Blog Archives

Medicaid Forecast: Cloudy with 100% Chance of Trump

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:

  1. 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.

Lordy, Lordy, Look Who’s Forty: A Review of Our 40-Year-Old Stalemate in Health Care Reform

40-birthday

Well, folks, it is official.  I am “over the hill.”  Yup.  My birthday is today, January 7, 1975, and I was born 40 years ago.

Instead of moping around, I have decided to embrace my 40s. For starters, let’s take a look at where we were 40 years ago. Obviously, personally, I was in utero. But what about the country? What about health care?

Not surprisingly, even 40 years ago, politicians were discussing the same issues with health care as we are now. Some things never change…or do they???

In my “40 years in review” blog, I want to discuss why we, as a nation, are still arguing about the same health care issues that we were arguing about 40 years ago.  And, perhaps, the reason why we have been in a 40-year-old stalemate in health care reform.

Today, we have a diverged nation when it comes to health care. Democrats want to expand public health insurance (i.e., Medicaid) and tend to favor a higher degree of government oversight of health care to ensure that health care is available to all people.  Republicans, on the other hand, believe that the financial burden of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the federal and state level is unsustainable, and people will receive less than adequate health care. Republicans tend to favor privatization of Medicaid, while liberals oppose such ideas.

Health care reform has been a hot topic for over 40 years…with some interesting differences…

Going back to 1975…

Gerald Ford, a Republican, was our nation’s president, and we were in a nationwide recession.

Under Ford, the American Medical Society (AMA) proposed a new plan for health care, an employer mandate proposal.

According to a 1975 Chicago Tribune journalist, the AMA’s new proposal pushed for a broader government role in health care.  See below.

“The new [ ] plan would cover both employees and the unemployed, along with poor people and those considered uninsurable because of medical or mental problems.  It would require employers to subsidize health care for employees and their families and pay at least 65 % of each premium.  It would also require the government to provide partially subsidized health insurance, financed from general revenues, for the poor and the unemployed. It calls for medical insurance benefits covering 365 days of hospital care during any one year, 100 days of nursing home care, and home health, mental, and dental service for children aged 2 and up.  All but the poorest beneficiaries would share premium costs and would pay 20 per cent for the services provided, but no individual would pay more than $1,500 a year and no family more than $2,000 a year for health care.”

Chicago Tribune, “The A.M.A.’s subsidy plan” April 19, 1975 (emphasis added) (no author was cited).

Interestingly, in that same newspaper from April 19, 1975, advertisements show towels for $1.89, pants for teenagers for $4.99, a swivel rocker for $88, and a BBQ grill for $12.88. My how times have changed!

Those prices also indicate how much buying power was involved with the AMA’s proposal, and what it meant to suggest that an individual might have to pay up to $1,500 a year, and a family up to $2,000 a year, for health care – a lot of money back then!

In 1976, Pres. Ford proposed adding catastrophic coverage to Medicare, offset by increased cost sharing.  These are examples of Pres. Ford (a Republican) creating more government involvement in health care and expanding health care to everyone.

After Pres. Ford, came Pres. Jimmy Carter from 1977-1981, a Democrat.

Pres. Carter campaigned on the notion of “universal health care for everyone;” however, once in office he decided instead to rein in costs, and not expand coverage.  In the prior decade (1960), the consumer price index had increased by 79.7%, while hospital costs had risen 237%.  President Carter proposed an across-the-board cap on hospital charges that would limit annual increases to 1.5 times any rise in the consumer price index.

Pres. Carter was also quoted from public speeches saying, “We must clean up the disgraceful Medicaid scandals.”

Pres. Carter’s stance on “universal” health care was: “that such a program would be financed through both the employer and the payroll taxes, as well as general revenue taxes. Patients would still be free to choose their own physician, but the federal government would set doctor’s fees and establish controls to monitor the cost and quality of health care.”

