Posted on

More than 405,000 Hawaii residents now on Medicaid after record-setting job losses

 
 

MM Curator summary

Hawaii’s Medicaid enrollment has surged 24% during the pandemic.

 
 

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.

 
 

HONOLULU, Hawaii (HawaiiNewsNow) – The number of Hawaii residents on Medicaid, the government’s health insurance program for low-income adults and children, has soared by 24% amid the pandemic as the state saw record-setting job losses.

Ahead of the pandemic, there were 327,199 Hawaii residents on the state’s Medicaid program, Med-Quest. Last week, there were 405,598, a dramatic increase that demonstrates the impact COVID shutdowns and job losses had on workers and their families who lost health insurance, too.

Every county saw a jump in Medicaid recipients.

Honolulu had the most new applications. But percentage wise, Maui saw the biggest increase of 50%.

 
 

Increase in Medicaid enrollment since pandemic (Source: None)

Even as the economy has reopened, the numbers continue to climb.

“None of us could have predicted this at the beginning of the pandemic, but the longer it’s gone on and the more we’ve seen families continue to struggle, it’s not unexpected,” said Judy Mohr Peterson, administrator of the State’s Med-Quest Program.

Medicaid is funded using both federal and state dollars. The federal government has increased contributions to keep up and the state is looking to add money to the program, too.

 
 

Increase in Medicaid enrollment since pandemic (Source: None)

“We’re in frequent conversations with the legislature and the Governor’s office on the budget situation and ways that we will be able to address the increased needs in the long run,” Peterson said.

To chip away at the budget challenge, a bill that would impose new fees on for-profit health insurance companies is moving through the state Legislature.

But the shortfall could continue if the numbers don’t start to go down soon.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2021/02/25/hawaii-residents-now-medicaid-after-record-setting-job-losses/

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

Posted on

New York lawmakers, advocates dismayed by Cuomo administration’s proposal to cut Medicaid reimbursements

 
 

 
 

MM Curator summary

 
 

NY lawmakers are considering a 1% cut to Medicaid funding.

 
 

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 patient wears a protective face mask as she is loaded into an ambulance March 18, 2020, at The Brooklyn Hospital Center emergency room in New York. Anticipating a spike in coronavirus patients, New York City-area hospitals are clearing out beds, setting up new spaces to triage patients and urging people with mild symptoms to consult health professionals by phone or video chat instead of flooding emergency rooms that could be overrun.

John Minchillo / AP photo

(The Center Square) — While the COVID-19 nursing home scandal that has plagued the Cuomo administration drew a lot of attention at Thursday’s legislative budget hearing, New York state lawmakers still had time to pepper administration officials on what’s being proposed for the year ahead. And a proposed 1 percent cut in the Medicaid budget certainly caught the eye of some legislators as well as other advocates.

The Healthcare Association of New York State called on the Legislature to reject the cut, noting that the public insurance program currently only reimburses providers at a rate of 67 cents for every $1 of care given.

“While it is never a good time to cut state support for healthcare, this year it would be devastating. … Further deterioration of that support – especially as we work to end and recover from the pandemic – would worsen an already fragile safety net system and put patients at risk,” Healthcare Association President Bea Grause said in written testimony.

The proposed cut in Medicaid funding comes as the state faces a multibillion dollar deficit it needs to fill. While Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been hopeful the federal government will provide the state with $15 billion in direct funding to make the state whole, he’s noted that program would face cuts without help from Congress.

Lawmakers raised their own concerns, saying the cuts would be particularly hurtful to hospitals that primarily serve lower-income patients.

“If you cut 1 percent of Mount Sinai’s Medicaid allotment and 1 percent of, say, Elmhurst’s Medicaid allotment, that might sound fair to somebody who doesn’t know anything about our hospitals, but it obviously is not,” said state Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, D-Manhattan.

Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker said the administration recognized that hospitals considered part of the state’s safety net were facing challenges even before the pandemic. Once COVID-19 hit and elective surgeries were curtailed, it only became worse.

Deputy Health Commissioner Donna Frescatore told the committee that the 2022 budget contains an additional $900 million for “financially distressed” hospitals.

