Tag Archives: Medicaid Waiver

How Medi-Cal’s Fiscal Balancing Act Could Soon Become More Challenging

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

How Medi-Cal’s Fiscal Balancing Act Could Soon Become More Challenging

Many Californians know that Medi-Cal is our state’s health coverage program for residents with low incomes, including children, people with disabilities, and workers who may not get affordable health insurance through their jobs.

What many Californians don’t realize — call it Medi-Cal’s best-kept secret — is that even with the program’s rising enrollment and costs in recent years, Medi-Cal’s financial impact on our state’s General Fund (the account that receives most state tax revenues) has been relatively small. This matters because General Fund dollars support an array of vital services in addition to Medi-Cal, many of which — such as income supports and subsidized childcare for low-income working families — also promote Californians’ health and well-being. If Medi-Cal had claimed a larger share of General Fund revenues over the past decade, fewer state dollars would have been available to support other critical public supports and services.

This article first looks at how our state has expanded Medi-Cal to meet the health care needs of one in three Californians while minimizing the program’s impact on the General Fund. It then highlights key Medi-Cal financing issues on the horizon that could hamper state policymakers’ efforts to continue balancing Medi-Cal’s funding needs with those of other important public services. This article is adapted from a presentation I gave at the February 25 Medi-Cal Explained briefing hosted by the California Health Care Foundation.

As Medi-Cal Enrollment Doubled, State General Fund Support Rose Modestly

Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, has seen enrollment and expenditures grow substantially since 2007–08 (PDF), the last fiscal year before the Great Recession sent California’s economy and state budget into a tailspin. Enrollment for the current fiscal year (2018–19) is expected to be 13.2 million, about double the 2007–08 level. Total Medi-Cal spending is anticipated to reach $98.5 billion, roughly $53 billion (114%) higher than in 2007–08. (All 2007–08 expenditures are adjusted for inflation.)

State General Fund dollars accounted for only $3 billion of this $53 billion increase in Medi-Cal spending between 2007–08 and 2018–19. This relatively small jump in General Fund support for Medi-Cal is remarkable in light of periodic concerns that the program is putting the squeeze on California’s General Fund budget. Instead, Medi-Cal’s spending growth has largely been supported with non-General Fund sources of revenue. Specifically, the remainder of the $53 billion spending increase between 2007–08 and 2018–19 — around $50 billion — came from federal funds ($35.3 billion) and other non-federal funds, such as state taxes paid by managed care organizations (MCOs) and fees paid by hospitals ($14.2 billion). Since 2007–08, federal funding for Medi-Cal has increased by 129%, while other non-federal funds have grown by more than 1,600%.

The substantial increase in non-General Fund support for Medi-Cal has been driven by several factors, including:

  • More generous federal cost-sharing. California and the federal government equally split the cost of services for most Medi-Cal enrollees. However, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) included more generous federal cost-sharing for certain beneficiaries. The federal government pays 93% of the cost for the Medi-Cal expansion population, which consists of low-income non-elderly adults who became newly eligible in 2014. In addition, federal dollars fund 88% of the cost for children who are enrolled in Medi-Cal as part of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Like a see-saw, higher federal cost-sharing leads to lower state cost-sharing, freeing up state General Fund dollars.
  • Creative financing. California has tapped into alternative in-state financing sources to support Medi-Cal, including local matching funds (such as from counties and public hospital systems), provider fees, and a tax on MCOs. These alternative sources of financing allow California to draw down more federal funding for Medi-Cal while minimizing the impact on the General Fund.
  • The 2016 state tobacco tax increase. Proposition 56 raised the state’s excise tax on cigarettes by $2 per pack and triggered an equivalent increase in the state tax on other tobacco products. Medi-Cal’s share of these revenues — roughly $1 billion per year — is primarily used to boost payments to doctors and other Medi-Cal providers, relieving the need for the General Fund to support such rate increases.

What about General Fund support for Medi-Cal as a percentage of the total General Fund budget? Medi-Cal’s share of the General Fund has increased by just seven-tenths of a percentage point over the past decade — from 13.63% in 2007–08 to an estimated 14.35% in 2018–19. Yes, Medi-Cal receives a slightly larger slice of the General Fund “pie” than it did 2007–08. But this increase has been modest given the substantial benefit experienced by millions of Californians newly covered by the program. As a result, more state dollars have been available for other public services and systems than if General Fund support for Medi-Cal had risen at a much faster pace.

