Tag Archives: Block Grant Medicaid

Graham, Trump discuss alternate ObamaCare repeal bill

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

Graham, Trump discuss alternate ObamaCare repeal bill

Image result for block grant medicaid

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) met with President Trump Friday at the White House about the senator’s ObamaCare replacement proposal.

The meeting comes as some Republicans are pushing to keep alive their effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare despite the failed vote in the Senate early Friday morning.

Graham has pitched his bill as a better alternative to ObamaCare than GOP leaders’ plans. His measure, also backed by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), would convert money currently being spent on providing ObamaCare coverage into a block grant to states. States could then choose how to spend the funds.

“I had a great meeting with the President and know he remains fully committed to repealing and replacing Obamacare,” Graham said in a statement Friday afternoon.

“President Trump was optimistic about the Graham-Cassidy-Heller proposal. I will continue to work with President Trump and his team to move the idea forward.”

Graham has also spoken with House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) about the idea, Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop said.

Meadows is also pushing to keep alive the repeal effort and said he had been talking to multiple senators.

“I just think that we’ve got to regroup and continue to stay involved and find something that has 51 votes in the Senate that we can make work,” Meadows told reporters Friday.

Continued efforts to replace the healthcare law face a steep path, though. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said after the failed vote early Friday on a slimmed-down repeal bill that “it is time to move on.”

Republicans have been unable to find 51 votes to pass a plan through the Senate. Other Republicans have started talking about a bipartisan approach.

Graham has expressed hope that Democrats could sign on to his proposal, but so far none have.

Liberal experts have criticized his plan. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities wrote that the proposal would lead to “drastic cuts” in both Medicaid and subsidies for private insurance, because the amount of the block grants to states would be below ObamaCare spending levels.

The Medicaid Fund: Beware of Gifts

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://thenews.pl/1/11/Artykul/317380,Poland-to-open-new-museum-at-German-Nazi-Treblinka-death-camp

Image result for medicaid

Press reports have suggested that to get the Affordable Care Act repeal-and-replace effort back on track, Senate leaders are now offering, as part of their Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), a $200 billion fund to help states partially offset the nearly $800 billion dollars in lost federal Medicaid funding they would face over the next decade if BCRA became law. This fund, to be administered by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), would apparently be used to help low-income people transition from Medicaid to private insurance.

The offer, if accurate, still amounts to a 75 percent reduction in funding. So the fund does little to address the human and financial consequences of BCRA’s original Medicaid cuts. It’s also unclear how it would work or affect the private insurance market. Furthermore, it’s uncertain whether the Senate parliamentarian would allow a new program. Even if permitted under the strict rules governing the Senate reconciliation process, the program would encounter major legal and operational hurdles in implementation, as well as questions about the lack of public accountability for drawing on the money. It is also worth noting that this type of strategy, in which the HHS secretary is given vast powers over how to allocate funds under the loose rubric of “transition,” may itself raise questions about whether Congress simply has thrown a handful of dollars at the problem, and coupled these dollars with an extraordinary delegation of its constitutional legislative powers to the executive branch.

Today, if a state chooses to insure a Medicaid-eligible population, the federal government will pay a percentage of actual costs. Like insurance generally, these costs can vary by the type of population insured (healthy people versus those who are sick), the amount and intensity of services furnished, and the prices paid. In any year, and in any state, costs vary enormously, a fact driven home by the economic fallout from the opioid epidemic or the Zika virus. The federal Medicaid contribution to state programs ranges from 50 percent to about 75 percent, with higher contributions for low-income adults covered under the ACA’s Medicaid expansion. Equally importantly, there is real accountability in federal Medicaid payments spent to insure people — we know how many people are covered and what services are paid for.

Over the past several weeks, a blizzard of analyses and reports has made clear just how essential Medicaid is to states, their populations, their economies, and their ability to maintain operational health care systems for everyone. Receiving 25 cents on the dollar in lieu of guaranteed Medicaid financing would be little consolation; this is particularly true since presumably, like other special payments to states under the bill, the fund can be expected to be time-limited, after which more action from Congress would be needed to extend its life.

Let’s imagine that this fund becomes law, with details to be hashed out later. A host of questions would arise, all of which would need to be translated into complex and contentious regulations, issued following a lengthy rulemaking process. For example, will normal federal matching rules apply when states draw on this fund, or will states have to put up more funding or perhaps none at all? What types of costs will be recognized as eligible for fund payments? Will all states be able to participate or just those losing expansion funding? Will states be permitted to help only selected Medicaid expansion beneficiaries losing coverage? Although the fund is billed as transitional assistance for beneficiaries, would this include direct payments to providers to allow for continuity of care? Under laws that govern agency policymaking and spending decisions such as when, where, and how to spend $200 billion, these questions and many more would need to move a formal policy development process. The HHS secretary cannot simply dole out unstructured funding that could be used for purposes only tangentially related to transitions.

No vague promises or pennies-on-the-dollar slush fund can take the place of what Medicaid does for people and for states. Nor can it compensate for the consequences of ending the compact on which Medicaid has rested for over 50 years.

Medicaid Changes in Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) Go Beyond ACA Repeal and Replace

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Medicaid Changes in Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) Go Beyond ACA Repeal and Replace

Medicaid Changes in Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) Go Beyond ACA Repeal and Replace

The Senate released an updated discussion draft of legislation called the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 (BCRA) on July 20, 2017. For Medicaid, the overall framework is very similar to earlier versions of the bill in the Senate as well as the American Health Care Act (AHCA) that passed in the House. Both the BCRA and the AHCA go beyond repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to make fundamental changes to Medicaid by setting a limit on federal funding through a per capita cap or block grant. The BCRA also includes additional changes that would further reduce federal spending for states with high per enrollee spending, limit state financing mechanisms, allow states to impose work requirements, and make other eligibility changes. The revised draft of the BCRA leaves many provisions up to HHS Secretary discretion, creating further uncertainty for states about how implementation of the legislation would proceed. Across the board, these changes would have significant implications for the 74 million people covered by the Medicaid program and for states that jointly finance and administer the program.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that under current draft of the BCRA, federal Medicaid spending related to the coverage provisions would decline by $756 billion over the 2017-2026 period or $739 billion accounting for all Medicaid provisions in the bill. According to CBO’s longer-term projections, the BCRA would reduce federal Medicaid spending by 35% in 2036 (Figure 1). These reductions would leave states with difficult choices about how to fill in the gaps in federal funding or cut back on Medicaid eligibility, benefits, or reimbursement rates (Figure 2). This brief explains the five most significant Medicaid changes in the BCRA as well as additional Medicaid changes that could have major implications for states, providers, and beneficiaries.