Still, other lawmakers noted that the pandemic has caused more people to enroll in Medicaid. Senate Finance Committee Chairwoman Liz Krueger, D-Manhattan, pointed out that when the state implemented a cap on Medicaid spending a decade ago there was about 4 million New Yorkers on the program.

She then recalled that Frescatore said earlier in the hearing that number has since grown to 7 million.

“It doesn’t matter how many times we go back and look at the numbers and ask you for the data, you just can’t provide health insurance for 7 million people on a lowered cost from that which you started off on for 4 million people, and you shouldn’t be trying,” the chairwoman said.

Not only were lawmakers upset at the budget cut, but they were also upset that they received information detailing the cuts just the night before the hearing. State Sen. Tom O’Mara, R-Big Flats, said lawmakers had no time to review the plan.

For O’Mara, the ranking Finance Committee member who unsuccessfully tried to get Krueger to swear in Zucker at the beginning of his five-hour testimony, that maneuver is proof that the administration still is not being transparent with lawmakers even in the wake of the nursing home controversy.

“I find virtually everything you’ve said here today to be totally without credibility,” O’Mara told Zucker.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.ontownmedia.com/coronavirus_pandemic/new-york-lawmakers-advocates-dismayed-by-cuomo-administrations-proposal-to-cut-medicaid-reimbursements/article_437c0b1d-1c6a-50c2-81d3-f023c840172e.html

 
 

 
 

Posted on

Health advocates file lawsuit challenging Nebraska’s two-tier system for Medicaid expansion

MM Curator summary

The Nebraska Medicaid expansion model includes a feature that provides additional benefits for members who meet wellness efforts and work requirements, and advocates filed a lawsuit to remove those requirements.

 
 

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.

LINCOLN — Health advocates filed a lawsuit Thursday targeting Nebraska’s two-tier system of Medicaid benefits for low-income, working-age adults.

The suit takes aim at what state officials called Heritage Health Adult, under which most Medicaid expansion patients get only a basic tier of benefits.

The state’s plan had been to require that those people meet wellness, personal responsibility and community engagement goals to qualify for dental, vision and over-the-counter medication benefits, which are part of traditional Medicaid coverage.

Nebraska Appleseed attorney Sarah Maresh called the system unlawful because it created “barriers and burdens” for enrollees, in violation of the Medicaid expansion law passed by voters in 2018.

 
 

“With coverage beginning last October, community members are ecstatic to finally be able to see a doctor without worrying about receiving a high bill they cannot afford,” she said. “However, we’ve also heard of the frustration and confusion caused by the unnecessary complexities of the tiered benefits system.

“This lawsuit seeks to fully implement the will of Nebraska voters and undo the unlawful actions of the (state Department of Health and Human Services),” Maresh said.

An HHS spokeswoman said the department does not comment on pending litigation.

 
 

Clipped from: https://omaha.com/news/state-and-regional/health-advocates-file-lawsuit-challenging-nebraskas-two-tier-system-for-medicaid-expansion/article_f38a93ee-7849-11eb-853a-e763628c1888.html

 
 

 
 

Posted on

Georgia Senator Ben Watson says Biden Administration’s decision to review Medicaid waiver program leaves low-income Georgians in limbo

 
 

 
 

MM Curator summary

 
 

GA Senator says Biden’s dismissal of their approved waiver to expand Medicaid coverage for those that work is unfair, and that the argument to suspend the work requirements due to COVID does not make sense for GA, where unemployment is low.

 
 

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.

 
 

The following is an excerpt from a recent “The Commute” podcast interview with Georgia State Sen. Ben Watson. “The Commute” is presented by the National Office Systems. Full episodes are available at SavannahNow.com/podcasts or through mobile device podcast apps by searching “The Commute with @SavannahOpinion.”

Question: The Biden Administration has rescinded the approval for one of Georgia’s Medicaid waivers meant to provide health care coverage for the lowest-income Georgians. The feds are now reviewing that waiver. Is this a deal breaker? Or something where the details can be worked out?