Medi-Cal’s Big Financing Issues Create Uncertainty for Medi-Cal and the General Fund

Over the past decade, state policymakers have deftly balanced the needs of a growing Medi-Cal program with those of other public services and systems. However, Medi-Cal faces a number of near-term financing issues that could make this balancing act more challenging in the coming years. These financing issues include:

  • Reductions in federal cost-sharing. The federal government is scheduled to reduce its share of costs for CHIP-funded children as well as for adults enrolled in Medi-Cal starting in 2014 under the ACA. The state’s share of CHIP costs will increase in two steps, rising from 12% to 23.5% on October 1, 2019, and then to 35% on October 1, 2020. For the expansion population, the state’s share of cost will rise from 7% to 10% on January 1, 2020, where it will remain unless revised by Congress. Upon full implementation, these changes will increase annual state General Fund spending on Medi-Cal by more than $1 billion compared to 2018–19, according to estimates from the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO).
  • The pending expiration of the MCO tax. California’s MCO tax expires on June 30, and Governor Gavin Newsom is not proposing to extend it. If the MCO tax expires, California would forgo a net annual General Fund benefit of $1.5 billion, based on the current structure of the MCO tax package. These dollars could help to pay for a number of state policy advances, including efforts to move California closer to universal health coverage. The governor “has not laid out a convincing rationale” for declining to seek an extension of the MCO tax, according to the LAO. If the tax were allowed to expire, annual state General Fund costs for Medi-Cal would ultimately increase by well over $1 billion but without any additional benefit to the Medi-Cal program. Instead, state General Fund dollars would simply replace lost MCO tax revenues in order to keep the program whole.
  • The pending expiration of two major federal waivers. California’s current Section 1915(b) waiver expires on July 1, 2020. Under this waiver, counties are allowed to deviate from standard Medicaid rules and provide or arrange for a broad array of “specialty mental health services” for eligible Medi-Cal beneficiaries. In addition, California’s Section 1115 Medi-Cal 2020 waiver expires at the end of 2020. Under this waiver, the federal government is providing the state with billions of dollars to help improve access to care as well as to transform how care is delivered. Will the Trump administration agree to renew these waivers without significantly reducing federal funding or imposing new requirements that California would find objectionable? Time will tell.
  • The next recession. Medi-Cal could face spending cuts when the next recession comes and policymakers seek ways to close budget shortfalls. Fortunately, California has been building up its reserves. The state expects to have more than $15 billion in its constitutional reserve, the Budget Stabilization Account, by the end of 2019–20. In addition, Governor Newsom wants to add $700 million to the state’s new Safety Net Reserve for Medi-Cal and CalWORKs. (The balance now is $200 million.) These reserves will reduce the need for state budget cuts during the next downturn, although Medi-Cal would not be guaranteed a specific share of the funds. State reserves will be crucial to shoring up Medi-Cal’s budget because the federal government may do little to help states pay for their rising Medicaid costs when the next recession arrives.

One of the biggest challenges — and opportunities — that California lawmakers and the governor face each year is allocating the state’s limited General Fund revenues among many vital priorities. The financing issues that Medi-Cal is facing — and how these issues are resolved — will help to determine whether policymakers can continue improving the Medi-Cal program while also ensuring that other vital public services are adequately funded.

 

 

 

Congress Warns Against Medicaid Cuts: ‘You Just Wait for the Firestorm’

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

Image result for Congress Warns Against Medicaid Cuts: ‘You Just Wait for the Firestorm’

WASHINGTON — If President Trump allows states to convert Medicaid into a block grant with a limit on health care spending for low-income people, he will face a firestorm of opposition in Congress, House Democrats told the nation’s top health official on Tuesday.

The official, Alex M. Azar II, the secretary of health and human services, endured more than four hours of bipartisan criticism over the president’s budget for 2020, which would substantially reduce projected spending on Medicaid, Medicare and biomedical research. Democrats, confronting Mr. Azar for the first time with a House majority, scorned most of the president’s proposals.

But few drew as much heat as Mr. Trump’s proposed overhaul of Medicaid. His budget envisions replacing the current open-ended federal commitment to the program with a lump sum of federal money for each state in the form of a block grant, a measure that would essentially cap payments and would not keep pace with rising health care costs.

Congress rejected a similar Republican plan in 2017, but in his testimony on Tuesday before the Health Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Azar refused to rule out the possibility that he could grant waivers to states that wanted to move in that direction.

Under such waivers, Mr. Azar said, he could not guarantee that everyone now enrolled in Medicaid would keep that coverage.

“You couldn’t make that kind of commitment about any waiver,” Mr. Azar said. He acknowledged that the president’s budget would reduce the growth of Medicaid by $1.4 trillion in the coming decade.

Representative G. K. Butterfield, Democrat of North Carolina, said that “block-granting and capping Medicaid would endanger access to care for some of the most vulnerable people” in the country, like seniors, children and the disabled.