In May 1979, Senator Ted Kennedy, a Democrat, proposed a new universal national health insurance bill—offering a choice of competing federally-regulated private health insurance plans with no cost sharing financed by income-based premiums via an employer mandate and individual mandate, replacement of Medicaid by government payment of premiums to private insurers, and enhancement of Medicare by adding prescription drug coverage and eliminating premiums and cost sharing.

These are examples of Democrats, Pres. Carter, by not expanding health care coverage and reining in costs, and Sen. Kennedy, by proposing privatization of Medicaid, acting in a more conservative nature, or, as a conservative nature would be perceived today.

So when did the parties flip-flop? Why did the parties flip-flop? And the most important question…if we have been struggling with the exact same issues on health care for over 40 years, why has our health care system not been fixed?  There has certainly been enough time, ideas, and proposed bills.

While I do not profess to know the answer, my personal opinion is the severe and debilitating polarizations of the two main political parties have rendered this country into a 40-year-old stalemate when it comes to health care reform and are the reason why the solution has not been adopted and put into practice.

Maybe back in 1979, when Senator Kennedy proposed replacing Medicaid with private insurance, Republicans refused to agree, simply because a Democrat proposed the legislation.

Today when Republican candidates campaign on privatizing Medicaid and the Democrats vehemently oppose such action, maybe the opposition is not to the idea, but to the party making the proposal.

Just a thought…

And here’s to the next 40!!!

McCrory Administration Accused of Suppressing Insight into Medicaid

Whew…more bad press for the McCrory administration, Secretary Aldona Wos, Carol Steckel and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 

Ms. Rose Hoban, a journalist for North Carolina Health News, a website that I, personally, visit often, accuses the McCrory administration of suppressing information about Medicaid that, in her opinion, indicates that Medicaid was not as broken as the January 2013 Performance Audit conducted by Beth Wood, our State Auditor demonstrated.  According to Ms. Hoban, the McCrory administration suppressed the Medicaid information in order to push forward the McCrory administration’s intent to privatize Medicaid.

That is quite an accusation with immeasurable consequences if correct?  Right?

Did the McCrory administration suppress Medicaid information with the intent to push for privatization? I have no idea. 

Ms. Hoban suggests that Ms. Steckel’s revisions to the former administration’s responses to the Beth Wood audit on DHHS indicates the McCrory administration’s intentional suppression for a political reason.  I am not so sure that Steckel’s revisions to the former administration’s responses proves prima facie (on its face and without any other evidence) that the McCrory administration was “suppressing insight into Medicaid,” in order to privatize Medicaid… But, who knows???? 

According to Ms. Hoban’s article, another related article will be published in the future, so maybe she has more evidence to support the accusation. We shall see….

Here is Ms. Hoban’s article:

McCrory Administration Officials Suppressed Insight Into Medicaid

For months, members of the McCrory administration have maintained that the state’s Medicaid program is “broken.” But in the first of a two-part investigation, North Carolina Health News shows McCrory officials sat on information that would have depicted the state’s much-lauded Medicaid program in a better light.

By Rose Hoban

Soon after taking control in Raleigh in early 2013, people hired by Gov. Pat McCrory to run the Department of Health and Human Services made strategic edits to the departmental response to State Auditor Beth Wood’s audit of the North Carolina Medicaid program.

Documents obtained by North Carolina Health News through a public records request show that in January, incoming Sec. Aldona Wos and Medicaid head Carol Steckel eliminated detailed explanations of alleged high administrative costs, management problems and budget overruns in past years.

The resulting document accepts the criticism in Wood’s assessment wholesale and paints the health care program that covers 1.6 million North Carolinians as “broken.”

The criticisms contained in the audit have yielded talking points used by Wos, Steckel and McCrory for the past eight months as justification for turning down a federal expansion of the program under the Affordable Care Act and proposing to privatize the program.

State Auditor Beth Wood describes the results of her audit of the state Medicaid program, while Governor Pat McCrory listens.