Ben Watson: “That’s still to be determined. The state of Georgia applied for two waivers, and the one at issue now is the one that covered people from 100% of poverty level down to zero. The other waiver covered those from 100% of poverty level up to 138%. Both were approved last fall by the previous administration, and we were moving forward. What is fundamentally different about the waiver in question and those in every other state is we were proactive in requiring those on the waiver to do 80 hours of service a month. They could volunteer or work part-time or go to technical school or college, so long as they could account for 80 hours a month or 20 hours a week they would be eligible for Medicaid. That was what our thought process was. I still think it’s a good process.”

Question: That work requirement, or service hour requirement, seems to be the sticking point for the Biden Administration. What was your reaction when you heard approval had been pulled and the waiver was in review?

BW: “I was disappointed. We have 30 days to respond and we’ll continue to look at all avenues. From there, the new administration will make a determination. I just hope it is not political, because I think we have a good thing. The governor and his team and the Legislature worked together on this. I think it’s a good system and a good solution, and I think states should be allowed to determine what’s best for their own situations.”

Question: Critics will say the COVID-19 pandemic has made the work requirement untenable because either there aren’t enough jobs or there are people who are apprehensive about working or volunteering or going to school because of the virus. How legitimate is that argument?

BW: “That’s just an excuse. Georgia’s unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the nation right. We’re among the top-five economies in the nation. We’re recovering, and we’ve done better than expected. The cynic in me says, ‘Well, if I’m looking at this program and living in Washington, D.C. or New York City or someplace like that then that might be a realistic discussion.’ But that’s not the case here in Georgia. It doesn’t hold muster. As for the service hours requirement, if people cannot meet that, there are other safety nets for them, such as applying for disability.

“If you believe the government can do better with Medicaid than Georgia can do with these minimum requirements here, I will disagree with you on that one.”

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.savannahnow.com/story/opinion/2021/03/01/georgia-senator-ben-watson-says-biden-administration-decision-review-medicaid-waiver-program-leaves/4560760001/

 
 

 
 

Posted on

Bill aims to update Medicaid program

MM Curator summary

 
 

Arkansas is working to change its Medicaid expansion program to allow those who work to get managed care and those who don’t to be on fee for service.

 
 

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.

 
 

 
 

Arkansas’ version of Medicaid expansion that provides health care coverage for more than 300,000 low-income Arkansans would be called the Arkansas Health and Opportunity program or ARHOME under legislation expected to be filed this week.

The state’s Medicaid expansion program — which was initially authorized as the private option by the Legislature in 2013 — is now called Arkansas Works under Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson.

The program provides private health insurance coverage for adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, which is $17,774 for a single person and $36,570 for a family of four.

The program’s enrollment totaled 311,511 Arkansans as of Feb. 1, up from about 250,233 on March 1, 2020, before the coronavirus pandemic arrived in Arkansas, according to the state Department of Human Services’ website.

The state work requirement for the program hasn’t been enforced since a federal judge ruled in March 2019 that federal law didn’t allow then-President Donald Trump’s administration to authorize that requirement in Arkansas. That ruling has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. President Joe Biden’s administration last week asked the U.S. Supreme Court to cancel March 29 oral arguments in the case, saying that it has “preliminarily determined” that the work-related requirements would “not promote the objectives of the Medicaid program.”

The state law for the Arkansas Works program and the federal waiver for the program expire Dec. 31.

Hutchinson said Friday that “this new initiative has been developed with the General Assembly and will allow us to continue providing affordable health care in Arkansas and addressing in innovative ways the need for improved maternal health and increasing access to comprehensive care in our rural areas.”

Rep. Michelle Gray, R-Melbourne, said Friday, “I love what we have done with this” new program, which also include targeting certain populations such some veterans, and some of those formerly in foster care.

She noted that in the 2014 election, she campaigned against the state’s Medicaid expansion when it was called the private option.

After serving on the Legislature’s Health Reform Task Force in 2015 and 2016, Gray said she realized the program is needed to keep rural hospitals open.

“Now, I fully support the expansion based on what we have been given by the federal government,” she said. “You have to be pragmatic and govern.”

Gray said she will be the House sponsor of the legislation for the new program that she expects to be filed Monday by Sen. Missy Irvin, R-Mountain View.

