Medicaid Financing: The Basics

Medicaid Financing: The Basics

Image result for Medicaid Financing: The Basics

Medicaid represents $1 out of every $6 spent on health care in the US and is the major source of financing for states to provide coverage to meet the health and long-term needs of their low-income residents. Medicaid is administered by states within broad federal rules and jointly funded by states and the federal government. President-elect Trump and other GOP proposals have put forth fundamental changes in Medicaid financing. This brief examines the following 3 key Medicaid financing questions:

  • How does Medicaid financing work now? States design their Medicaid programs within broad federal rules; in return, Medicaid provides a guarantee of federal matching payments with no pre-set limit.  There are special match rates for the ACA, administration and other services. Medicaid also provides “disproportionate share hospital” payments to hospitals serving many Medicaid and uninsured patients.
  • How much does Medicaid cost and how are funds spent? Payment to private managed care organizations (MCOs) account for 43% of Medicaid spending. Almost two-thirds of all Medicaid spending is for the elderly and persons with disabilities, who make up just one-quarter of all Medicaid enrollees. Medicaid enrollment and spending increases during recessions. Medicaid growth per enrollee has been lower than private health spending. The ACA has provided a significant amount of federal dollars to states.
  • What is the role of Medicaid in federal and state budgets? Medicaid is the third largest domestic program in the federal budget following Medicare and Social Security. Medicaid is a spending item but also the largest source of federal revenues for state budgets. In responding to two major recessions in the last 15 years, states have adopted an array of policies to control Medicaid spending growth. Research shows that the influx of federal dollars from Medicaid spending has positive effects for state economies.

Medicaid Pocket Primer

http://kff.org/medicaid/fact-sheet/medicaid-pocket-primer/?utm_campaign=KFF-2017-January-Medicaid-State-Fact-Sheets&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=41471819&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_S79w90jSbC_aQNCkHzxPacGPZs7cC1nG5ZS0uvISb4SYLhCIP5ePQipcV2y2vvfgT5bXqOi8B2t5k6zuxzez1QOppJw&_hsmi=41471819

Figure 1: Medicaid’s Role for Selected Populations

WHAT IS MEDICAID?

Medicaid is the nation’s public health insurance program for people with low income. The Medicaid program covers more than 70 million Americans, or 1 in 5, including many with complex and costly needs for care. The vast majority of Medicaid enrollees lack access to other affordable health insurance. Medicaid covers a broad array of health services and limits enrollee out-of-pocket costs. The program is also the principal source of long-term care coverage for Americans. As the nation’s single largest insurer, Medicaid provides significant financing for hospitals, community health centers, physicians, and nursing homes, and jobs in the health care sector. The Medicaid program finances over 16% of all personal health care spending in the U.S.

HOW IS THE MEDICAID PROGRAM STRUCTURED? 

Medicaid is a federal-state program. Subject to federal standards, states design and administer their own Medicaid programs. Beyond the federal requirements, states have extensive flexibility to determine covered populations, covered services, health care delivery models, methods for paying physicians and hospitals, and many other aspects of their Medicaid programs. States can also get Section 1115 waivers to test and implement approaches that diverge from federal Medicaid rules but that the Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determines advance program objectives. All Americans who meet Medicaid eligibility requirements are guaranteed coverage.

The federal government matches state Medicaid spending on an open-ended basis. The guarantee of federal matching funds increases state resources for coverage of their low-income residents and also permits state Medicaid programs to respond to demographic and economic shifts, changing coverage needs, technological innovations, public health emergencies such as the opioid addiction crisis, and disasters and other events beyond states’ control. Medicaid is a complex program because it has evolved over time to serve diverse populations with a wide range of needs, including many individuals who are very poor and very frail, and because of wide variation across state Medicaid programs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within HHS is the federal agency responsible for Medicaid. Title XIX of the Social Security Act and a large body of federal regulations govern the program, defining federal Medicaid requirements and state options and authorities.

Precision Medicine Has Bipartisan Support, Proponents Assure Amid Trump Administration Transition

https://360dx.com/cancer/precision-medicine-has-bipartisan-support-proponents-assure-amid-trump-administration?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=TrendMD&utm_campaign=1

Precision Medicine2

At a cocktail reception in Boston last week ahead of an annual meeting on personalized medicine, attendees milled around not talking about the latest advances in genomics or the challenges of companion diagnostics development. They were too preoccupied with the impact of the Presidential elections the week before.

Will the new administration value genomics research and personalized medicine projects going on around the country that depend on government funding? How will a change in administration and priorities impact projects such as the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) and the Cancer Moonshot? Who will head up the US Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, and the US Food and Drug Administration? And will these new government officials continue efforts of the last administration to advance data sharing, privacy protections, and integrated systems critical for the implementation of personalized medicine?