5 Most Significant Medicaid Financing Changes in the BCRA

1. Phase out the enhanced federal financing for the ACA Medicaid expansion.

Under the BCRA, for states that adopted the expansion as of March 1, 2017, the enhanced federal match would phase-out from 90% in CY 2020, to 85% in 2021, 80% in 2022, 75% in 2023 and then to the regular state match rate in 2024 and beyond. Thirty-one states plus DC have implemented the Medicaid expansion (Figure 3). On average, expansion enrollees account for 20% of all Medicaid enrollees (as of early 2016) and federal expansion financing accounts for about 21% of all Medicaid funding (for FY 2015). However, these shares are much higher in some states, placing them at higher risk for facing challenges in responding to the reduction in the federal match. Multiple states are likely to eliminate or scale back their expansion coverage due to the increased cost if federal funding is reduced, including eight expansion states (AR, AZ, IL, IN, MI, NH, NM, and WA) that have legislation requiring them to reduce or eliminate the expansion if the federal match rate is reduced. Given the magnitude of estimates of how much it would cost states to replace federal expansion funds, it appears that it is unrealistic to suggest that expansion states would be able to replace those funds and continue their expansion programs at current levels without the enhanced expansion match rate. Reports suggest that waivers or additional grant funding may be offered to states in place of the enhanced funding for the expansion, however, it is unlikely that such amounts would fully offset federal funding reductions in the BCRA tied to the expansion.

2. Limit federal Medicaid funding through a per capita, or per enrollee, cap on financing.

Under current law, Medicaid provides a guarantee of coverage for individuals who are eligible for the program and a guarantee to states of federal matching dollars for spending on Medicaid services. Beginning in FY 2020, the BCRA would limit federal Medicaid funding to each state based on the sum of the costs per enrollee for five beneficiary groups – elderly, blind and disabled adults,1 children, expansion adults, and other adults – multiplied by the number of enrollees in the group and the state’s federal match rate. The proposed legislation specifies a uniform national inflation factor for the federal financing growth rate. Under both AHCA and BCRA, the per enrollee amounts would increase annually at slower rates than projected growth for Medicaid.

The caps are estimated to result in large reductions in federal Medicaid spending over time. Under BCRA, the caps would initially grow by the Consumer Price Index for medical care (CPI-M) for adults and children and by the CPI-M plus one percentage point for elderly and disabled groups. Starting in 2025, per enrollee amounts for all groups would increase by the historically lower CPI for urban consumers (CPI-U). All of these rates are lower than projected growth for private health insurance spending per enrollee. Reductions in federal Medicaid funding from the caps are expected to grow over time, especially after 2025 when the inflation factor is limited to CPI-U. Current projections have CPI-M growing at 3.7% and CPI-U at 2.4% annually; however, the rate of growth for these indices can vary and fluctuate over time which could cause uncertainty and instability in state budgeting.

3. Provides Secretary discretion to adjust per enrollee spending down for states with per enrollee spending 25% higher than the national average.

The BCRA also includes a provision not included in the AHCA, which would direct the HHS Secretary to adjust target per enrollee amounts under the per capita cap to bring states closer to national average spending. Specifically, the Secretary would adjust a state’s target per enrollee amounts by 0.5% to 2% for states spending 25% or more either above or below the national average per enrollee expenditures beginning in 2020. These adjustments are applied to overall per enrollee spending in 2020 and 2021 and then for each enrollment group in subsequent years. Adjustments are to be budget neutral to the federal government (meaning they would not result in a net increase of federal payments under the per capita caps for the fiscal year). Certain states with population densities less than 15 individuals per square mile (currently: AK, MT, ND, SD, and WY) would be exempt from this provision. Data for 2014 show that the number of states with high per capita spending that face tighter caps exceeds the number of states that would experience relief for having low spending overall and for each eligibility group (Table 1). Secretary discretion and actual spending patterns will make it difficult for states to estimate the effect of this provision.

4. Allow states the option to choose block grant financing for non-expansion Medicaid adults.

Beginning in FY 2020 under the BCRA, states could elect to receive federal financing for nonelderly/non-disabled traditional adults (low-income parents and pregnant women) and/or adults eligible through the ACA Medicaid expansion in the form of block grant instead of per capita cap funding. The block grant amount that states would receive from the federal government is initially based on the state’s target per capita spending amount for the fiscal year multiplied by the number of adult enrollees and the federal average Medicaid matching rate. The amount would grow annually by CPI-U even prior to 2025 when the per capita cap amounts would grow by the higher CPI-M inflation factor. States have a maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement—essentially, a minimum amount states must spend each year—that is the state share of the enhanced CHIP match rate (without the 23 percentage point increase provided under the ACA) multiplied by the block grant amount. If a state fails to meet the MOE requirement in a given year, its federal block grant amount for the following year would be reduced. States that meet MOE and continue to elect the block grant option can rollover unused block grant funds into the next fiscal year.

Under the block grant option, states could impose conditions of eligibility and not comply with key provisions in current law like comparability and state-wideness.  Under the block grant option, states would be required to cover low-income parents and pregnant women at current federal minimum income levels and provide certain benefits. However, states could set conditions of eligibility for groups beyond these federal minimum groups, including for ACA expansion adults. Additionally, states electing the BCRA block grant option would not have to comply with other federal requirements, including comparability (the requirement that Medicaid-covered benefits be provided in the same amount, duration, and scope to all enrollees), state-wideness (the requirement that bars Medicaid programs from excluding enrollees or providers because of where they live or work in the state), and freedom of choice of provider (that allows beneficiaries to be permitted to choose among any provider participating in Medicaid). Like per capita caps, Medicaid block grants fail to account for changes in health care costs over time. Block grants also carry additional risk for states, providers, and beneficiaries because they do not account for changes in Medicaid enrollment (which could increase during an economic downturn).