Mr. Trump provoked bipartisan opposition by declaring a national emergency to spend more money than Congress provided to build a wall along the southwestern border. If the president bypasses Congress and allows states to convert Medicaid to a block grant, Mr. Butterfield said, he could face even more of an outcry.

“You just wait for the firestorm this will create,” Mr. Butterfield said, noting that more than one-fifth of Americans — more than 70 million low-income people — depend on Medicaid.

As a candidate, Mr. Trump said he would not cut Medicare, but his new budget proposes to cut more than $800 billion from projected spending on the program for older Americans in the next 10 years. Mr. Azar said the proposals would not harm Medicare beneficiaries.

“I don’t believe any of the proposals will impact access to services,” Mr. Azar said. Indeed, he said, the cutbacks could be a boon to Medicare beneficiaries, reducing their out-of-pocket costs.

After meeting an annual deductible, beneficiaries typically pay 20 percent of the Medicare-approved amount for doctor’s services and some prescription drugs administered in doctor’s offices and outpatient hospital clinics.

Mr. Azar defended a budget proposal to impose work requirements on able-bodied adults enrolled in Medicaid. Arkansas began enforcing such requirements last year under a waiver granted by the Trump administration. Since then, at least 18,000 Arkansans have lost Medicaid coverage.

Mr. Azar said he did not know why they had been dropped from Medicaid. It is possible, he said, that some had found jobs providing health benefits.

Representative Joseph P. Kennedy III, Democrat of Massachusetts, said it would be reckless to extend Medicaid work requirements to the entire country without knowing why people were falling off the rolls in Arkansas.

If you are receiving free coverage through Medicaid, Mr. Azar said, “it is not too much to ask that you engage in some kind of community engagement.”

Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan, expressed deep concern about Mr. Trump’s proposal to cut the budget of the National Cancer Institute by $897 million, or 14.6 percent, to $5.2 billion.

Mr. Azar said the proposal was typical of the “tough choices” in Mr. Trump’s budget. He defended the cuts proposed for the National Cancer Institute, saying they were proportional to the cuts proposed for its parent agency, the National Institutes of Health.

The president’s budget would reduce funds for the N.I.H. as a whole by 12.6 percent, to $34.4 billion next year.

Mr. Azar was also pressed to justify Mr. Trump’s proposal to cut federal payments to hospitals serving large numbers of low-income patients. Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York, said the cuts, totaling $26 billion over 10 years, would be devastating to “safety net hospitals” in New York and other urban areas.

Mr. Azar said that the Affordable Care Act, by expanding coverage, was supposed to “get rid of uncompensated care” so there would be less need for the special payments.

While Democrats assailed the president’s budget, Mr. Azar relished the opportunity to attack Democrats’ proposals to establish a single-payer health care system billed as Medicare for all.

Those proposals could eliminate coverage provided to more than 20 million people through private Medicare Advantage plans and to more than 155 million people through employer-sponsored health plans, he said.

But Mr. Azar found himself on defense on another issue aside from the president’s budget: immigration. He said he was doing his best to care for migrant children who had illegally entered the United States, were separated from their parents and are being held in shelters for which his department is responsible.

He said he was not aware of the “zero tolerance” immigration policy before it was publicly announced in April 2018 by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. If he had known about the policy, Mr. Azar said, “I could have raised objections and concerns.”

Representative Anna G. Eshoo, Democrat of California and the chairwoman of the subcommittee, summarized the case against the president’s budget.

“The Trump administration,” she said, “has taken a hatchet to every part of our health care system, undermining the Affordable Care Act, proposing to fundamentally restructure Medicaid and slashing Medicare. This budget proposes to continue that sabotage.”

 

 

 

 

Trump continues his war on Americans’ health care to pay for his tax cuts

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

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2019/03/11/467108/trumps-fy-2020-budget-exposes-false-promises-misplaced-priorities/

Image result for medicare cuts

After repeatedly trying and failing to repeal the ACA legislatively, President Trump and congressional Republicans have resorted to attacking and weakening the law through executive action, federal waivers to the states to undermine Medicaid expansion, and budget proposals to gut funding levels.

Once again, Trump’s budget proposes massive cuts—$777 billion over 10 years—from repealing the ACA and slashing Medicaid.

Like in his previous two budgets, Trump goes beyond these two measures to attack traditional Medicaid, seeking to restrict federal funding on a per-beneficiary basis or transition to block grant funding. Both of these things would lead to a significant decrease in federal funding and could cause millions of people to lose their health care coverage.