 

Drug companies to face fines for overcharging 340B hospitals: 4 things to know

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/drug-companies-to-face-fines-for-overcharging-340b-hospitals-4-things-to-know.html

Image result for 340b hospitals

HHS’ Health Resources and Services Administration has finalized a rule that sets civil monetary penalties for drug manufactures that overcharge healthcare organizations that are part of the 340B Drug Pricing Program.

Here are four things to know about the final rule.

1. The final rule requires drug manufacturers to calculate the 340B ceiling price on a quarterly basis. The rule includes the methodology manufacturers must use when estimating the ceiling price for a newly covered outpatient drug.

2. Under the final rule, drug manufacturers that intentionally overcharge a covered hospital will face civil monetary penalties. HRSA can fine a manufacturer up to $5,000 for knowingly and intentionally overcharging a 340B hospital for drugs purchased through the program.

3. HRSA clarified that a drug manufacturer that overcharges a hospital for drugs purchased through the 340B program would not face penalties if the manufacturer made an “inadvertent, unintentional or unrecognized error in calculating the ceiling price.” A manufacturer would also be deemed not to have the requisite intent if it “acted on a reasonable interpretation of agency guidance,” or “has established alternative allocation procedures where there is an inadequate supply of product to meet market demand, as long as covered entities are able to purchase on the same terms as all other similarly situated non-340B covered entities.”

4. The final rule is effective March 6. Since the effective date falls in the middle of a quarter, HRSA said it plans to begin enforcing the requirements of the final rule at the start of the next quarter, which begins April 1.

The top 5 conditions affecting communities, according to new BCBSA tool

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/blue-cross-blue-shield-health-index/431194/

Mapping technologies and population health make a beautiful pairing. Using geographical data can assist care delivery strategies as tech tools such as GIS can track and trend health data for a community overtime.

“As the move to accountable care and value-based payments takes hold, providers and health plans are increasingly interested in applying GIS to assess risk based on geography and the populations that live there, reveal where the greatest need is, and prioritize areas for interventions,” Danny Patel, account executive for health and human services at GIS software maker Esri, told Healthcare Dive in May.

While providers can look to reduce unnecessary readmissions using such efforts, plans like Blue Cross Blue Shield Association – which recently released its new BCBS Health Index – can use local health data to understand the health of a county/population. The tool, using blinded claims data from more than 40 million commercially-insured BCBS members, identifies the health conditions with the greatest impact on the commercially insured. The tool includes information on over 200 conditions.

“What the health index gives us is the ability to work with local stakeholders…to talk about where we need to focus broader health resources,” Maureen Sullivan, chief strategy and innovation officer at Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, told Healthcare Dive. She said the tool isn’t a “healthiest place to live” navigator but rather a starting point to understand conditions affecting communities and develop peer networks.

Vermont’s all-payer ACO will begin in January

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20161026/NEWS/161029930/vermonts-all-payer-aco-will-begin-in-january

Image result for vermont all payer model

In January, Vermont will become the first state in the nation to move to a voluntary all-payer accountable care organization model, the CMS announced Wednesday.

The Vermont program is modeled after a similar one from Maryland, but the Maryland program covers only hospitals. The Vermont ACO will cover Medicare, Medicaid and commercial payers, requiring those who participate to pay similar rates for all services.

The CMS is giving Vermont $9.5 million in start-up funding to support the transition. The demonstration, funded through a 1115 waiver, will last five years.

“This model is historic in terms of its scope, aiming to include almost all providers and people throughout the state in an all-payer ACO model to drive improved quality, better care coordination, healthier people, and smarter spending,” the CMS’ Chief Medical Officer Patrick Conway said in a statement.

“We will become the first state in America to fundamentally transform our entire health care system so it is geared towards keeping people healthy, not making money,” said Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin, who earlier this year traveled to Washington to negotiate a deal with HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell.

The state aims to have 70% of its insured residents covered by an ACO by 2022. The model will be considered an advanced alternative payment model under the new Medicare reimbursement program, making participants eligible for a performance bonus.

Former Non-Profit Health Clinics CEO Sentenced to 18 Years for Funneling Millions in Grant Money to Private Companies

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndal/pr/former-non-profit-health-clinics-ceo-sentenced-18-years-funneling-millions-grant-money

Image result for Embezzlement

The former CEO of two Alabama health clinics has been sentenced to 18 years in prison for his role in a fraud scheme, according to the Department of Justice.

According to the DOJ, 53-year-old Jonathan Dunning left his post as CEO of Birmingham (Ala.) Health Care and Central Alabama Comprehensive Health in Tuskegee in 2008. However, he continued to exercise control over the two nonprofit health clinics and diverted government funds meant for the clinics to his own for-profit companies, according to the DOJ.