Human Services Secretary Cindy Gillespie, Hutchinson, Gray and Irvin will hold a news conference to discuss the legislation at noon Monday at the Capitol, according to the department.

The Medicaid expansion program has deeply divided Republicans over the past several years.

Senate Republican leader Scott Flippo of Mountain Home — who was elected to the Senate in 2014 after defeating one of the legislative architects of the private option program, then-Rep. John Burris, R-Harrison, in a runoff election — said he hasn’t made any firm commitments about the new program.

“It is still an ongoing conversation regarding ARHOME,” he said Friday in an interview.

Flippo said he wants greater accountability features in the new program for things such as improved health care outcomes for its participants.

ARHOME DETAILS

Human Services Department officials have been working with legislators for several months to design a new program to replace Arkansas Works that slows the growth in state spending, moves people out of poverty through work and education, and addresses some long-standing health issues such as maternal and infant health, said department spokeswoman Amy Webb.

The federal government pays for 90% of the Arkansas Works program and the state pays for the other 10%. The federal government and state’s shares of the cost of programs would continue under the new program, Webb said.

While the new program is designed to slow the growth in state spending for the population enrolled in the program, it also would maintain the economic and fiscal benefits of the Arkansas Works program, Webb said.

“It will do that by requiring the private health plans to meet annual financial targets, by capping payments to health plans at the annual budget neutrality limit in our approved waiver and by holding health plans responsible for full collection of enrollees’ cost-sharing obligations,” she said.

Under the proposed program, people who work and do other activities, such as continue their educations, will have access to the private insurance plans, which provide more timely access than the traditional Medicaid program, Webb said.

“This path allows people to achieve long-term economic independence,” she said in a written statement. “People who do not choose this path will get coverage through the traditional-fee-for-service Medicaid program.” This means it’s not a work requirement, but an incentive, according to Webb.

Webb said no one would lose their health care coverage for failing to meet certain benchmarks under new program.

“What may happen is enrollees who are in qualified health plans may choose not to work, get their education or pursue other activities that help them move toward economic independence. In those cases, they will get traditional Medicaid coverage instead,” she said.

The specifics of how program participants are engaged will be developed over time with the input of the qualified health plans and public and private resources that have experience in working with individuals living below the federal poverty level on taking advantage of employment and education opportunities, Webb said.

The majority of the people enrolled in the Medicaid expansion program are working at least part time, she said.

With the state’s minimum wage now $11 an hour, a single person working full time for the year, or 2,080 hours, would earn $22,880 or 179% of the federal poverty level, Webb noted.

More than 50,000 of the 288,858 people enrolled in the program in October had incomes above 100% of the federal poverty rate, she noted. That’s $12,880 a year. Another 64,000 had incomes between 51% and 100% of the federal poverty level, she said.

“Clearly this group is already ‘engaged’ in moving towards economic independence,” Webb said. More than 108,000 enrollees in October also had a dependent child.

The largest single age cohort of the October enrollees with income below 25% of the federal poverty level were 19-24 years old, and some of these were still working on their educations and others were beginning their employment experience, she said.

Some people in the program will be working to increase their earnings and will be enrolled for less than six months, Webb said. They will have no need of engagement.

“We are developing different engagement opportunities for people in different situations based on age, income level, employment experience, how long they have been enrolled, those at most risk of long-term dependency and family situations,” she said.

Webb said about 84% of the Arkansas Works’ population is enrolled in qualified health plans.

These plans pay hospitals and other medical providers commercial rates, higher than what providers receive for populations enrolled in the traditional fee-for-service Medicaid program, according to a 19-page presentation on the proposed program from the department.

The new ARHOME waiver program would continue to enroll low-income people in the qualified health plans and would bring an estimated $9.76 billion from the federal government into the state’s economy for the next five years, the department estimates.

If Arkansas paid fee-for-service rates instead, the federal government would send an estimated $6.75 billion to the state — a reduction of $3.01 billion over the five-year period — according to the department. That would mean significantly lower payments to hospitals, doctors and other health care professionals, the department said.