Like in last year’s budget, he encourages states to take Medicaid away from jobless and underemployed Americans, including laid-off workers, people who are going to school, and those who are taking care of children or family members. Medicaid is a lifeline for millions of Americans—including children, veterans, people with disabilities, and individuals affected by the opioid crisis. Tearing down this vital program will make it more difficult for people to access the health care they need to find work, including by preventing people with disabilities from accessing the long-term services and supports they need to participate in the labor market.

After he repeatedly promised to protect Medicare as a candidate, Trump makes changes to Medicare that would shrink the program by $845 billion over the coming decade.

 

 

 

Red states find there’s no free pass on Medicaid changes

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

Red states find there’s no free pass on Medicaid changes from Trump

Image result for medicaid waiver

Red states are getting a reality check from the Trump administration in just how conservative they can remake their Medicaid programs.

Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rejected a request from Kansas to limit Medicaid eligibility to just three years.

CMS Administrator Seema Verma followed up on the Kansas decision by saying the administration will not allow any states to impose lifetime limits on Medicaid.

“We’ve indicated that we would not approve lifetime limits and I think we’ve made that pretty clear to states,” Verma said last week at a Washington Post event on health care.

The Trump administration has made state innovation a priority and has promised to fast-track Medicaid waivers, especially those that will impose work requirements on beneficiaries.

Four states have been granted permission to do so — Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana and New Hampshire — and six others have pending waivers.

States have also been allowed to impose lockout periods if beneficiaries can’t meet the work requirements and to charge higher premiums than the Obama administration allowed.

But the decision on lifetime limits marks the first time the administration completely rejected a policy favored by conservatives and shows there is no blank check for red states.

Verma never promised automatic approvals of conservative ideas, though some might have interpreted it that way, according to Jeff Myers, president and CEO of the Medicaid Health Plans of America.

He said it’s becoming clear that what the Trump administration wants is to construct policies that will make Medicaid beneficiaries self-sufficient, but that will not take away their benefits entirely.

Verma has long argued that promoting self-sufficiency is key to any changes states make to Medicaid. In explaining the decision to reject lifetime limits, Verma noted that states only temporarily suspend benefits if work requirements aren’t met.

“An individual may not comply with a requirement around cost-sharing and they could potentially lose coverage. But we want to make sure that there’s a pathway back into the program … if they’re compliant with the requirements,” Verma said last week.

Medicaid experts said officials in Kansas and other red states were mistaken if they thought they could get the Trump administration to approve changes just because they happen to be conservative.

“Contrary to some states’ expectations, there really is a waiver approval process,” said Joe Antos, a health policy expert at the American Enterprise Forum, a conservative think tank.

“Decisions will move more rapidly than they were … [but] that doesn’t mean approvals,” he said.

Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, said any time there’s a change in administration, states jockey to see what policies they can get approved.

“There’s a lot of pent-up interest in pursuing flexibility and changes that the Obama administration would not entertain, [but] I don’t think anyone thought it was a blank check, do whatever you want,” Salo said.

The administration has yet to make a decision on other conservative wish list policies, such as Wisconsin’s proposal for drug testing Medicaid recipients, and partial Medicaid expansion, which would let states expand coverage for only a fraction of the population and still receive full federal funding under ObamaCare.

Salo said federal officials want to make sure that any waivers they approve will survive the inevitable lawsuits that follow.

“People are pretty savvy … if you’re just going to approve something that gets torn down in the courts, you’re wasting everyone’s time,” Salo said. “The granting of a wish list that gets trounced doesn’t do any good, and even sets the agenda back somewhat. Everyone’s better off if there’s a real rationale.”

CMS recently declined to issue a decision on a request by Arkansas to roll back the eligibility levels for Medicaid beneficiaries. The agency also declined to rule on Kansas’s request to impose work requirements, which experts have speculated could be an implicit rejection of the proposals.

Unlike the other four states that have been approved, Kansas is not a Medicaid expansion state, and the administration has not approved work requirements in any nonexpansion states.

Kansas officials indicated they were still working with federal officials.

“While we will not be moving forward with lifetime caps, we are pleased that the Administration has been supportive of our efforts to include a work requirement in the 1115 waiver. This important provision will help improve outcomes and ensure that Kansans are empowered to achieve self-sufficiency,” Gov. Jeff Colyer (R) said in a statement.