5. Provides the HHS Secretary discretion to allocate funds to address the opioid crisis and public health emergencies. 
The BCRA appropriates $45 billion for FY 2018 through FY 2026 for grants to states to support substance use disorder treatment and recovery support services with significant discretion to the HHS Secretary to allocate the funds. The BCRA also provides the HHS Secretary with discretion to exclude from a state’s per capita cap or block grant limit a total of $5 billion across all states for Medicaid spending in response to a public health emergency from January 2020 through December 2024. This exclusion would only apply during a period in which the HHS Secretary has declared a public health emergency in a state or region and also deemed an exclusion appropriate. Under current law, states can increase spending with a guaranteed federal match or seek waivers (like in Flint, MI or for states hit by hurricane Katrina) to address public health emergencies.

Other Significant BCRA Medicaid Changes

Other BCRA Medicaid changes with significant implications for states, providers, and beneficiaries include the following:

Limiting states’ ability to use provider taxes to finance their share of Medicaid by lowering the provider tax safe harbor threshold2 from 6.0% to 5.0% of net patient revenues over 5 years, beginning in 2021. All states except for Alaska currently use provider taxes to finance the state share of Medicaid, and in 2016, 28 states had at least one tax exceeding 5.5% of net patient revenues. The proposed BCRA change could shift additional costs to states or result in additional reductions in Medicaid payment rates, services, or eligibility.

Creating a state option to require work as a condition of eligibility for nondisabled, nonelderly Medicaid adults as of October 1, 2017 (with some exemptions for certain groups including pregnant women or the sole caretaker of a child under age 6 or a child with a disability). Depending on how they are implemented, work requirements could increase administrative burdens on states and adversely affect some people, who are unable to comply due to their health, family caregiving obligations, or other reasons, by preventing them from accessing needed health coverage through Medicaid.3

Cancelling scheduled disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payment reductions for non-expansion (but not for expansion) states. The BCRA would exempt non-expansion states from the DSH reductions that were included in the ACA. During FY 2020-FY 2023, the BCRA would also provide a DSH payment increase to non-expansion states with per capita FY 2016 DSH allotment amounts (the FY 2016 DSH allotment divided by the number of uninsured individuals in the state for the fiscal year) that are below the national average per capita amount. A state qualifies as a non-expansion state if it is not covering expansion adults on or after January 1, 2021. This means that current expansion states that discontinue their expansions by the end of 2020 could qualify for increased DSH funds after their expansion ends. In addition, the BCRA would provide certain non-expansion states with $10 billion over 5 years (FY 2018-FY 2022) for safety-net funding.

Changing eligibility and enrollment processes with new requirements for eligible individuals to obtain and maintain Medicaid coverage. Changes include: repealing the requirement for states to cover Medicaid benefits retroactively for three months prior to the month of an individual’s enrollment in the program except for enrollees who are eligible based on old age or disability only); prohibiting hospitals from temporarily enrolling individuals in Medicaid if they are likely to be eligible under a state’s Medicaid eligibility rules (a policy known as “hospital presumptive eligibility”); removing a presumptive eligibility option that includes health care providers other than hospitals for expansion adults; and giving states the option to renew eligibility of Medicaid expansion adults every six months (or more frequently) compared to the current 12 month redetermination period.

Prohibiting federal Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood for one year (beginning on the date of enactment). The Hyde Amendment already prevents the use of federal funds for abortion services,4 so the effect of this proposed policy would be to limit Planned Parenthood’s capacity to provide preventive care and other services to women (such as clinical breast exams or birth control).

Repealing the enhanced federal match rate available under the ACA for the Community First Choice (CFC) state plan option, as of January 1, 2020. The ACA established the CFC option to allow states to provide home and community-based attendant services and supports to Medicaid enrollees who would otherwise require an institutional level of care. States taking up the option currently receive a 6% increase in their federal match rate for CFC services, and without this additional funding states may eliminate the option. The BCRA also creates a demonstration that would provide 100% federal matching funds for certain states selected by the HHS Secretary providing home and community-based services (HCBS) for seniors or adults with disabilities under a Section 1915 (c) or (d) waiver or Section 1915 (i) state plan authority, limited to $8 billion over four years, from 2020 through 2023. The Secretary would select participating states with priority given to the 15 states with the lowest population density. Unlike CFC, the authority for this new demonstration is time-limited, all states likely could not participate, and federal funding is capped. The $8 billion allocated to the new demonstration is less than half of the cost of the elimination of CFC funding, estimated by the CBO at $19 billion over 10 years.

Increasing the federal match rate for Medicaid services provided to American Indians by non-Indian Health Services (IHS) providers. Under existing law, the federal government covers 100% of the costs of Medicaid-covered services provided to American Indians through an IHS or Tribally-operated facility, and the BCRA would expand this 100% match rate to apply to all Medicaid-covered services delivered by all Medicaid providers to Medicaid-eligible members of an Indian tribe.

Repealing the essential health benefit requirement in Medicaid alternative benefit plans, beginning in 2020. The alternative benefit plans are required for expansion adults and a state option for benefit package design for certain other populations. While the Medicaid benefit package for children under Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) is comprehensive, states have flexibility to design benefit packages for adults, and many services for adults are offered at state option. If the essential health benefits requirement were repealed, there would be no federal minimum requirement in Medicaid to ensure that adults have coverage in certain areas such as mental health and substance use disorder treatment.

Medicaid And The Latest Version Of The BCRA: Massive Federal Funding Losses Remain

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/07/14/medicaid-and-the-latest-version-of-the-bcra-massive-federal-funding-losses-remain/

Washington, DC at the Capitol Building

Where Medicaid is concerned, the most notable thing about the latest version of the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) is that despite the drama of the past two weeks—the flood of news coverage regarding the potential impact of the losses; mounting concerns raised by Senators from expansion and non-expansion states alike; and the massive outcry from hospitals, physicians, insurers, and health care organizations—the new iteration leaves untouched the fundamental Medicaid contours of the earlier version.

The new draft retains the federal funding bar for Planned Parenthood (§ 123) as well as the earlier version’s limit on states’ ability to fund their programs through lawful, broad-based provider taxes (§ 131). The new bill does virtually nothing to lessen the financial losses to states that will flow from the prior iteration. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), these losses would surpass $770 billion over 10 years as a result of provisions that eliminate the enhanced funding for the adult expansion population and superimpose flat annual growth restrictions on Medicaid’s historic federal funding formula (§124 and §132).