If Arkansas paid fee-for-service rates through the ARHOME waiver program, the state would spend $180 million less, the department estimates. But the $3 billion in lost federal revenue would leave the state with $310 million less in state and local tax revenue generated, more than offsetting the reduction in state Medicaid spending, according to the department.

Though enrollment in the Arkansas Works program has increased by more than 60,000, to 311,511, as of Feb. 1 during the pandemic, Webb said that “at some point after the Public Health emergency enrollment will settle back to more historical levels.”

“We will take administrative actions if necessary to keep the [qualified health plans] insurance pool large enough with a population mix to ensure a healthy and stable market,” she said.

APPROPRIATION BILL

The Human Services Department’s Division of Medical Services appropriation, which provides spending authority for the Medicaid expansion program, requires a three-fourths vote, or 75 votes in the 100-member House of Representatives and 27 votes in the 35-member Senate.

That’s often been a difficult threshold to meet over the years. The Medicaid expansion was initially approved by the Legislature in 2013.

In last year’s fiscal session, the Legislature approved an appropriation that granted spending authority for the Medicaid program, which the department projected would spend $9 billion in fiscal 2021 that ends June 30 — $7.1 billion in federal funds and $1.9 billion in state funds.

At that time, the department projected the Arkansas Works program would grow to about 350,000 by August and then decrease by about 2,500 a month from September through June 2021. The department projected the Arkansas Works program would cost $2.27 billion in federal funds and $252.2 million in state funds in fiscal 2021.

The department last week didn’t have cost projections for state and federal funds for the Medicaid program and for the Arkansas Works program for fiscal 2022.

Hutchinson said Friday that a three-fourths vote in the Legislature “is always a challenge, but with early legislative support, I am optimistic that this will pass with sufficient support.”

Sen. Jonathan Dismang, R-Searcy, who was one of the legislative architects of the private option program, said Friday, “We have had that debate before and I’m not sure how it will play out this session.”

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/feb/28/bill-aims-to-update-medicaid-program/

 
 

 
 

Posted on

Audit: N.C. Medicaid failed to confirm provider qualifications

MM Curator summary

A new NC audit showed the Medicaid agency has extensive problems with using banned providers.

 
 

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.

 
 

North Carolina’s Medicaid agency fell short on ensuring doctors and other medical providers met licensing and ownership qualifications to serve patients in the program, state auditors declared Thursday.

The report from State Auditor Beth Wood’s office examined samples from among the 90,000 Medicaid providers in the state in 2019.

The performance audit found that the Division of Health Benefits, which is responsible for screening and enrolling providers, often failed to identify and remove those whose professional licenses has been suspended or terminated. The screening work is performed by a third-party contractor, the report said.

Licenses can be removed for actions like malpractice, Medicaid fraud or sexual misconduct. These failures placed some Medicaid patients at increased risk for substandard care and resulted in 21 unlicensed providers receiving more than $1.6 million in Medicaid payments. In one case, auditors said, a physician assistant whose license was suspended based in part on allegations regarding inappropriate exams of female patients continued to treat hundreds of patients even after the suspension.

Auditors also found the division and its contractor failed to verify the professional credentials of enrolled providers seeking to continue to provide services.

The credentials of only a handful of 191 approved providers within a sample had been verified, the report said. Six of the unverified credentials actually lacked the required professional credentials, auditors said, resulting in $11.2 million in Medicaid spending to the ineligible providers. Auditors attributed the failure to weaknesses in an automated credentialing process.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Mandy Cohen, responding to the audit in a letter attached by Wood’s office, agreed with the auditors’ findings. Recommendations include removing from the Medicaid program all providers lacking proper credentials to offer services.

Cohen wrote that Medicaid program leadership at DHHS, which oversees the Division of Health Benefits, would make the issues in the report “a top priority.” Many recommended changes have already been implemented, including more routine, manual reviews of medical license board announcements, she added. And an improved credentialing program should come online in 2023, she said.

While the potential overpayments listed in the report subject to recoupment is more than $13 million, state auditors pointed out the amount only covered those providers within the statistical samples reviewed.

“It does not include all overpayments that may exist in the entire population of payments made to Medicaid providers,” the audit said.

