Posted on

Judge rules Missouri doesn’t have to implement Medicaid expansion

MM Curator summary

 
 

The judge said the state constitution requires specific funding for voter-approved initiatives.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

A Missouri judge on Wednesday ruled against a lawsuit seeking to force the state to implement Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, a setback for supporters of expansion.

 
 

© Istock Judge rules Missouri doesn’t have to implement Medicaid expansion

The ruling will be appealed, though, meaning it is not the final word.

 
 

Missouri voters passed a ballot measure last year to expand Medicaid, but GOP Gov. Mike Parson said in May he would drop plans to expand the program after the Republican-controlled legislature declined to provide funding for it.

Supporters of Medicaid expansion sued, seeking to force the state to expand the program starting July 1, which would provide health insurance to about 275,000 low-income people.

Judge Jon Beetem ruled against the lawsuit on Wednesday, writing that the voter-approved ballot measure was actually unconstitutional, since it sought to spend state funds without identifying a funding source, infringing on the legislature’s appropriations power.

“It is unfortunate that, yet again, hundreds of thousands of Missourians will have to wait even longer to access the health care they need,” Dwayne Proctor, CEO of the Missouri Foundation for Health, said in a statement.

Supporters of expansion said they would appeal.

The setback for expansion in Missouri comes as congressional Democrats are exploring ways to go around states and expand the program in the 12 states that have still not accepted expansion.

A federal program to provide coverage in those states could be included in an upcoming legislative package.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-rules-missouri-doesnt-have-to-implement-medicaid-expansion/ar-AALmCmp?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Posted on

Texas Democrats propose bill to let local governments expand Medicaid without state consent

MM Curator summary

 
 

A new plan from Dems would allow counties to operate Medicaid programs, get federal matching and force states to let them use state systems.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

AUSTIN — Local governments would be able to bypass conservative state leaders and implement their own Medicaid expansion programs for working poor Texans with federal funds, under federal legislation announced Monday by U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin.

Dubbed the “Cover Outstanding Vulnerable Expansion-Eligible Residents Now Act,” the legislation is a “homegrown solution” to a decade of resistance by a handful of red states to allowing more people who are struggling financially to access the federal health care program, said Doggett, chairman of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee and lead sponsor of the bill, which has more than 40 cosponsors.

In Texas, that could be as many as 1 million newly eligible residents — most of them people of color — who currently fall into that gap because they can’t afford private health insurance and can’t qualify for subsidies, but make too much to qualify for Medicaid.

The bill sponsors include all of the Texas congressional Democrats and most Democrats from 12 other states that have refused to expand Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act. It is the first time local governments have been able to directly contract with the federal government for Medicaid funds.

“For many of our most disadvantaged citizens, this bill offers a pathway to access a family physician, necessary medicine, and other essential coverage that thirteen States continue to deny,” Doggett said in a statement. “The COVER Now Act empowers local leaders to assure that the obstructionists at the top can no longer harm the most at-risk living at the bottom.”

The bill allows counties, cities and other political subdivisions to apply directly to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for funds that were declined by their states, including Texas. States would be required to cooperate and authorize access to state Medicaid systems for those entities, with incentives for cooperation and potential penalties otherwise.

That amounts to 100% federal funding for three years and tapering to 90% federal funding by year seven and beyond, Doggett said.

The bill will be filed later Monday, he said. Other proposals being floated in D.C. include doing the same thing through a federal program or expanding access to the marketplace to lower income people, Doggett said.

“All of these have pros and cons,” he said.

An effort by a bipartisan coalition of state lawmakers to expand Medicaid during the most recent session of the Texas Legislature became mired in conservative opposition and never got a hearing.

Opponents of expanding Medicaid to an estimated 1 million Texans who would qualify under the Affordable Care Act of 2010 argue that the program is poorly managed and financially unsustainable, and that expansion encourages government dependence, delivers poor health outcomes, and crowds out children and people with disabilities who need it the most.

The new federal legislation would further burden a program that is already “a poorly performing program which leaves millions of low-income and disabled Americans without real access to quality care,” said David Balat, director of the Right on Healthcare initiative at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Balat pointed to several measures that were passed by the Texas Legislature this year, and championed by conservative leaders, that are “strong steps” toward helping the uninsured, would serve more people than would be covered by Medicaid expansion, and don’t threaten funding for other services like education and public safety, he said.