By 2036, CBO reports, federal Medicaid funding would be about 35 percent below current law, a catastrophe of epic proportions. According to one study that sought to translate BCRA’s Medicaid provisions into state-by-state loss estimates, California alone would lose between $37 and $52 billionbetween 2020 and 2027, depending on how the cap’s arbitrary growth limits play out over time. Indeed, depending on how the cap, which is tied to a general economic inflation rate that cannot be known with certainty, plays out against actual state spending needs—triggered by everything from new vaccines to long-term services and supports to address the opioid crisis or the consequences of Zika—the federal funding losses could grow from catastrophic to unimaginable.

Small Crumbs Of Money

Perhaps Congressional leaders have sought to convince their colleagues to disregard the CBO estimates and these studies, arguing that Congress, in fact, will never allow the bottom to fall out on states and will come through with additional funding. But the newest version of the bill underscores the fundamentally meaningless nature of such assurances.

Small crumbs of Medicaid give-backs can be found at various places in the new version. One that might be thought of as the Louisiana Purchase is designed to help one state cope with massive loss; over the long term, however, the adjustment washes out in the far larger picture of declining federal funding for an exceptionally poor state.

For purposes of setting the arbitrary growth limits over time, the original bill relied on per capita spending data from the 2014-2015 time period. The new draft would allow a late-expanding state (i.e., Louisiana) to use 2016 as its base period (§ 132). But regardless of whether it is tied to 2014-2015 or 2016, nothing can mask the fact that the base period is part of a growth formula unrelated to the real world of Medicaid spending. All state programs will be tied to the distant past where federal Medicaid funding is concerned.

Furthermore, the new version does not exempt the state from the bill’s exceptionally clumsy rate-setting procedures, which lack adjustments for volume and intensity or new technology and that allow the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary’s power to unilaterally alter what he considers to be unreliable state data. The measure continues to permit the Secretary to claw back what he determines to be “excessive” funding by reducing later payments without a prior hearing; in the event of state evidence of underpayment, the Secretary can withhold federal funds owed until a lengthy appeals system is exhausted.

As was the case with the prior version, the new draft tips its hat toward non-expansion states, further sweetening the pot by tweaking the disproportionate share hospital payment formula in ways that favor payments to states with the highest uninsured populations (§ 126, Restoring Fairness in DSH Allotments). Like its predecessor, the new version thus rewards states that have refused to insure their poorest residents and harshly penalizes struggling hospitals serving the remaining uninsured in those that have.

As an additional lure, the new version expands the block grant option in the earlier measure to enable states to use block grants for the ACA expansion population as well as for traditional low-income adults (§ 133). Like the earlier version, state block grant funding would remain virtually frozen, leaving states increasingly on the hook for care for millions of grievously under-funded adults.

The Illusion Of A Public Health Emergency Exemption To The Per Capita Cap

One of Medicaid’s most important dimensions is its irreplaceable role in addressing the immediate and long-term effects of public health crises. Medicaid is by far the nation’s biggest single source of health care financing for dealing with critical public health threats. These threats may begin with an initial, recognized period of a formally declared emergency. They then can morph into events with very long-term effects felt for years or decades after. This was the case with the World Trade Center attacks, which led to an immediate surge in health care spending, followed by years of elevated spending to address the long-term health fallout triggered by the emergency itself. One need think only about Zika or the opioid crisis now gripping the nation to understand the near-term/long-term nature of public health threats.

Medicaid enrollees are disproportionately likely to live in poor communities, and poor communities are disproportionately likely to face public health threats ranging from environmental hazards to infectious disease. These communities also are inherently less likely to have fewer resources to cope with the effects of an emergency. Thus, a program such as Medicaid is crucial in its ability to deploy health care financing resources to the hardest-hit populations. Indeed, two thirds of all Louisiana Medicaid beneficiaries lived in the parishes affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Section 319 of the Public Health Service Act authorizes the HHS Secretary to declare the existence of a public health emergency arising from events such as a “disease or disorder,” “significant outbreaks of infectious diseases or bioterrorist attacks,” or other events identified as public health emergencies by the HHS Secretary. Whether to declare an emergency is entrusted to the Secretary’s judgment, and during the immediate emergency period, the Secretary enjoys expanded powers to deploy resources to designated populations or geographic areas. These special powers end when the declared emergency period ends. In the aftermath, states and local communities effectively are on their own, relying on the resources they have.

In and of itself, a loss of federal health funding as large as that imposed by BCRA elevates the threat risk. This risk grows exponentially when a true crisis hits, if Medicaid is crippled in its ability to provide a large-scale surge in public health care spending both during the emergency and thereafter. To understand how little the revised bill does to mitigate the crippling impact of the initial draft one need only look carefully at what the revisions would do when a true emergency strikes.

The press release accompanying the new draft states that “if a public health emergency is declared, state medical assistance expenditures in a particular part of the state will not be counted toward the per capita caps or block grant allocations for the declared period of the emergency.” But a close read of the actual bill text reveals its fundamental inadequacy.

First, the period of exemption lasts only five years, from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2024. Emergencies happening after this date won’t qualify for the spending adjustment. Second, the bill provides no additional federal spending during the period of a declared emergency. The draft simply allows states to eventually qualify for additional federal funding in the years following the emergency if they can prove to the Secretary that their spending on the affected population went up compared to prior years and then only for immediate emergency costs. What state will have the money in advance? And what state will be able to take a chance on spending more given the purely speculative nature of whether an emergency will be declared and emergency expenditures recognized?

Third, states would receive no additional funding ever unless the HHS Secretary actually declares an emergency in the affected portion of the state or for the state’s affected populations. Many public health threats may not rise to a level that triggers a formal Secretarial determination, and the Secretary may be inclined not to make such a determination because of other, spillover effects that come with such a determination, such as the elevated demand for other types of resources.

Fourth, the additional amount of federal funding made available would be limited to the difference between what the state spent on the population in connection with the emergency and the state’s previous expenditures for the same population. Expenditures to cope with the emergency aftermath would not count, and of course these expenditures likely would not occur simultaneously with the emergency expenditures. For example, Zika has triggered emergency expenditures aimed at preventing the spread of the virus, but the true costs of Zika will roll out slowly in the form of babies left permanently and severely disabled by the virus.

And here is where the public health implications of BCRA become clear: other than exempting state expenditures on children classified as disabled from the caps, the revised bill, like its predecessor, makes no adjustment for long-term consequences. To be sure, as just mentioned, BCRA does exempt state expenditures on severely disabled children from the federal cap. But because the vast majority of children qualify for Medicaid based on poverty, this type of cramped classification system for measuring exemptions is sure to exclude spending for millions of children in severely compromised health from the exemption process.