 

Implications of the ACA Medicaid Expansion: A Look at the Data and Evidence

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

Implications of the ACA Medicaid Expansion: A Look at the Data and Evidence

 

More than four years after the implementation of the Medicaid expansion included in the Affordable Care Act, debate and controversy around the implications of the expansion continue. Despite a large body of research that shows that the Medicaid expansion results in gains in coverage, improvements in access and financial security, and economic benefits for states and providers, some argue that the Medicaid expansion has broadened the program beyond its original intent diverting spending from the “truly needy”, offers poor quality and limited access to providers, and has increased state costs. New proposals allow states to implement policies never approved before including conditioning Medicaid eligibility on work or community engagement. New complex requirements run counter to the post-ACA movement of Medicaid integration with other health programs and streamlined enrollment processes. This brief examines evidence of the effects of the Medicaid expansion and some changes being implemented through waivers. Many of the findings on the effects of expansion cited in this brief are drawn from the 202 studies included in our comprehensive literature review that includes additional citations on coverage, access, and economic effects of the Medicaid expansion. Key findings include the following:

  • Coverage: Research and data show that Medicaid expansion has resulted in coverage gains without diverting coverage from traditional groups; for example, data do not support a relationship between states’ expansion status and community-based services waiver waiting lists. Reductions in Medicaid coverage would result in an increase in the uninsured population.
  • Access, Affordability, and Health Outcomes: Research demonstrates that Medicaid generally, and expansion specifically, positively affects access to care, utilization of services, the affordability of care, and financial security among the low-income population. While there is a growing body of evidence on Medicaid and outcomes, further research is needed to more fully determine the health effect of expansion on outcomes given that measureable changes take time to occur.
  • Economic Effects: Analyses find positive economic effects of expansion largely tied to the infusion of federal dollars, despite Medicaid enrollment growth initially exceeding projections in many states. Some studies look at 2014-2016 when expansion costs were 100% financed by the federal government, others studies project net fiscal gains even after states start to pay a share of expansion costs (up to 10% by 2020). Studies also show that Medicaid expansion resulted in reductions in uninsured visits and uncompensated care costs for hospitals, clinics, and other providers.
  • Expansion and Work: Studies find that Medicaid expansion has had positive or neutral effects on employment and the labor market and new work requirement proposals add complexity and could result in coverage losses for many who are working or face barriers to work.

 

Here’s how states are trying to overhaul Medicaid — without Congress

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

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/news/economy/medicaid-state-waiver-requirements/index.html

Image result for Here's how states are trying to overhaul Medicaid -- without Congress

Work requirements are only the beginning.

Mandating Medicaid recipients work in order to receive benefits is in the spotlight right now, but states are seeking to make a host of other changes to their programs. These include requiring enrollees to pay premiums, limiting the time they can receive benefits, testing them for drugs and locking them out if they fail to keep up with the paperwork.

Many provisions would apply to working age, non-disabled adults who gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion. But several states also would require some who qualify under traditional Medicaid — very low-income parents, mainly — to meet these new rules.

Trump administration and state officials say these measures will help people gain independence and prepare them to purchase health insurance on their own. Critics, however, argue states are putting additional hurdles in place to winnow down their rolls.

“The practical impact of all these proposals is that it will knock people off of coverage,” said Patricia Boozang, a managing director at Manatt Health Solutions, a consulting firm.

Republicans have long wanted to overhaul the 53-year-old Medicaid program, which covers nearly 75 million mainly low-income children, parents, elderly and disabled Americans. The broadening of Medicaid to low-income adults under Obamacare — roughly 11 million have gained coverage under the health reform law’s Medicaid expansion provision — has further spurred GOP efforts.

Congress attempted last year to revamp the safety net program, hoping to sharply curtail federal support and turn more control over to the states. Studies showed that millions would lose coverage, helping to sink the measure in the Senate.

States, however, are undeterred. They are ramping up efforts to customize their Medicaid programs through the federal waiver process.

States have long had this power, but the Obama administration rejected any waivers with work requirements and only sparingly granted requests to tighten eligibility. Many of the states that used waivers tied provider payments to performance goals or expanded mental health and substance abuse services and eligibility, for instance. A few turned to waivers to implement alternative Medicaid expansion models that include charging premiums or enrolling recipients in private insurance and covering the premiums, for example.

Indiana, for example, broke new ground in 2015 by getting permission to levy premiums on some traditional Medicaid enrollees, such as very low-income parents, and to lock out expansion recipients above the poverty line for six months if they don’t keep up with their payments.

But the Trump administration has taken a different approach. Seema Verma, who leads the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, sent a letter to governors hours after she was confirmed in March asking them to file waivers that promote a path to self-sufficiency. At least 10 states have responded with waivers that include work requirements and a host of other provisions. Last week, CMS granted Kentucky’s waiver to implement work requirements, marking the first time ever a state can mandate recipients work for their benefits.

Kentucky also can start charging its Medicaid enrollees monthly premiums ranging from $1 to $15, depending on income, and suspend some of those who fall behind on payments. The state will also provide recipients with a high-deductible health savings account, which it will fund, and offer incentives to purchase additional benefits, such as dental and vision coverage.