In June, a federal jury convicted Mr. Dunning of 62 counts of wire fraud, 33 counts of money laundering and two counts of bank fraud. A jury also found him guilty of one count of conspiracy, finding that he conspired with another person to commit wire fraud, bank fraud and money laundering.

Over a seven-year period, Mr. Dunning defrauded HHS, the Health Resources and Service Administration, the two clinics, a credit union and others out of more than $16 million, according to the government’s sentencing memorandum.

DOJ says Aetna, Humana are trying to derail antitrust case

http://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/news/2016/10/11/doj-says-aetna-humana-are-trying-to-derail.html

Lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice say Aetna Inc. and Humana Inc are trying to derail the government's antitrust challenge of Aetna's proposed $37 billion acquisition of Humana.

Lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice say Aetna Inc. and Humana Inc are trying to derail the government’s antitrust challenge of Aetna’s proposed $37 billion acquisition of Louisville-based Humana.

This comes after lawyers for the companies accused the DOJ with “serious delay and misconduct” last week. The companies requested sanctions, claiming that the government withheld about 1 million documents and that this had “gravely undermined” the companies’ ability to mount a defense against claims that the acquisition would hurt competition.

The National Law Journal reports that the government’s response came Saturday in a court filing, in which it said the DOJ has tried to accommodate the “broad and extremely burdensome discovery demand” from Aetna (NYSE: AET) and Humana (NYSE: HUM) on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The government called the request for sanctions “a transparent attempt to derail the United States’ merger challenge before the district court ever hears from a single witness or reviews any evidence,” the law journal reported.

At issue is how much market share the combined company would control in Medicare Advantage, a type of Medicare plan offered by a private insurer. A court date is set for Dec. 5, 2016, and the judge says a decision isn’t likely until mid-January 2017 — past the companies’ end-of-year deadline to close the deal.

Transgender bias case against Dignity Health could set off religious freedom clash

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20160810/NEWS/160809895?utm_campaign=CHL:%20Daily%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=32861909&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9qL_IaEO7Hx72W4SFvgvo0t4dNzK_5X_TSeG2I4XooJHczu-Qvacm_omfrbvDQpoiVRLJqkyM8MICvHlogoy3wIWsUEA&_hsmi=32861909

Dignity Health has answered a federal discrimination lawsuit filed by a transgender nurse by arguing that civil rights law does not require its self-insured employer health plan to cover gender reassignment-related care. It says Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not cover transgender status as a protected classification.

The San Francisco-based hospital chain also argued last month in response to the closely watched suit—one of the first of its kind in the country—that HHS’ May rule barring categorical exclusion of coverage for gender transition services does not take effect until Jan. 1, 2017. Prior to that, it argues, federal law does not require an employer to provide health coverage for “sex transformation” treatment.

In addition, the new federal anti-bias rule does not bar self-insured employer health plans from excluding benefits for services that are not medically necessary, according to Dignity’s motion for dismissal. It said “the medical efficacy of sex transformation surgery remains the subject of debate.”

But lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union who are representing nurse Josef Robinson say both Title VII and the new HHS rule interpreting Section 1557of the Affordable Care Act clearly require employers and health plans to cover treatment related to gender dysphoria. That’s the name for the condition where people feel they are not the gender they were assigned at birth.

Legal experts expect more such lawsuits following HHS’ issuance of the anti-bias rule in May.

Editor’s Corner: OIG audit reveals dirty secrets about Meaningful Use

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/it/oig-s-incentive-audit-reveals-dirty-little-secrets-about-meaningful-use?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mrkid=959610&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTXpsa01XWXpOV0UxTlRkaiIsInQiOiJGY2ZNVUhtVE42ZFA1ZzJFdnd5VjlIYlh5WGtxMlVWeGZ1ZmpaQUtFdVwvZW8wbndLcmhrQ2tDQU5ReUhZcFwvcjhsRWRkVVV5aHFjWkVVWjFBXC81UGhVQzBONE15WmV6RWF2S1N6KzViT2hvVT0ifQ%3D%3D

So far this year we’ve seen a shift in attention when it comes to electronic health records: less on the EHR Incentive Program, and more on the newer, more trendy issues, such as precision medicine, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act and ransomware.

But that old stalwart, Meaningful Use, is still a major focus, at least for the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. And it should be for the rest of us, as well, based on what OIG has been unearthing.

The OIG issued its latest audit report on how states are paying Medicaid Meaningful Use incentives, and it isn’t pretty. The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System made incorrect Medicaid incentive payments to 24 out of 25 hospitals reviewed, totaling almost $15 million in overpayments.