Fifth, the bill allows only $5 billion in the aggregate for all additional federal funding over the five-year time period covered by the emergency exemption. In other words, the bill essentially creates a five-year, $5 billion mini-block grant to help all states address Medicaid spending for all emergencies occurring during this time period. The incredibly small size of the block grant alone would be likely to incentivize the HHS Secretary to avoid declaring emergencies out of concern that the money won’t be there to cover them.

In the end, the newest iteration of BCRA does nothing to alleviate the catastrophic effects of its predecessor: the difference in magnitude between what Medicaid can do today and what it will be capable of doing in the future is incalculable.

In Senate Health Care Bill, A Few Hidden Surprises

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/07/13/in-senate-health-care-bill-a-few-hidden-surprises/

Image result for surprises

A low-income person, eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled, is hit by a car or a bullet. Gravely injured, she arrives at the hospital unconscious. Thanks to expert, intensive care that lasts for days or weeks, she gradually recovers. Eventually, her health improves to the point where she can complete the paperwork needed to apply for Medicaid.

Such a hospital can be paid today, thanks to Medicaid’s “retroactive eligibility.” Even if the combination of medical problems and bureaucratic delays prevents an application from being filed and completed for several months, Medicaid will cover the care if the patient was eligible when services were provided.

The newest version of the Senate health bill—the Better Care and Reconciliation Act, or BCRA—would end this longstanding feature of the Medicaid program for beneficiaries who are neither elderly nor people with disabilities. If services are received in one calendar month and the application is completed the following month, the hospital would be denied all payment, even if the patient was eligible and the services were both essential and costly.

It does not matter if the state is led by a governor who understands the devastating impact of this change on hospital infrastructure, especially in rural areas where many hospitals are hanging on by a thread. Today, states have the flexibility to seek waivers that limit retroactive eligibility. Under the BCRA, that flexibility would disappear, as states are forced to end retroactive coverage, whether they like it or not.

Almost certainly, this provision would come as a surprise to most senators who are being asked to support the BCRA. It is only one of many unpleasant surprises lurking largely undiscovered throughout the bill. Following are other selected examples.

A Massive Expansion In Federal Power Over State Budgets

The BCRA grants the federal government startling new power over state Medicaid programs and state budgets. Federal dollars per person would be capped, based on state data about prior spending. But in setting the initial cap for each state, the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) could change the amount to rectify what the secretary views as problems in the “quality” of state data. In later years, many states could have their caps adjusted up or down by as much as 2 percent per year. That may sound like a small number, but when applied to billions of federal Medicaid dollars going to a state, it could make or break a state’s entire budget. Medicaid costs triggered by a public health emergency are exempt from the cap, but only if “the Secretary determines that such an exemption would be appropriate.” No statutory limits bound the Secretary’s use of this decision-making authority, which can have an extraordinary fiscal impact on states experiencing an epidemic or other public health crisis.

These provisions would give HHS remarkable new leverage over states, which current or future administrations could use to compel state policy changes in any desired direction. The aggressive use of available leverage has been an unfortunate feature of past administrations’ relationships to state Medicaid programs, but it could become substantially more pronounced with the increased federal authority granted by the Senate bill.

Adding To Uncertainties Surrounding State Expenditures

One recurring theme in Medicaid’s history involves state efforts to claim federal matching funds without spending the requisite state dollars. The Senate bill appears to increase this risk. Under Section 207 in the Senate bill, new opportunities emerge for states desperate to counteract the loss of billions of federal dollars. The bill authorizes unprecedented waivers involving federal funding for tax credits that help consumers buy private health insurance. So long as officials complete a form explaining how the waiver’s replacement of federal safeguards would provide an “alternative means” of increasing “access to comprehensive coverage, reducing average premiums, and increasing enrollment,” a state arguably could convert some or all of this federal money into so-called “pass-through” funds that can be used for purposes unrelated to health care. Unlike the Senate bill’s new public health emergency provisions, which require federal audits of state expenditures, states’ use of pass-through dollars has no statutory audit requirement. A state could convert subsidies meant for health insurance to other uses, or simply use the money to close a budget shortfall. As the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) explained about the virtually identical prior version of this section, the Senate health care bill would “substantially reduce the number of people insured” if states “reduced subsidies, received pass-through funds, and used those funds for purposes other than health insurance coverage.”

Medicaid Treatment For Mental Health And Substance Use Disorders

The bill repeals the current requirement that Medicaid programs must cover all “essential health benefits,” including treatment of mental health and substance use disorders. CBO found that, as the per capita limits in the Senate bill grow progressively tighter, federal Medicaid funding would eventually decline by more than a third, compared to current law. States facing such an enormous drop in federal support may see themselves as having no alternative but to cut services classified as optional, which the Senate bill redefines to include mental health and substance abuse treatment.

A Disordered Process

These problems could have been averted had the legislative process followed regular order, with hearings, legislative staff explaining the bill’s provisions, expert testimony, a public markup, and opportunities to address policy and drafting anomalies. Embedded in a measure with underlying policy goals that the authors of this blog post find fundamentally questionable, the picture that emerges is extraordinarily troubling—a legislative effort to divert more than a trillion dollars away from health care for people who are sicker, poorer, older, and indigent, while leaving states with such massive funding deficits and federal leverage that some states may attempt to stem their losses in ways that harm their vulnerable residents even more.

Even people sympathetic to the bill’s core aims, however, have good reason to oppose the Senate making such consequential decisions without taking the elementary legislative steps needed to detect and avoid terrible mistakes. Continuing to shun all the protections of regular order, the Senate appears poised to act on a bill that almost certainly includes additional unpleasant surprises going beyond those discussed here. With legislation that governs one-sixth of the US economy and that directly affects the health and economic security of millions of constituents, Senators are being asked to vote largely in the dark.

New Medicaid worry emerges for centrists

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

New Medicaid worry emerges for centrists

New Medicaid worry emerges for centrists

Some states would likely end their Medicaid expansions earlier than 2024 if the Senate’s healthcare bill becomes law, according to several sources.

That dynamic could deepen concerns among several senators who are undecided about the healthcare bill because of its changes to Medicaid, the federal healthcare program for the poor and disabled.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has been deep in talks with her state, which might have to end Medicaid expansion early if the Senate bill passes.

Murkowski is a key vote that Senate leaders cannot afford to lose. With Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) already opposed to the legislation, one more defection — from Murkowski or anyone else — would stop the bill in its tracks.