And the state can lock recipients out of the program for up to six months if they don’t renew their paperwork on time or promptly report changes in income that could affect their eligibility — the first time the federal government has granted such a request.

All told, Kentucky is expecting about 95,000 fewer people to be in its Medicaid program by the end of its five-year waiver period.

Kentucky joins Indiana, Michigan, Arizona, Montana and Iowa in gaining permission to charge premiums. However, states such as Maine and Wisconsin — that didn’t expand Medicaid — are also looking to levy premiums on certain enrollees, primarily low-income parents or childless adults.

Wisconsin also wants to implement additional changes, including drug testing and a 48-month time limit, after which the recipient loses coverage for six months. Months during which the enrollee works or participates in training programs wouldn’t count toward the limit. Utah, meanwhile, wants to impose a lifetime limit on coverage of 60 months. Arizona, Kansas and Maine also want to set caps on the length of time residents can be on Medicaid.

Other states want to reduce the income threshold for Medicaid expansion eligibility. Arkansas and Massachusetts have asked to cover adults only up to 100% of the poverty level, or roughly $24,600 for a family of four, rather than 138%, but the states would still get the enhanced federal match. Those who would fall off would be able to sign up for subsidized policies on the Obamacare exchanges, though consumer advocates say that coverage would be too pricey for most low-income Americans.

Each of these provisions is complicated and having to comply with multiple requirements could prove too much for some recipients, said MaryBeth Musumeci, an associate director at the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“There’s a very real risk that eligible people can lose coverage,” she said.

Payer Roundup—Mississippi gets 10-year Medicaid waiver extension; A third of Americans believe ACA is repealed

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

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/payer-roundup-mississippi-gets-10-year-medicaid-waiver-extension-third-americans-believe-aca?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTnpreE9HSTFPVFJqWldZMSIsInQiOiJNM0NTa1ZBZW1kU001bkx4SEcwNmtSeEFVNG9oZnpUbEF2UVpMY1lDUWNZYm8zZTFuejJNUGpPOTJuYVlXTlZwWHdXU1hrRm50Z1NFbHJGRjdUMld6U1JoYWo0enNaUlEzNldab2tcL3hxV3NPaTBlK2xKbmVSQmgwMTE2NFZpYzgifQ%3D%3D&mrkid=959610

Medicaid

CMS approves 10-year Medicaid waiver extension for Mississippi

Last week, the federal government approved its first 10-year extension of a Section 1115 Medicaid demonstration program.

The Mississippi program provides family planning services for people ages 13-44 with income of up to 194% of the federal poverty level. To get approval for its 10-year extension, the state agreed to submit monitoring reports and participate in calls with CMS every year.

The lengthy waiver extension, according to CMS Administrator Seema Verma, lets Mississippi administer its Medicaid program “without the inconvenience of obtaining routine approvals from CMS.” The action also shows the agency’s “continuing commitment to giving states the flexibility they deserve to meet the unique needs of their people,” she said.

Alabama won’t freeze CHIP enrollment or stop coverage—for now

Because of the temporary funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program included in Congress’ year-end spending bill, Alabama officials canceled their plans to freeze CHIP enrollment on Jan. 1.

The state will also not follow through with its plan to terminate coverage for current CHIP enrollees by Feb. 1, according to AL.com. But Cathy Caldwell, director of the Alabama Bureau of Children’s Health Insurance, told the publication that “we desperately need Congress to act, hopefully in January.”

Federal funding for CHIP expired Sept. 30, and Congress’ effort to reauthorize funding have been bogged down by partisan disputes. The short-term spending bill passed before the holiday break set aside $2.85 billion to temporarily tide states over.

One-third of Americans believe ACA has been repealed

President Donald Trump was not correct when he said that the GOP tax bill repealed the Affordable Care Act, but a new poll indicates a sizable chunk of Americans believe it nonetheless.

According to the poll (PDF), conducted by The Economist/YouGov, 31% of respondents indicated that Trump has delivered on his promise to repeal the healthcare law. Forty-nine percent said that he didn’t, and 21% were unsure.

The sweeping overhaul to the tax code that Republicans passed before the holiday break did repeal the ACA’s individual mandate, a key part of its insurance market reforms. But experts disagree on how big of an impact that will have, and other core components of the law—like premium subsidies—remain intact.

ACA expert to stop blogging for Health Affairs

Timothy Jost, who has chronicled nearly every Affordable Care Act-related development over the past 8½ years, will no longer contribute to the Health Affairs Blog’s “Following the ACA” series.