State Auditor Beth Wood describes the results of her audit of the state Medicaid program, while Gov. Pat McCrory listens.

The original response to the audit created in December 2012 by outgoing officials from Gov. Bev Perdue’s administration was revised in successive editions of the document throughout January, with a decisive, near-final edit by Steckel.

In a document that displays “track changes” that include Steckel’s electronic signature, whole paragraphs were deleted, with evidence that, for example, North Carolina’s administrative costs are lower than most states rather than 30 percent higher, as maintained by McCrory administration officials.

Incoming administration officials also deleted whole sections explaining that budget overruns were in large part a function of under-budgeting by the General Assembly.

And in her first week in her new office, Steckel struck through paragraphs explaining that Community Care of North Carolina had been studied by two national groups that found cost savings. Instead, she inserted language casting doubt on the efficacy of CCNC and suggesting further study of the statewide program that’s been lauded nationally and that is being replicated in several states.

‘Administrative costs are 30 percent higher’

During a press conference to present the audit in January, Wood said her analysts had determined that North Carolina was spending significantly more on administrative costs than states with Medicaid programs of comparable size (see table, below).

“The administrative spending for the state’s medicaid program is 38 percent higher than the average of nine states with similarly sized Medicaid programs,” Wood maintained. “While those states on average have administrative costs of 4.5 percent, the state of North Carolina spent over 6 percent of its total budget on administrative cost. In real dollars that means that the state is spending $180 million more than the average of our peer states.”

For her analysis, Wood used information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

In a February appearance before the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Health and Human Services, Steckel cast some doubt on those numbers, telling the committee that in many states administrative costs are hidden inside the contracts with managed care companies that run Medicaid programs.

Administrative cost comparison calculated by State Auditor's staff

Administrative cost comparison calculated by state auditor staff (screenshot from final audit)

“Actually, the administrative cost functions are in the managed care entities. And if you look at what is termed the ‘medical-loss ratio,’ which is what the managed care companies are allowed to use for administration, if you look at that for Arizona, their administrative costs would actually be 13.74 percent,” Steckel told the committee, explaining that the managed care company, rather than the state, was spending the administrative dollars.

Steckel may have gotten the Arizona figure from an analysis prepared by outgoing DHHS officials in December 2012. In the original departmental response to the state auditor’s report, which called Wood’s comparison “incomplete and misleading,” DHHS officials used actuarial data from national firm Milliman and from an Academy of Health report to calculate actual administrative overhead in the states Wood used in her comparison, including overhead from state expenditures and from managed care companies.

That table shows Arizona’s administrative expenditures at 13.74 percent.

When figures from all the states are tallied up and compared, North Carolina is among the lowest for administrative expenditures (see table and document, below).

Wos wrote in the final departmental response that DHHS agreed with Wood’s findings and recommendations on controlling administrative expenses.

During the press conference to announce the audit, Wos said, “Cost overruns will not be tolerated and will not be acceptable. There’s a budget for a reason, and we must adhere to this budget.”

Administrative cost comparison compiled by DHHS

Administrative cost comparison compiled by DHHS using data from July 2012 study by Milliman & Academy of Health report. Source: Issue Sheet 3, “Admin Costs w Responses,” dated Dec 18, 2012 (screenshot from document shown below).

Since release of the audit, Wos and McCrory have used Medicaid’s supposedly high administrative costs as talking points for problems in Medicaid; most recently, McCrory cited that figure in a September interview with Tom Campbell on NC SPIN.

“We had a more than $500-million overrun based on Gov Perdue’s projections on Medicaid, and our costs are 30 percent higher than other states in Medicaid administration,” McCrory told Campbell, “just basic operational issues.”

“The state overspent its Medicaid budget by $1.4 billion under the previous administration, and this administration thought that was indefensible,” wrote DHHS spokesman Ricky Diaz in response to a request for comment on this story.

Budget issues

Another talking point used by Wos and McCrory is the Medicaid budget overruns that have plagued the program over the past three fiscal years. Both have been quoted numerous times stating that Medicaid has been over budget by a total of $1.4 billion during that time period.