North Carolina’s Medicaid program offers services to more than 2 million state residents, largely poor children, older adults and the disabled. The program spent $16.7 billion in federal and state funds for the year ending June 30, 2020.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.modernhealthcare.com/medicaid/audit-nc-medicaid-failed-confirm-provider-qualifications

 
 

 
 

 
 

Posted on

2 million Washingtonians rely on a Medicaid system that’s driving away doctors and dropping new mothers

 
 

MM Curator summary

 
 

WA state senators are targeting multiple fixes to the state Medicaid program, with a focus on maternity care, Alzheimers patients, nursing homes and increasing the physician participation rate.

 
 

 
 

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.

 
 

The economic devastation accompanying the coronavirus pandemic drove Washingtonians onto Medicaid in record numbers, even as the state held back money meant to protect the lives of mothers and elderly people reliant on the publicly funded insurance.

Now, though, state legislators are looking to bolster key aspects of the state Medicaid system that has seen enrollment jump 11% during the pandemic and now insures 2 million Washingtonians. That’s more than one in five Washington residents, including nearly half the state’s children.

And then there’s COVID-19.

“COVID has really shown a light on the disparities in our health outcomes,” Sen. Emily Randall, a Bremerton Democrat serving as majority whip, told InvestigateWest. “Folks are not getting the same access to care.”

Lawmakers are proposing funding increases to:

  • Close a hole in coverage that limits thousands of new mothers to only three months of postpartum care, a shortcoming that can prove fatal, according to a recent report on maternal deaths. One in 9,000 births in Washington ends with the death of the mother.
  • Provide better care for older people suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and similar illnesses by raising pay rates to, it’s hoped, open up more space in assisted living apartments for people dementia insured through Medicaid.
  • Slow the loss of nursing homes after dozens of homes that served people on Medicaid closed because of low state reimbursement rates.
  • Entice doctors and nurses to keep seeing Medicaid patients, so the state’s poorest residents can receive basic medical care without waiting for months or driving for hours.

The pandemic’s disparate impact on people of color and those living near the poverty line exposed longstanding inequities in America’s public health systems, said Sen. Emily Randall, a Bremerton Democrat who has introduced several pieces of legislation that would expand or enhance Washington’s Medicaid system.

Legislators’ current moves to shore up the public health system come after Gov. Jay Inslee, as he faced an imploding state budget in the pandemic’s early days, vetoed millions of dollars in spending passed by the Legislature last spring. By June, Medicaid-paid dental insurance, hospice care and abortion services were all on the chopping block, as was medical care for noncitizen children.

A mild rebound in the state economy and a resulting improvement in tax revenues appears to have secured those programs for the moment. In part because of Democratic gains in Congress that state lawmakers hope will translate to increased federal funding for public insurance programs, they are looking at targeted improvements to Medicaid with state funds.

Marketed as Apple Health in Washington state, Medicaid is a publicly funded insurance program that uses federal and state money to provide free health coverage to the elderly, people with disabilities and lower-income residents, nearly 80% of whom are employed, as well as children. The $9.7 billion program currently draws $2.7 billion a year from state coffers, with the federal government picking up the rest.

Since reconvening Jan. 11, the Legislature has held hearings on bills that would increase Medicaid payment rates to primary care doctors — an effort to reduce the number of doctors dropping out of the Medicaid system — and extend postpartum coverage from 60 days to one year. Other legislation would increase payment rates to Washington’s nursing homes, which had been struggling financially even before COVID-19 ravaged the industry.

‘A healthcare cliff’

Washington has seen 25 nursing homes close since 2017, a loss of more than 1,000 beds, according to industry statistics provided by Alyssa Odegaard of LeadingAge, an advocacy organization representing not-for-profit nursing homes and assisted living facilities. That’s a significant decline for an industry serving about 18,600 people.

About 63% of nursing home residents are insured through Medicaid, and the program’s low reimbursement rates are driving nursing home operators out of business, said Odegaard, LeadingAge’s vice president for public policy.

Medicaid reimbursement rates — about $274 a day — don’t come close to covering the costs of care in Washington. That gap between revenues and expenses has created an industry-wide annual shortfall of $117 million in the state. While residents paying out of pocket or with other insurance balance the books at some homes, many operators are on the verge of shutting down.