Jost, a Washington and Lee University professor emeritus, wrote more than 600 blog posts about the adoption and implementation of the healthcare law, plus the omnipresent political battles surrounding it. Jost wrote in his final post that “I am getting older and believe it is time to slow down.” He will continue to write a monthly “Eye on Reform” column for Health Affairs, however.

Katie Keith, a health policy expert with a law degree from Georgetown University and a master of public health from Johns Hopkins University, will take the helm as the author of the Health Affairs blog series on the ACA.

 

State officials plead for bipartisan ObamaCare fix

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

State officials plead for bipartisan ObamaCare fix

State officials plead for bipartisan ObamaCare fix

State insurance officials pleaded with senators on Wednesday to quickly act to stabilize the ObamaCare markets, calling for a multiyear extension of key payments to help fund premiums for low-income customers.

Congress must pass a fix by the end of September to shore up the wobbly individual markets, several officials said, in particular funding for key ObamaCare insurer payments known as cost-sharing reductions (CSR).

“The CSR funding issue is the single most critical issue that you can address to help stabilize insurance markets for 2018 and potentially bring down costs,” Tennessee’s insurance commissioner Julie Mix McPeak told the Senate Health Committee.

The panel kicked off a series of hearings Wednesday on stabilizing the markets. If Congress can pass a bill, it would represent the biggest bipartisan update since President Obama signed the law in 2010.

Health committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) wants to find consensus by the end of next week. To sell the fix, he and ranking member Patty Murray (D-Wash.) held a private meeting with senators not on the committee and the witnesses who testified as Wednesday’s hearing.

“If we can do two things, that would be two more things that we have agreed on in a bipartisan way in the last seven years in health insurance,” Alexander told reporters.

“And then let the leaders see if we can pass it, and hope the House does and that the president signs it.”

Despite some pushback that could still come from conservatives calling the payments an “insurer bailout,” Alexander and Murray hope to cobble together a bipartisan group that agree some continuation of the payments is necessary.

The cost sharing subsidies, which reimburse insurers for giving discounted deductibles and co-pays to low-income customers, have been made by the Trump administration on a month-to-month basis.

Republicans had sued the Obama administration over the payments, calling them unconstitutional, but many have since acknowledged they need to continue at least in the near term to prevent steep premium hikes.

Insurers have asked for long-term certainty on the payments, threatening to hike premiums and leave the ObamaCare markets altogether if they don’t get it.

Democrats, and some Republicans like Alexander, agree Congress should fund the payments, but there’s disagreement on the time frame.

Alexander wants to fund the payments through 2018 while Murray has pushed for multiple years.

“It is critical that we work toward a multiyear solution in order to provide the kind of certainty that will have the most impact on families’ premiums and choices in the marketplaces,” Murray said.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the nation’s largest insurer trade association, and other stakeholder groups urged Congress to fund the payments through at least 2019.

“Without two years of CSR funding, uncertainty will persist and the Congress will need to address these same issues early next year,” the groups wrote in a letter to the committee Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Republicans say a bipartisan health bill must include changes to ObamaCare’s state waivers so states have more control over what their insurance plans look like.

Alexander said ObamaCare’s waivers should be amended so “states can have more flexibility to devise ways to provide more coverage with more choices and lower costs.”

“It just hasn’t been very appealing to states because it is a difficult tool to use,” he said.

This point was echoed by Pennsylvania’s insurance commissioner Theresa Miller, who called the process to get approved cumbersome.

“Baseline coverage requirements should be kept intact as much as possible … but make it easier for states to respond to market issues,” she said.

For example, it takes at least six months to get a waiver approved with the federal government, which the commissioners said made it difficult to quickly respond to market issues.

But Democrats have been wary of anything they say could result in coverage losses and the availability of less comprehensive insurance plans.

The Senate GOP’s ObamaCare repeal plan, which failed in a dramatic vote with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) joining two other Republicans in opposition, contained language intended to make it easier for states to approve less comprehensive plans.

However, Democrats say that is going in the wrong direction.

We should be “moving forward not backward on affordability, coverage and quality of care,” Murray said.

“We’re all well aware threading this needle won’t be easy,” she said, “but I do believe an agreement that protects patients and families from higher costs and uncertainty, and maintains the guardrails in our current health care system, is possible.”

Several commissioners also recommended setting up a temporary reinsurance program to help insurers with high cost patients with the intent of lowering premiums for healthier ones.

“Congress should enact a federal reinsurance program with a minimum duration of three years,” said Washington state insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler, adding that it would “significantly help stabilize the individual health insurance market.”

But Alexander indicated it’s unlikely for the bill to include reinsurance funding, noting that the U.S. is already trillions in debt.