Some of those measures included programs that reduce the cost of some prescription drugs, ease continuity of Medicaid coverage for children, require transparency in medical billing, expand availability of telehealth and broadband services, expand Medicaid coverage for new mothers, and increase insurance plan options through small businesses, agricultural nonprofits and associations, among others.

“Putting millions more people into a struggling program will only further hurt current beneficiaries, mostly low-income women and children, the elderly and the disabled, and do nothing to address the existing issues of access to care,” he said. “The bottom line is that this is just an effort by some counties and cities to gain access to federal dollars without actually doing anything to help patients.”

A request for comment from Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who has resisted calls to expand Medicaid, was not immediately answered on Monday morning.

The death of the state legislation left on the table billions of dollars in federal incentives that supporters said would not only have paid for the expansion but added money to state coffers and lowered costs for hospitals that care for large numbers of uninsured patients.

“The lack of access to health care during COVID killed people. It killed people. It decimated their finances, it drove people deeper into poverty. And we’re not talking about poverty that only impacts immediately family at that given time. I’m talking about generational poverty, and on the border, it is most chronic,” said U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-El Paso. “We’ve got to stop hoping they [state leaders] will open their hearts and get off the culture war train, and we’ve got to take care of our people.”

Under Doggett’s proposed COVER Now Act, that money would be directly available to local governments through pilot programs approved by CMS without the state’s involvement.

“Health care coverage is as vital to a community as education, roads, or reliable power,” said Tom Banning, CEO of Texas Academy of Family Physicians, which supports the proposed legislation. “Sadly Texas has stubbornly refused federal assistance to expand Medicaid, leaving millions of our fellow Texans to get their health care by waiting in a long line at a free clinic, ignoring a treatable problem, or using the ER when that treatable problem worsens. That isn’t just morally wrong, its economically dumb.”

With more than 5 million of its residents without coverage, Texas has the largest number of uninsured residents in the nation, many of them working adults who can’t afford private or subsidized insurance but don’t qualify for Medicaid because they earn too much.

Roughly 20% of the state’s population lacks health insurance — a number health officials say has grown since more than a million Texans lost jobs and, in many cases, health coverage because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some 4.2 million people are on Medicaid in Texas — including more than 3 million children. The rest of the recipients are people with disabilities, pregnant women and parents living below 14% of the federal poverty level, or about $300 per month for a family of four.

Adults with no disabilities or dependent children don’t qualify for Medicaid, and the vast majority of children on Medicaid have parents who do not qualify.

The ACA allows states to expand that threshold to 138% of the poverty level, or $3,000 per month for a family of four.

In a University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll conducted in April, 55% of Texas voters said they support Medicaid expansion, while 26% opposed it and another 20% said they didn’t know or had no opinion. Two recent polls by other groups show that 70% of Texans support Medicaid expansion.

Support local journalism.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Clipped from: https://www.itemonline.com/news/local_news/texas-democrats-propose-bill-to-let-local-governments-expand-medicaid-without-state-consent/article_5bf9fa85-45d7-55b7-ba14-e192ea075f55.html

 
 

 
 

Posted on

Democrats are working on a ‘Plan A’ for finally getting full Medicaid expansion

MM Curator summary

A new plan from Dems would bypass the state nature of Medicaid entirely.

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

with Alexandra Ellerbeck

Republicans’ long effort to ditch Obamacare seems finally in the rearview mirror, now that the Supreme Court has thrice upheld it.

The road ahead will look very different for the law, as it enters what many view as a new phase of life.

“The ‘Repeal and Replace’ Era Is Over; The ‘ACA Expansion’ Era Begins,” Chris Condeluci, a health policy consultant, wrote in an email to clients this week.

First up: Medicaid expansion.

Democrats have been devising several different strategies for getting health insurance to people in the “coverage gap” — a population that would have otherwise been eligible for expanded Medicaid except for the fact that their states refused to expand the program. This includes roughly 4.3 million Americans in a dozen states.

Their first approach — incentivizing states to expand by giving them extra federal money to do so — hasn’t seemed to work, at least so far. A second approach rolled out by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.) is creative but could be logistically difficult to implement and perhaps even impossible under persistent state resistance (we wrote about Doggett’s bill here).