The revised healthcare bill that Senate Republican leaders released Thursday contains much of the same Medicaid provisions, such as cuts to Medicaid; converts federal financing to funding per enrollee or a block grant; and phases out the additional federal money for the expansion over three years, beginning in 2021.

In a nod to centrists, the bill does not fully phase out extra federal funding for ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion until 2024.

But for some states, maintaining expanded eligibility would simply become too costly if the bill became law. Other states have automatic “triggers” that, if left unchanged, would end the expansion.

On Medicaid expansion, “I think it’s highly likely that they will end it sooner than you might think because the money is just not going to be there to maintain it as it starts to drop,” Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, said. “You can call it a soft landing, but it’s going to mean people are losing coverage.”

Earlier in the legislative debate, moderate senators had pushed for a gradual phase out of extra federal funds for Medicaid expansion, unlike the House bill, which halted the dollars starting in 2020.

As a nod to these senators, GOP leadership released its ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill in late June that included a three-year phase out. Yet that is shorter than the seven-year glide path pushed by centrist Republicans, such as Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va).

“I think a three-year glide path or a five-year glide path is not going to make a big difference in terms of whether states are able to keep the expansion going,” said Cindy Mann, who served as the federal director of Medicaid during the Affordable Care Act’s administration and is now a partner at Manatt Health.

In 2021, the 31 expansion states and Washington D.C. would, as a whole, be on the hook for a total of $6.6 billion in additional Medicaid funding. That figure would increase to nearly $43 billion more in total state spending, according to an analysis from the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

States would be faced with a tough decision on how to make up for the lost federal money. They’d have several choices, but dropping the expansion would be the most straightforward solution.

“Either you raise taxes, you cut other parts of the budget or you cut other parts of Medicaid or you drop the expansion,” Edwin Park, CBPP vice president for health policy, said. “Those are the choices, and they would have to figure that out. I think the most likely scenario would be that states start dropping the expansion.”

Some states may begin dropping the expansion in 2021 — and possibly even before the funds are reduced — Park said, “because they can’t absorb even the higher increase in spending that will be required, and certainly over time more and more states would start to drop the expansion.”

Throughout the healthcare debate, the changes to Medicaid have bedeviled leadership.

Senators from expansion states don’t want thousands of their residents to lose healthcare coverage. Some of their governors have been urging bipartisan reform rather than passing the GOP bill without a single Democratic vote, which Republicans can do under the fast-track budget maneuver they’re using to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

Less money for Medicaid expansion is a concern to states, some of which enacted guardrails to protect themselves from decreases in dollars they get from the federal government to implement the expansion.

At least nine states have provisions in their Medicaid expansions that would end it automatically or soon after if enhanced federal funds dip below a certain level. Those states are Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Washington, according to CBPP.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) represents a state where, under the Senate bill, the end of ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion would be triggered in 2022.

After a closed-door meeting where rank-and-file members were presented with the bill’s revisions, McCain was asked if he supported a motion to proceed to the bill.

“My governor said that we needed three amendments for him to approve of it, and those three amendments were not included,” he replied.

One such amendment would extend the timeline of phasing out Medicaid expansion money, so as to give “states like Arizona the necessary time to adjust their budgets so citizens don’t have the rug pulled out from under them,” McCain said in a statement released Thursday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell late late Saturday delayed the healthcare vote while McCain recovers from surgery.

Alaska doesn’t have a trigger in its Medicaid law, but would be at risk of losing the Medicaid expansion before the phase-out even begins.

The reason comes down to how Medicaid was expanded in Alaska. Independent Gov. Bill Walker used an executive order to expand Medicaid and could do so because Alaska is required to cover all groups federal law mandates be covered — even though the Supreme Court ruled it was optional. But the Senate bill makes covering more lower-income people optional instead of mandatory in 2020.

“We think that puts Alaska’s expansion at risk in 2020 because our state legal authority to maintain those services would be in question,” Valerie Davidson, the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services commissioner, said, adding she believes the expansion would end in 2020.

The possible policy change is paramount for Davidson, as the state saw nearly 34,000 adults covered due to the Medicaid expansion. She’s been in “constant communication” with her two state’s senators — Murkowski and Dan Sullivan.

During the week before July 4th recess, Davidson was in Washington, D.C., where her team essentially “camped out in [Murkowski’s] office, except that she was very welcoming.”

The issue has been on Murkowski’s radar screen, the senator said, and that “we would basically kick it back to our legislature who could vote to discontinue the expansion so we would not be part of that glide path that many of us have been trying to put in place.”

“It’s yet one more thing in the bucket of things that makes Alaska somewhat distinguishable,” Murkowski said.

Even if Alaska opted to find a way to keep the expansion, Davidson said it isn’t realistic due to the state’s budget deficit.

“Our state right now is looking to cut programs and cut our general fund, not add to it,” Davidson said, “and so I think for anybody to make the assumption that, well, the state will just take on more of that responsibility is not very realistic.”

How the American Health Care Act’s Changes to Medicaid Will Affect Hospital Finances in Every State

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/jun/how-changes-to-medicaid-will-affect-hospital-finances-in-every-state

Image result for How the American Health Care Act Changes to Medicaid Will Affect Hospital Finances in Every State

The American Health Care Act (AHCA), as passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, will reduce federal spending on Medicaid by more than $834 billion over the next 10 years. And the recently released Senate bill appears to cut Medicaid even more deeply. In addition to repealing the Medicaid expansion, the bills place caps on the federal dollars that states receive to provide health insurance to millions of low-income Americans, including the elderly, disabled, and people with opioid addiction.

We modeled the impact of this loss of Medicaid funding on U.S. hospitals and found that, over the next 10 years, hospitals in all states, but especially hospitals in Medicaid expansion states, will see an increase in uncompensated care—a treatment or service not paid for by an insurer or patient. We also saw declines in hospitals’ operating margins, particularly among hospitals in expansion states. Rural hospitals in nonexpansion states also would face marked operating margin decreases.

In the interactive state-by-state maps below, we present the estimated impact of the Medicaid provisions in the House-passed AHCA on the finances of all U.S. hospitals. The hospitals in the District of Columbia and the 31 states that expanded Medicaid are projected to see a 78 percent increase in uncompensated care costs between 2017 and 2026. Eleven of these states will see uncompensated care costs at least double between 2017 and 2026. For example, Nevada hospitals will see a 98 percent increase, West Virginia a 122 percent increase, and Kentucky a 165 percent increase.