Washington’s reimbursement rates are lower than those in Oregon and Idaho, states with less expensive operating costs. Though emergency federal funding helped keep nursing homes open during the pandemic, that shortfall is expected to deepen unless the Legislature acts, Odegaard said.

The shortfall results in a lower quality of care. Nurse salaries are the dominant cost at nursing homes, and low pay makes recruitment and retention challenging — especially at a time when a pandemic is attacking those who need care and those who care for them.

“You’re not able to attract enough staff and you’re not attracting the best staff, because you’re competing with hospitals and clinics that are paying more and offering better benefits,” said Robin Dale, president and CEO of the Washington Health Care Association, which represents for-profit nursing homes and assisted living facilities in the state.

“The state, to some degree, gets the nursing home system that it pays for,” Dale continued. “If they’re not paying an adequate rate, you’re not going to have the best nursing home that you can have.”

The money shortage means fewer nurses and nursing aides. That means nursing home residents wait longer for help. Not only that, they more often wind up hospitalized, Dale said. High turnover creates space for mistakes while leaving little room for bonds to build between nursing home staff and patients.

Bills currently before the Legislature would narrow the gap by changing the way inflation adjustments are figured and increasing reimbursement rates. Together, they would inject about $11 million of state and federal money into the system annually, compared to a 2019 total Medicaid expenditure on nursing homes of $703 million.

For older Washingtonians, the shortfall means disconnection. Residents in need of nursing care sometimes have to move into homes far from their spouses, families and friends. Hundreds of residents are also displaced each year as facilities close; about 1,300 residents have had to move due to closures since 2017.

Some nursing homes are turning away Medicaid clients to make ends meet. Particularly in rural Washington, Medicaid-insured residents increasingly have to leave their communities to find a home.

“I would like people to have the option of staying in their community, where they know people,” said Rep. Joe Schmick, a Republican from Colfax in southeastern Washington who is sponsoring legislation to change how inflation-related adjustments are calculated. “I think they do better.”

That shortfall is driving operators to stop accepting residents on Medicaid or requiring them to pay in cash for years before allowing them to use the insurance, which reimburses providers for 58% of their costs.

Inslee also vetoed a $1.4 million rate increase for facilities serving residents with dementia passed during the 2020 legislative session. Advocates hope the increase, which amounts to $10 a day per resident, will survive this session.

Extending postpartum coverage

Half of all babies born in Washington enter the world covered by Medicaid. But that medical coverage is often short-lived for the mother.

Medicaid covers any pregnant person with an income under about $34,000 a year. That’s the limit for a single pregnant person, which increases with family size. Any children born into those families would be covered, but the income limits are far lower for parents — about $23,700 a year for a single parent.

New parents currently have two to three months of postpartum coverage. That essentially ensures they are insured long enough for one post-pregnancy checkup. But more than a quarter of all pregnancy-related deaths occur more than 45 days after birth, and many birth-related ailments, particularly some postpartum mood disorders, don’t manifest themselves immediately.

Mothers and birthing fathers usually have their postpartum checkup about six weeks after giving birth, Randall said, leaving them days or a few weeks to get care before their insurance lapses.

“That’s a healthcare cliff that no one deserves,” said Randall, who is the lead sponsor on a bill that would extend coverage to a year.

Rokea Jones, a doula and outreach worker with Open Arms Perinatal Services, spends most of her time working with those patients insured through Medicaid. As a doula, she helps pregnant people prepare for childbirth, assists them during delivery, and checks up on them afterward.

Depression, anxiety, psychosis and PTSD can all occur after a birth, often to the surprise of the parent and those close to them. Jones said a longer postpartum care window would give families time to respond.

“If we can help a family identify or get the support for a postpartum mood disorder, that can really change someone’s life,” Jones said.

 
 

Rokea Jones, a doula and outreach worker with Open Arms Perinatal Services, is pictured in Renton, Wash. on Sunday, Feb. 7, 2021. As a doula, she helps pregnant women prepare for childbirth, assists them during delivery, and checks up on them afterward. (Jason Redmond/Cascade Public Media Archive)

Unlike Oregon, Washington doesn’t include doula services in its Medicaid program. The Washington Legislature nearly created a program last session — a Governor’s Office funding proposal was pulled during pandemic cost cutting — and Jones said she hopes legislation will be introduced again this session.