In the audit, Wood tallies the state budget overrun for the three years at $375 million, which includes federal matching funds to reach the $1.4 billion total. And Wood states that administrative overruns were the result of an “apparent lack of oversight.”

Initially, DHHS officials strongly disagreed with this assessment, writing that any exceeded budget amounts were due to “other factors such as consumption and price, not lack of oversight.… Since Medicaid is an entitlement program, the Division has little control over consumption.”

But this defense was edited out by Steckel, as evidenced in the tracked-changes version of the audit response dated Jan. 22, 2013. Steckel noted that telling Wood Medicaid is an entitlement would be “speaking out of school to the auditor.”

Steckel also deleted most of the language that provided any defense or explanation of departmental actions. In her edits, Steckel added that the department would be implementing a system where “we track contract requirements and expenditures on a weekly basis,” something DHHS officials had been doing since the previous summer, as noted in earlier versions of the document prepared by outgoing Perdue officials.

Perdue’s team had also included explanations of how the Office of State Budget and Management had been consulted on – and approved of  –  any overruns, explaining: “The Department cannot unilaterally expend funds beyond budgeted amounts.”

Later in the document, former officials argued that the department had repeatedly provided legislators, OSBM and the legislative Fiscal Research Division “with information regarding the inability to achieve savings included in the budget for [fiscal year] 2012-2013 as early as April, 2011.”

That was around the time former DHHS Sec. Lanier Cansler began sending letters to legislative leaders and to OSBM warning that budget targets were too low, essentially forcing DHHS to overspend its budget. Cansler sent letters in May and June, and again on Oct 27, 2011, when he wrote that “aggressive budget cuts mandated by the General Assembly’s budget are unreasonable and unattainable.”

In a letter to Speaker of the House Thom Tillis and Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger dated June 2, 2011, then-governor Perdue wrote that she believed the amounts budgeted for Medicaid were too low.

Perdue pointed out that since 2008, the state had grown by 400,000 people and the state was still struggling to emerge from the economic downturn that meant many workers lost insurance, with some of those workers and many of their children swelling Medicaid’s rolls.

“[Y]our budget relies on over $750 million in reductions to Medicaid over the course of the biennium,” Perdue wrote. “When the loss of Medicaid matching funds are accounted for, your cut is actually $2 billion in real money taken out of the North Carolina economy….

“It is anticipated that over $200 million of these reductions will not be achievable due to technical mistakes and overestimating of savings.”

But any references to departmental attempts to warn others outside DHHS of issues were edited out by Steckel. She also removed references to the fact that federal rules prohibit states from changing their Medicaid programs unilaterally; any rule changes require federal approval, which can take months, and those delays mean a state ends up spending at a higher rate than desired in the meantime.

Later, in sections of the audit that fault the Division of Medical Assistance for poor forecasting of expenditures, Steckel edited out the following: “The Department disagrees that actions were not taken to reduce expenditures to stay within budget. Despite the actions taken by the Department, estimates were exceeded largely due to factors outside the Department’s control. Medicaid is an entitlement program and changes require approval outside of the Division and the Department.”

Again, these explanations of budgeting procedure and warnings by DHHS to other branches of government were edited out by Steckel, adding to an overall impression of a rogue department that was spending out of control.

“North Carolina Medicaid is not broken,” argued John Oberlander, professor of social medicine at the UNC School of Medicine. “This is a contrived crisis.”

“They had a solution and they were looking for a problem. And they were looking to portray Medicaid in as negative a light as possible in order to justify what they wanted to do, which is privatize.”

But DHHS spokesman Diaz said administration officials “stand by our final responses to the audit.”

“We continue to update and improve the Department’s forecasting practices as we reform our state’s broken Medicaid system,” he said.

Part 2 (tomorrow) – Casting doubt on a national model

Steckel track changes edit, Jan 22, 2013