In addition to growing uncompensated care, our projections indicate that under the AHCA, hospitals in most states will experience a decline in Medicaid revenues, even though the law restores Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments. Hospitals in Medicaid expansion states may experience a 14 percent drop in Medicaid revenues between 2017 and 2026, compared to a 3 percent anticipated reduction among hospitals in the 19 states that did not expand. Some states may see more dramatic drops. Arkansas hospitals, for example, are estimated to see a 31 percent decline in Medicaid revenue over the next 10 years.

 

Here’s What a Bipartisan Health Care Deal Might Look Like

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/07/08/Here-s-What-Bipartisan-Health-Care-Deal-Might-Look

Image result for bipartisanship

Practically overnight, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) placed the once-unthinkable notion of a bipartisan deal with the Democrats to salvage the Affordable Care Act well within the realm of possibility.

For months, McConnell, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and President Trump vowed to move with alacrity to repeal and replace Obamacare with a far superior GOP health insurance plan that would bring down premium costs , provide tax relief for wealthier Americans and the health care industry, and phase out expanded Medicaid coverage for millions of poor and disabled people.

But with the Senate’s 52 Republicans still badly divided over how best to proceed and time running out before a long August recess, McConnell said Thursday during a speech in Kentucky that if his party cannot muster at least 50 votes to rewrite the Obamacare law, it would have no choice but to work with the Democrats to produce a more modest bill to support the law’s existing insurance market.

“No action is not an alternative ,” McConnell said during a speech at a Rotary Club lunch in Glasgow, Kentucky. “We’ve got the insurance markets imploding all over the country, including in this state.”

The Republicans have long argued that Obamacare is in a “death spiral,” with premiums going through the roof and more and more major health care insurers pulling out of the market after incurring huge losses on the ACA exchanges. The Trump White House, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Internal Revenue Service have also taken executive actions that have undercut enrollment and insurer participation.

But the veteran Senate majority leader has begun facing up to the harsh political reality that as many as a dozen conservative and moderate Republicans currently oppose a bill that McConnell almost single-handedly drafted behind closed door. Now it will take a herculean effort to muster a minimum of 50 votes needed to pass the bill under expedited budget reconciliation rules that were designed to avert a filibuster.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Congressional Budget Office director and Republican economic adviser, said on Friday that McConnell “has done the [political] arithmetic right” and that there may be no choice but to cut a deal with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

“We know that the exchanges are melting down under current law,” Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, said in an interview. “We know that the cost-sharing money [to subsidize insurers] has to come from somewhere or they will continue to melt down, and insurers will leave, and premiums will continue to skyrocket.”

However, he warned that such an agreement would have serious political ramifications for the GOP and could touch off a conservative backlash, especially in the House. “It’s going to be a really bad deal for Republicans, and House Republicans are going to have to eat it.”

Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said McConnell might have raised the idea of working with Democrats to force recalcitrant Republicans into line. However, he said it was high risk for a party that for the past seven years has promised to repeal and replace Obamacare.

“If he does pursue a bill with Democrats to bail out the exchanges, then it will cause a rift in his own party much bigger than the rift he sees right now,” Cannon cautioned.

Schumer on Thursday called McConnell’s comments encouraging, and that his caucus is “eager to work with Republicans to stabilize the markets and improve the law.” The minority leaders have said for weeks that the Democrats were ready to bargain with the GOP and the White House on virtually any issue provided the Republicans abandoned their effort to repeal former President Barack Obama’s signature program.

According to several policy experts, here are five areas where a bipartisan health care compromise might be struck:

  1. Cost sharing — One of the pillars of the Obamacare markets is the $7 billion a year in federal cost-sharing subsidies to insurance companies that allow them to help offset the cost of the monthly premiums and copayments of low and moderate income Americans who make between $12,000 and $48,000 a year. House Republicans challenged the constitutionality of those subsidies in court, and Congress and the Trump administration have agreed to continue the payments pending a final outcome of the case.
    But without more certainty of the future of those subsidies, many major insurance companies have begun pulling out of markets throughout the country. If both parties are concerned about stabilizing the Obamacare insurance markets and making sure they don’t go under, making the cost-sharing subsidies permanent would be a good place to start.
  2. Reviving Risk Corridors –Before the Republicans succeeded in turning off the spigot, an Obamacare reinsurance program or so-called “risk corridors” funneled billions of dollars to insurers to offset the unforeseen costs of their most expensive enrollee.
    Republicans led by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) led an effort to kill off the program, arguing that it constituted an unjustifiable “bailout” of the insurance industry. But Republican and Democratic negotiators would likely have to reconsider reviving the program – and tax revenue to pay for it – to further stabilize the insurance market.
  3. Tax Repeal – The Senate GOP plan includes a tax cut of $700 billion over the coming decade, which would be achieved by repealing all the tax hikes in Obamacare passed to help finance the health insurance program. The cost of that massive tax relief for mainly wealthy Americans and the pharmaceutical, health care and insurance industries, would be offset by deep cuts in Medicaid for millions of poor and disabled Americans.
    Democrats are adamant about blocking wholesale cuts in Medicaid. However, they might be open to some horse trading to repeal some of the Obamacare taxes while preserving others, in order to prevent massive cuts in Medicaid.
  4. Medicaid Spending– The Senate GOP bill would allow 31 states that expanded Medicaid to millions of childless, able-bodied, low-income adults to continue receiving bonus federal funding through 2013, before beginning to reduce it between 2021 and 2024.
    Democrats would be insistent on preserving expanded Medicaid even longer and would have considerable leverage in order to achieve that goal. Moreover, there is virtually no interest on their part in transforming Medicaid from an open-ended entitlement to a per-capita-cap block grant to the states. But amid growing concern about the long-term impact of growing entitlements on the debt, Democratic negotiators might be open to reforms to slow the rate of growth of Medicaid.
  5. Lowering premiums – There is little disagreement between the two parties on the need to bring down premiums and copayments that have literally priced many families out of the market, even with tax subsidies. Yet finding a compromise that satisfies the Democrats demands to preserve Obamacare levels of benefits – including a ban on insurers discriminating against people with preexisting medical conditions — and GOP insistence on allowing skimpier, less expensive policies for younger and healthier people – will be hard to do.
    “All of this adds up to huge new spending, but the Democrats would be in charge, and McConnell knows it,” Joe Antos, a health care expert with the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said. “They won’t get everything, but I don’t expect any compromise to look like a Republican bill. Nonetheless, if the Democrats aren’t too greedy, such a bill could pass in the Senate, but would be rejected in the House.”