© Sergio Flores/Getty Images Rep. Lloyd Doggett speaks at a rally in Austin. (Sergio Flores/Getty Images)

So Democrats are working on a third approach.

The legislation — which two health policy experts described to me as Democrats’ “Plan A” for Medicaid expansion — is being crafted by staff members on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. 

The main thrust of the pending legislation is to circumvent the GOP-led states still refusing to expand Medicaid, and find a way to get the free or low-cost coverage to people in the coverage gap, who typically earn at or below the federal poverty level. The bill could take two basic routes to get there — and it’s unclear which one staffers have settled on.

  • One approach would be to allow the coverage gap population to buy fully subsidized plans on HealthCare.gov or the state-run marketplaces. As Judy Solomon writes at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this would require policymakers to make changes in benefits, cost-sharing and enrollment processes.
  • Another approach would be to set up a federalized Medicaid program. It probably would involve direct contracts between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and managed-care companies to administer Medicaid benefits to people in the coverage gap.

The first method — using the marketplace — could raise some cost concerns, considering it’s far more expensive to insure people through private plans than through Medicaid, which pays providers lower rates. There’s also a worry that both approaches could incentivize states that already expanded Medicaid to drop the coverage, if the federal government starts fully funding the expansion population through a new route.

Democrats are keeping their plans close to the vest.

An Energy and Commerce Committee spokesman declined to offer any details about the legislation, offering only a generic statement about the committee’s work.

“The committee is continuing to work on a comprehensive solution to provide coverage to Americans who are trapped in the Medicaid coverage gap through no fault of their own,” the statement said. “Our priority is crafting a policy fix that provides coverage and access to care to everyone in the states that have not expanded and not limited to certain counties.”

Whatever the bill ends up looking like, Democrats are hoping to include it in any budget reconciliation package Congress tries to pass this year. But those plans are still up in the air, as a bipartisan group of senators tries to negotiate an infrastructure deal with the White House, which would allow Democrats to wait on passing a partisan reconciliation bill until later in the year.

The Post’s Jeff Stein, who has been covering the negotiations:

Ahh, oof and ouch

AHH: The White House said the United States will miss Biden’s July 4 vaccination goal.

Clipped from: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-health-202-democrats-are-working-on-a-plan-a-for-finally-getting-full-medicaid-expansion/ar-AALlLvr?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Posted on

Missouri lawmakers expect special session next week to renew important Medicaid tax

MM Curator summary

 
 

Republicans are fighting to prevent Medicaid paying for abortion drugs via withholding support for continuing a financing scheme that sends more money to large hospitals.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Missouri lawmakers could be headed back to the capital city as soon as Monday to renew an important tax that funds the state’s Medicaid program after members could not reach a compromise before they adjourned from the legislature’s regular session.

Governor Mike Parson said he’s still planning to make budget cuts if there’s not a solution by July 1 to pass a new Federal Reimbursement Allowance (FRA) program.

“We’re going to have to move forward because I can’t delay it any longer,” Parson told reporters Tuesday. “July 1 there will be withholds, there is no other option for us.”

The FRA is a tax collected from medical providers like hospitals to support Medicaid. House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Cody Smith (R-Carthage) said the tax brings in $1.6 billion a year.

“For about every FRA dollar we get, we get about two federal dollars for that and then we take all that money and we put it towards our Medicaid program,” Smith said.

The holdup for the General Assembly is if abortion providers and affiliates and certain contraceptives like Plan B should be covered for women who are already on Medicaid. What’s on the line is billions of dollars for the state’s program.

“The Republican party in the state of Missouri has shown no abandonment for women’s reproductive rights,” Senate Minority Floor Leader John Rizzo (D-Independence) said. “They’re trying to conflate abortion and birth control and the two things are not the same.”

Since lawmakers didn’t get it done before they adjourned, they have to come back for a special session since the FRA expires Sept. 30.

“I’m optimistic that we will be able to come to some compromise on a plan that enables us to go in legislate this fairly quickly and get it to the governor’s desk by the end of the month,” Smith said.

Lawmakers said the problem in finding a compromise is whether or not to allow Medicaid to cover contraceptives. During the last week of session, Sen. Paul Wieland (R-Imperial) attached an amendment to Senate Bill 1 that bans the use of FRA funds for contraceptives and abortions.

“You are literally putting $4 billion dollars in flux that is used to provide healthcare for Missourians over contraception, over birth control,” Rizzo said.

