tax the then-10 managed-care organizations (MCOs) that manage Medicaid services for mental health, developmentally disabled, and substance abuse. But we needed approval by the feds.
It was DHHS’ hope that the extra funds would be the catalyst for a federal match twice that size. Once we got the federal match, DHHS would refund the taxed dollars to the MCOs and use the federal money to pay for programs. Maybe I’m wrong, but the idea sounds like a “bait and switch.” Analogously, I have a client pay me $50,000 on January 31, 2015, the end of our fiscal year, only to refund it February 1, 2015. I would get credit for collecting the $50,000 in fiscal year 2014, but it was not a real collection. It was fake.
And the feds knew it. The answer was, “No.”
Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg, said the information presented Wednesday should have been made available months ago, and he noted that it’s still not detailed enough for a forecast.
“When will we get the numbers that we need to have so that we can have a good budget number?” asked Rucho. And his question is not an anomaly. He is not alone.
“I’ve asked them every time I’ve had the opportunity, and I’m astounded that a $13 billion organization does not have budget numbers,” said Sen. Tommy Tucker (R-Waxhaw), one of the more outspoken members of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Health and Human Services.
Medicaid Chief Financial Officer Rod Davis told Senator Ralph Hise that his department has an idea of how much they’ve paid to providers, but that they can’t forecast what’s to come.
“Would it be like saying we know what checks we wrote, we just don’t know what we’ve paid for,” Hise asked.
Going back to my question:
How can we expect the General Assembly to create a “knowable” and “concrete” Medicaid budget when the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) cannot provide the General Assembly with accurate data?
Are we putting too much pressure on the General Assembly and not on DHHS?
The General Assembly is responsible for creating a Medicaid budget. But how can we hold the General Assembly to create an accurate Medicaid budget if the “single state agency,” DHHS, charged with managing Medicaid cannot provide the General Assembly with accurate data???
Here is my political soapbox: We have a Republican General Assembly and we have a Republican governor. Shouldn’t the General Assembly and the governor be on the same side???? Perhaps it’s more than politics. Perhaps it’s more than a donkey and an elephant.
Otherwise with a Republican General Assembly and a Republican Governor, there should be no tension between the “balance of the powers.” Yet there is.
Let’s put lipstick on a pig:
By the way, whoever created the saying “Are we just putting lipstick on an 800 lbs. pig?” obviously did not own a pig. Because Oink did NOT enjoy getting lipstick on her snout. In fact, she squealed like a pig.
NC is #1 in USA!! (For Highest Percentage Increase in Total Medicaid Spending)…and What About the Rest of the USA?
On October 21, 2013, the magazine Modern Healthcare published an article, “Medicaid budgets By State,” which showed each state’s total Medicaid spent in 2012, total number of Medicaid enrollees in 2012, and average spending per enrollee in 2012.
Where does North Carolina rank in terms of our Medicaid budget versus other states? We hear constantly that we spend all this needless money on administrative costs of Medicaid. But, in terms of our Medicaid budget, where do we rank? And my next question…do we simply have more Medicaid recipients in NC in relation to other states? Is NC’s average spending per Medicaid enrollee grossly higher or lower than the national average?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Surprisingly, at least to me, Alaska has the highest average spending per Medicaid enrollee: $13,073, on average, per enrollee. But then I thought about, much of Alaska is rural…not only rural , but almost impossible to navigate due to the snow and ice. I don’t know for sure, but I would imagine that getting to and from Medicaid recipients or getting recipients to services (while not always reimbursed by Medicaid) must impact some of the costs.
[Important to note: The average spending per enrollee, to my knowledge, does not mean actual money spent per enrollee. I believe the authors took the total budget and divided it by the number of enrollees. So the average spent per enrollee includes built-in, administrative costs.]
Or…Maybe Alaska has a low number of Medicaid recipients and that is why Alaska spends the most per enrollee…maybe Alaska has a huge Medicaid budget without many recipients on which to spend it…few people, big pie…
Alaska had, in 2012, 109,000 Medicaid recipients.
The fewer people you have at Thanksgiving, the bigger the pie pieces. However, interestingly enough, Alaska spent $1.425 million total in Medicaid in 2012. Delaware spent $1.421 in Medicaid in 2012. (Close enough, right?). Yet, Delaware spent $6831, on average, per enrollee. Maybe the pie analogy doesn’t work. Maybe sometimes, even with a big pie and few people, too many rats and ants nibble at the pie.
Out of 50 states, where do you think NC falls? Top 10 highest spender? Bottom 10? Right in the middle?