AHCA could mean 725K fewer healthcare jobs by 2026

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/ahca-could-mean-725k-fewer-healthcare-jobs-by-2026/445131/

Image result for fewer jobs

Dive Brief:

  • The American Health Care Act (AHCA), as it was passed in the House, would result in the loss of 924,000 jobs over 10 years and spark economic downturns in every state, according to research by the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health and The Commonwealth Fund.
  • The healthcare sector would be hit the hardest, with 725,000 jobs lost by 2026. There would be fewer healthcare jobs immediately in 17 states. The states that would be most affected overall include New York, Pennsylvania and Florida.
  • The primary cause of the job disappearances and state economic downturns would be cuts to healthcare funding, such as more than $800 billion to Medicaid, and lower premium subsidies.

Dive Insight:

The analysis is of the House version of the bill, and the Senate is expected to make changes when it brings its own version up for a vote. But with those negotiations going on behind closed doors, there is not enough information to makes estimates based on the Senate bill.

The report is a warning call to the healthcare industry and another black mark on the increasingly unpopular AHCA. The bill is already opposed by most major industry groups. They balk at the huge cuts to Medicaid and the Congressional Budget Office estimates up to 23 million people would lose coverage.

The threat of jobs losses could become another rallying cry. In fact, healthcare executives shaken by the potential for repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are already scaling back hiring and new projects in the face of uncertainty. Former CMS Administrator Andy Slavitt said a poll he conducted found nearly 40% of executives said they are slowing hiring and 31% are cutting capital expenses.

Healthcare job growth spiked after the passage of the ACA, which the AHCA seeks to replace. The ACA helped create about 240,000 jobs in the industry, and employment increased from an average of 1.7% in 2010 to 2.5% from 2014 to 2016. But that trend has tempered. Healthcare has averaged 22,000 job gains a month so far this year. The average monthly gain in 2016 was 32,000.

The AHCA phases out Medicaid expansion, which has been an economic boon for states that decided to expand. The authors of the latest report said those states would be hit hardest in financial terms by the bill.

“Hospitals, health systems, clinics and pharmacies might be forced to close or lay off staff as federal funding for healthcare is cut and the number of uninsured patients grows,” the researchers wrote.

Health Care Battle On Hill Has Veterans Defending Obamacare Benefits

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://khn.org/news/health-care-battle-on-hill-has-veterans-defending-obamacare-benefits/?utm_campaign=KFF-2017-The-Latest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=53790455&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–GlQENGi41hCiSoWvTZD1IqqTHGd493FYJnb349VBJ9TlHb_siA3-0CEAs13CgfyFyEbPoQ0NIua24-VTs-AcxGydnlQ

Air Force veteran Billy Ramos, from Simi Valley, Calif., is 53 and gets health insurance for himself and for his family from Medicaid — the government insurance program for low-income people. He says he counts on the coverage, especially because of his physically demanding work as a self-employed contractor in the heating and air conditioning business.

“If I were to get hurt on the job or something, I’d have to run to the doctor’s , and if I don’t have any coverage they’re going to charge me an arm and a leg,” he said. “I’d have to work five times as hard just to make the payment on one bill.”

There are about 22 million veterans in the U.S. But fewer than half get their health care through the Veterans Affairs system; some don’t qualify for various reasons or may live too far from a VA facility to easily get primary health care there. 

Many vets instead rely on Medicaid for their health insurance. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia chose to expand Medicaid to cover more people — and many of those who gained coverage are veterans.

The GOP health care bill working its way through the Senate would dramatically reduce federal funding for Medicaid, including rolling back the expansion funding entirely between 2021 and 2024.

Air Force veteran Billy Ramos, now 53, in a 1982 photo from his basic training days as an airman in Texas, at Lackland Air Force Base. Now self-employed, Ramos relies on Medicaid for his family’s health insurance needs. (Courtesy of Billy Ramos)

Medicaid coverage recently has become especially important to Ramos — a routine checkup and blood test this year showed he’s infected with hepatitis C. California was one of the states that chose to expand Medicaid, and the program covers Ramos’ costly treatment to eliminate the virus.

“Right now, I’m just grateful that I do have [coverage],” he said. “If they take it away, I don’t know what I’m going to end up doing.”

The Senate health plan — which proposes deep cuts to federal spending on Medicaid — has veterans and advocates worried. Will Fischer, a Marine who served in Iraq, is with VoteVets.org, a political action group that opposes the Republican health plan.

“If it were to be passed into law, Medicaid would be gutted. And as a result, hundreds of thousands of veterans would lose health insurance,” Fischer said.

It’s too early to know just how many veterans might lose coverage as a result of the Medicaid reductions. First, states would have to make some tough decisions: whether to make up the lost federal funding, to limit benefits or to restrict who would get coverage.

But Dan Caldwell thinks those concerns are overblown. He’s a Marine who served in Iraq and is now policy director for the group Concerned Veterans for America.

“The people who are saying that this is going to harm millions of veterans are not being entirely truthful,” Caldwell said. “They’re leaving out the fact that many of these veterans qualify for VA health care or in some cases already are using VA health care.”

About a half-million veterans today are enrolled in the VA’s health care program as well as in some other source of coverage, such as Medicaid or Medicare. Andrea Callow, with the non-profit group Families USA, wrote a recent report showing that nearly 1 in 10 veterans are enrolled in Medicaid.

“Oftentimes veterans will use their Medicaid coverage to get primary care,” Callow said. “If, for example, they live in an area that doesn’t have a VA facility, they can use their Medicaid coverage to see a doctor in their area.”

Whether a particular veteran qualifies for coverage through the VA depends on a host of variables that she said leaves many with Medicaid as their only option.

But, Caldwell said, rather than fighting to preserve Medicaid access, veterans would be better served by efforts to reform the care the VA provides to those who qualify.

“We believe that giving veterans more health care choice and restructuring the VA so that it can act more like a private health care system will ultimately lead to veterans who use the VA receiving better health care,” he said.

The Urban Institute found that the first two years after the enactment of the Affordable Care Act saw a nearly 44 percent drop in the number of uninsured veterans under age 65 — the total went from 980,000 to 552,000. In large part, that was the result of the law’s expansion of Medicaid.