Republican Senators met with Parson Tuesday afternoon to try and find a compromise to renew the FRA. Part of the new language in the drafted legislation says:

Family planning as defined by federal rules and regulations; provided that such family planning services shall not include abortions or any abortifacient drug or device unless such abortions are certified in writing by a physician to the MO HealthNet agency that, in the physician’s professional judgment, the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.

It goes on to say that an “abortifacient drug or device” include Plan B and intrauterine devices (IUD).

“We have a pro-life super majority on the Republican side and many of our members care about those issues,” Smith said.

Missouri has used the FRA for more than 20 years to fund the state’s Medicaid program. Parson said if it’s not renewed, it will more than a billion-dollar hole in the budget.

“If we can stay in the guidelines, if we can have language in there that doesn’t jeopardize the FRA and doesn’t jeopardize our CMS [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services], then we would be willing to take a look at something like that,” Parson said.

Rizzo said he hopes the governor “narrows” the call for the special session so lawmakers can pass a “clean FRA.”

“I think that there is still a lot of fence mending that needs to happen that hasn’t happened yet, I also think that we are adults, and we understand that this is something that could be catastrophe to the state of Missouri if we don’t get it done,” Rizzo said.

He believes lawmakers will be back at the Capitol starting Monday to start working on a plan to renew the FRA. Rizzo said the legislation will start in the Senate and then move over to the House.

Parson’s office has not confirmed when legislators will be back in Jefferson City.

Clipped from: https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/missouri-lawmakers-expect-special-session-next-week-to-renew-important-medicaid-tax/

 
 

Posted on

Medicaid expansion cost-share deal would stay put in Warnock, Ossoff bill

MM Curator summary

 
 

A Georgia Senator has introduced a bill to expand Medicaid at 100% federal costs for states who did not take the money under ACA.

 
 

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

Newly seated U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia unveiled legislation Friday, Feb. 5, to give states that skipped out on early Medicaid expansion equal federal cost-sharing coverage if they join later.

The bill, called the “States Achieve Medicaid Expansion (SAME)” Act, aims to quell concerns over possible future changes to the federal-state payment arrangement for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which has been a stumbling block for many states opposed to full coverage expansion.

Its leader sponsors are Warnock and U.S. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia. Georgia’s U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff, who teamed with Warnock in the 2020 elections to flip both of the state’s Senate seats, is also joined on the bill.

Currently, the federal government pays 100% of the costs for the first three years for states that provide Medicaid to residents with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level, the definition of full coverage. Georgia is set to partially expand coverage this year but remains among about a dozen states that have declined full expansion.

Warnock, a Democrat who is Georgia’s first Black senator and remains senior pastor of Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, campaigned on a platform to expand Medicaid, institute a national $15-an-hour minimum wage and bolster voting rights. He called his bill a push to blanket all Americans with health-insurance coverage.

“Health care is a human right, and for too long, too many Georgians have been denied access to affordable health care through Medicaid,” he said. “I’ve long believed that expanding Medicaid in Georgia is an important step toward making affordable health care for all a reality.”

Medicaid enrollment has spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic that began last March. In Georgia, Medicaid rolls increased by 338,000 between March and December 2020, raising the total number of children, adult and family recipients to roughly 2,104,000, according to state Department of Community Health (DCH) data.

Opponents have warned covering thousands more people could bust Georgia’s budget for Medicaid, even with the extra federal spending. Currently, the federal government pays about two-thirds of the more-than $10 billion Georgia spends on Medicaid each year.

Critics also worry policy changes now could saddle Georgia with costly terms for jumping on the full-expansion train late in the ballgame, years after other states joined the Obama-era health-care program.

“I don’t know if the federal government will ever return to a period of budget austerity,” Chris Denson, policy and research director for the nonprofit Georgia Public Policy Foundation (GPPF), said last week (week of Jan. 24). “But there’s always a chance that the feds will drop that matching rate.”

Medicaid coverage is now available for Georgia adults with incomes about 35% below the federal poverty line, as well as children in households making up to 138% above the poverty line and low-income senior, blind and disabled adults.

Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, gained federal approval last October from the Trump administration for a partial Medicaid expansion, covering adults earning up to 100% of the poverty level. That would cover about 50,000 Georgians, according to state estimates.