The only 8 states that spend more than NC per Medicaid recipient are:
2. New Jersey (somehow that did not surprise me) ($11,433/recipient)
3. Rhode Island (that did surprise me…I mean, look how little RI is…how big a Medicaid budget can it have?) ($11,080/recipient)
4. North Dakota (a less populous state (less tax dollars), I believe) ($10,969/recipient)
5. Pennsylvania ($10,835/recipient)
6. Minnesota (there are big cities there (more tax dollars), no surprise) ($10,080/recipient)
7. Missouri (I went to law school in Missouri. This number surprised me a bit). ($10,022/recipient)
8. Connecticut ($9883/recipient)
9. NC ($9,430/recipient)
Crazy! What about Illinois? With the hugely populous, Windy City and it being Obama’s home state, surely, Medicaid spending per recipient is, at least, in the middle, right?
Wrong. Illinois is dead last with only $5229, on average, per recipient being spent.
Probably because too many people were invited to Thanksgiving…in 2012, Illinois had 2.626 million Medicaid recipients enrolled….or too many rats and ants.
Compare to NC in 2012 – 1.471 million Medicaid recipients.
What was Alaska’s Medicaid budget/spending in 2012 that the average spending per enrollee was $13,073?
$1.425 million spent. Up 10.3% from 2011. And 109,000 Medicaid enrollees.
Here is NC:
Spending: $13.872 million. Up 22.8% from 2011. And 1.471 million recipients.
Here is a crazy one..Nevada:
In 2012, Nevada had 301,000 Medicaid enrollees. A little under 3x Alaska. Nevada spent $1.692 million on Medicaid (only 200,000-ish over Alaska), but Nevada’s average spending per enrollee was $5,621 (less than half of Alaska and the third lowest amount spent per enrollee). Where did all Nevada’s Medicaid money go?? Rats and ants eating away the pie?
North Dakota has the very least number of Medicaid enrollees in 2012…66,000. Wyoming is a close second with only 67,000 Medicaid enrollees in 2012.
North Dakota was the 4th highest state as to spending per enrollee with an average of $10,969/enrollee.
Wyoming was the 16th highest state as to spending per enrollee with an average of $8537/enrollee.
Guess which state had the highest total spending on Medicaid in 2012?
California. (Shocker!). California spent $47.726 million on Medicaid, up 4.2% from 2011. California also had the highest number of enrollees on 2012 with 2.624 million enrollees (over a million more than NC). California also spent the 5th lowest on average per enrollee, $6,065.
Having a high number of enrollees did not always have a direct correlation with spending the least, on average, per enrollee. Oregon only had 569,000 Medicaid enrollees in 2012 and spent the 4th lowest amount, on average, per enrollee, $6,007.
New York is the closest state to spending and number of recipients to California, but New York succeeded in a much higher average spending per enrollee than California.
New York spent $39.257 million total on Medicaid (less than $8 million difference from California) in 2012. New York had 5.004 million enrollees (2.8 million Medicaid enrollees less than California) and spent, on average, $7845/enrollee (absolute, dead-on-middle as compared to all states).
Georgia is, perhaps, the most comparable to North Carolina in terms of number of Medicaid enrollees in 2012. NC = 1.471 million enrollees in 2012. GA = 1.529 enrollees in 2012.
NC spent $13.872 million, while Georgia spent $8.497 million in 2012. So, Georgia had MORE Medicaid enrollees and spent over $5 million less……
Is that good or bad? Is Georgia more efficient? Did Georgia spend less in administration costs?
Actually (albeit there may be other factors), Georgia spent significantly less, on average, on each Medicaid enrollee.
Georgia spent 2nd lowest, on average, per Medicaid enrollee. Only Illinois surpassed Georgia in lowest spending, on average, per enrollee. Georgia spent, on average, $5,229 per enrollee.
NC spent $9430, on average, per enrollee. (Which, BTW, is more than enough for my “A Modest Proposal”).
That is a huge difference!
One other number jumped out at me when I reviewed Modern Healthcare‘s article, “Medicaid Budgets By State.” Remember I told you that NC spent $13.872 million on Medicaid in 2012…and that the amount spent was a 22.8% increase from 2011?
22.8% is a high percentage to increase in only one year!
I looked at the increases/decreases of the states. North Carolina gets the award for the highest percentage growth in spending on Medicaid in the entire nation. NC was the only state whose percentage “increase of Medicaid spending” percentage from 2011 to 2012 was in the 20s.
NC is #1 in the nation for percentage increase as to total Medicaid spending!!!! (Proud?)
The next state with the highest increase in spending on Medicaid is Mississippi with a 17.4% increase in spending from 2011. Next in line is Alabama with a 14.7% increase in Medicaid spending.
Guess which states decreased its Medicaid spending the most from 2011 to 2012?
Oregon (decrease of 23.2% spending) and Illinois (decrease of 15% spending). Is it coincidental that Illinois spent the absolute least, on average, per Medicaid recipient and that Oregon spent the 4th lowest, on average, per Medicaid recipient?
Regardless the size of the pie, the number of guests, and the number of rats and ants, we need to make sure that the guests (Medicaid recipients) are benefitting most from the pie.
Sometimes a decrease in spending equals a decrease in services to Medicaid recipients…sometimes not…I guess it depends on the number of rats and ants.