“If a reinsurance program is such a good idea … why don’t states do it?” he asked, suggesting states impose small fees on every insurance plan sold to help fund it.

Democrats are also pushing for a bill to restore ObamaCare outreach funding after the Trump administration announced drastic cuts to the program.

Alaska’s insurance director Lori Wing-Heier said the cuts concern her because “these programs reduce the number of uninsured citizens and maximize public participation.”

Put Medicaid on Welfare

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

http://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2017/06/07/put_medicaid_on_welfare_110620.html

Image result for Medicaid on Welfare

The American Health Care Act (AHCA), which was recently passed by the House of Representatives, proposes a radical change in Medicaid funding. Bill Clinton-era welfare reform served as a guide for the latest health care reform push—but to be successful, we must draw the correct lessons from those efforts in the 1990s.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the pre-welfare reform cash assistance program for the poor, was a joint state-federal program, just as Medicaid is. Under this arrangement, Washington provides much of the funding and states operate the programs. Funds are distributed via matching grants, under which each dollar spent by states is matched by dollars from Washington. Medicaid varies the matching rate from between one and three dollars, with lower income states getting more. Notably, the Medicaid match has been open-ended–meaning as states spend more on approved coverage, they continue to receive more federal money.

The welfare reform signed by President Clinton in 1996 replaced AFDC with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). TANF shares federal dollars using block grants, under which the federal transfer to a state in a given year is fixed, with relatively few strings attached. The AHCA proposes a slight variation on the block grant principle, with states receiving a fixed dollar amount per beneficiary beginning in 2020 (within five benefit categories). Federal assistance adjusts based on the number of enrollees. The AHCA also gives states the option of a straight block grant just as with TANF.

Block grants have been an important reason why there are 10 million fewer Americans on welfare today than in the early’90s, all without an increase in child poverty as critics of reform then feared. Matching grants create perverse incentives for states, which bear neither the full costs of over-generous programs nor retain the full amount of any savings from improved efficiency. As half or more of any Medicaid cost increase is paid for by Washington, state legislators are generous when spending federal dollars. Conversely, states only get to keep at most half of any savings from reducing Medicaid waste or abuse, thus there is little incentive to undertake any such efforts.

With block grants, meanwhile, states pay the full cost of expanding a program and keep all of the savings from reducing waste. The amount of federal assistance remains the same either way. State legislators must weigh the full cost of their generosity in such a system, enhancing efficiency in how they spend tax dollars.

Matching grants also impose conditions on state programs for eligibility, such as which groups of persons and types of care must be covered under Medicaid. Under AFDC’s matching grant system, states could not craft work requirements that best suited their population and economy without running afoul of federally imposed conditions.

Block grants, by contrast, allow states flexibility in designing programs to meet local needs and conditions. In the case of welfare reform, moving to block grants allowed states to tailor work requirement policies for local conditions.

Opponents of welfare reform in 1996 feared that some states would drastically slash benefits, forcing remaining states to do the same or become welfare magnets. This “race to the bottom” did not materialize because welfare reform wisely included maintenance-of-effort provisions, which limited potential state cuts in benefit levels. This safeguard prevented a wholesale diversion of the block grants to other state spending.

Also key to the success of welfare reform were the policy experiments that occurred before the 1996 law was signed. The innovative policies that transitioned millions of Americans from welfare to work emerged from waiver programs under the old AFDC. Similar recent experiments under Medicaid waivers suggest that the time may now be right for Medicaid reform.

One weakness of welfare reform was the rather narrow application of the block grants. TANF is but one of dozens of means-tested assistance programs. The benefits of welfare reform would have been greater if more assistance programs had been combined into one super block grant. Given the close connections between medical expenses and health choices, broad block grants would be particularly valuable for Medicaid.

A Medicaid program made more efficient due to block grants would be unlikely to produce the same reduction in enrollees as seen with TANF, which helped transition Americans off of welfare and into work. But block grants are a useful tool even when reducing enrollees is not the goal. A more likely outcome for Medicaid is better coverage for core beneficiary groups. States currently choose to cover optional treatments in pursuit of matching dollars, spreading available federal dollars very thin and contributing to the chronic problem of low Medicaid reimbursement rates.

In sum, block grants are not a panacea for federal and state budget woes, nor can they magically eliminate the cost of providing medical care to the nation’s poor—but their provision of flexibility and incentives for fiscal discipline allowed states to get welfare spending under control. It’s now time to put Medicaid on welfare.

Should we help poor, sick people in Indiana get to the doctor? Discuss.

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

Should we help poor, sick people in Indiana get to the doctor? Discuss.

Transportation