Kemp’s plan also requires Georgia Medicaid recipients to work, attend school or volunteer at least 80 hours each month – a controversial provision critics argue strips deserving low-income Georgians and families of a safety net.

Warnock’s bill leveling Medicaid cost-sharing percentages stands a good chance to win approval in Congress, thanks to his and Democratic co-campaigner Ossoff’s wins in last month’s runoff elections.

Warnock and Ossoff defeated Georgia’s two incumbent Republican senators, shifting control of both chambers in Congress to Democrats at the same time President Joe Biden – a Democrat – took office.

Ossoff, who is Georgia’s first Jewish senator and currently the chamber’s youngest member, called his colleague’s bill both a moral document and good incentive for states like Georgia that have not expanded Medicaid.

“This bill would ensure Georgia gets the same funding as other states that expanded Medicaid years ago – and create even more incentive for our state government to do what should have been done a decade ago and expand Medicaid for Georgia families,” Ossoff said.

Both of Georgia’s new senators have been busy since taking office on Jan. 20. They have called for showering Georgians with more dollars for COVID-19 pandemic relief, as well as bolstering voting rights even as Republican state lawmakers move to put new restrictions on absentee voting.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.northwestgeorgianews.com/catoosa_walker_news/medicaid-expansion-cost-share-deal-would-stay-put-in-warnock-ossoff-bill/article_a24b316e-67e1-11eb-8fb5-b7a65dab9e59.html

 
 

 
 

 
 

Posted on

A year in, Idaho is paying more for new Medicaid enrollees with expensive conditions… | Eye on Boise | idahopress.com

MM Curator summary

Idaho Medicaid expansion will cost the state 50% more than projected this year and 100% more than next year, compared to the cost estimates used to decide on expanding.

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

Clipped from: https://www.idahopress.com/eyeonboise/a-year-in-idaho-is-paying-more-for-new-medicaid-enrollees-with-expensive-conditions/article_c52fafa6-0618-54df-8366-308de850dff6.html

The struggle of delayed care leading to costlier and worse conditions rings true for many of roughly 94,000 Idahoans, many of them working poor, who are now covered by Medicaid expansion, write Post Register reporters Nathan Brown and Kyle Pfannenstiel. The cost of Medicaid expansion, which is paid 90% by the federal government and 10% by the state, is coming in higher than expected.

This will create a headache for lawmakers who must decide next year how to pay for a program that will cost the state tens of millions more than they originally thought, and has provided some vindication to conservatives such as Rep. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls, who warned before expansion that it would cost more than projected, pointing to the experience of other states.

Ehardt said lawmakers need to control costs moving forward and earmark a revenue stream for Medicaid expansion so they don’t have to scramble for funding every year.

“I definitely feel that it needs to be a dedicated source,” she said.

Higher per-patient spending appears to be driving costs. There were 94,000 people enrolled in expanded Medicaid in November, just a few percent higher than the 91,000 the actuarial firm Milliman Inc. projected in 2018. But many of those people were uninsured for a long time and are now finally accessing care for conditions that have worsened due to lack of affordable preventive care.

“I think there has always been a kind of acknowledgment that the Medicaid expansion population might have pent-up demand,” said Alex Adams, head of the state’s Division of Financial Management.

A state-commissioned 2018 report on the costs and savings of Medicaid expansion projected it would cost the state $41.9 million this year and $44.6 million next year. The new estimates are $67 million this year and the agency’s budget request for next year is $84 million, Adams said, numbers that would also increase the federal share by hundreds of millions from the report’s projections of $370.1 million and $394.9 million, respectively. Gov. Brad Little will unveil his Fiscal Year 2022 budget proposal next month when the legislative session starts on Jan. 11.

“It would be premature to say what the governor’s recommendation might be, but we’re certainly looking at all options,” Adams said.

One thing that could help is that due to the coronavirus pandemic, the federal government is paying 76% of the cost of traditional Medicaid rather than 70% as it had been before. Adams said this savings to the state could be used to cover some of the additional costs of expansion, although he said this isn’t a long-term solution.

Another is that Idaho, unlike many states, is collecting more revenue than expected and has a good deal of savings despite the coronavirus pandemic.

You can read Brown and Pfannenstiel’s full story here at postregister.com (it originally ran in the Post Register on Dec. 10), or pick up today’s Sunday/Monday edition of the Idaho Press; it’s on the front page.