A booster for her profession of more than a decade, Jones said doulas can guide parents through childbirth while advocating for them when they run into the kinds of cultural and language barriers identified that are key drivers of maternal death, rates of which have more than doubled since the late 1980s.

“What we’re seeing is that there are a lot of preventable deaths, and it’s boiling down to a lack of communication,” she said. “There are some human-to-human things that are breaking down in our medical system.”

‘They just can’t take any more Medicaid patients’

Primary care — routine medical checkups and check-ins for adults and children — is another failing piece of Washington’s publicly funded health system.

Under-reimbursement by the state Medicaid program has prompted many primary care providers to stop accepting patients with public insurance. The problem is particularly acute in rural areas, where residents increasingly must wait or travel for basic medical services.

“If you have to drive an hour to find a provider who can see you, that means you’re going to be less healthy,” said Sen. Randall, who introduced legislation that would raise reimbursement rates for primary care doctors and, in a separate bill, highly trained nurses. Rep. Schmick, the ranking Republican on the House Health Care & Wellness Committee, said his own doctor recently stopped taking Medicaid patients. The practice, Schmick said, had hit its financial limit.

“They just can’t take any more Medicaid patients,” Schmick said. “And I think that’s the reality, sadly, across rural areas.”

Broadly speaking, Medicaid pay rates are too low for many providers, particularly those providing primary care, family medicine and pediatric care, said MaryAnne Lindeblad, the state Medicaid director with the Health Care Authority, which administers federally funded insurance programs in Washington.

Low reimbursement rates are also driving therapists, substance use counselors and other behavioral health workers away from the public insurance system. Schmick noted that that exodus is occurring even as there are strong
indications that the pandemic has left more Washingtonians in need of substance abuse treatment and mental health help.

Lindeblad stopped short of suggesting that more money is the solution. Rates, she said, could be adjusted to better fund areas of health care that deliver long-term benefits to patients, like primary care.

“There’s a lot of money that comes into the system,” Lindeblad said. “I’m not ready to say there’s not enough money, but perhaps we can look at how we can use those dollars more effectively.”

The 2020 legislative session’s aftermath saw a 15% increase in primary care reimbursement rates fall to a cost-cutting veto by Inslee. Randall has put forward the same bill this session, which comes at a cost of $9.9 million in state dollars annually.

Despite the difficulties the past year presented, Randall strikes a hopeful note in part because of her family’s experience with Medicaid.

Randall was 7 when her sister Olivia was born with medical issues that meant she required a wheelchair, feeding pumps and a great deal of care to live her best life. Olivia did so for 20 years.

“I can’t imagine how that would’ve been possible if she didn’t have Medicaid coverage,” the senator said.

“Our values are there,” Randall reflected. “We know that we need to get better care to people who are struggling under so many burdens, and we’re making progress.”

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.invw.org/2021/02/12/2-million-washingtonians-rely-on-a-medicaid-system-thats-driving-away-doctors-and-dropping-new-mothers/

 
 

 
 

Posted on

Gov. Stitt likely to prevail in Medicaid fight, says House Speaker Charles McCall

MM Curator summary

OK managed care appears safe, with the legislature struggling to get the votes needed to overturn the change.

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.

Gov. Kevin Stitt’s Medicaid privatization plan is likely to prevail despite broad legislative opposition, Oklahoma Speaker of the House Charles McCall, R-Atoka, told the Tulsa Regional Chamber during a Friday Zoom call.

“The reality is, unless the Legislature has a supermajority in both chambers that wants to set a different policy for the state, (managed care) is very likely to stand,” McCall said during a call that included Senate President Pro Tem Greg Treat, R-Edmond; Senate Minority Leader Kay Floyd, D-Oklahoma City; and House Minority Leader Emily Virgin, D-Norman.

“Historically, (managed care) has not been the preferred approach,” McCall said. “I think the great majority of the members still feel that way but will continue to see how that plays out this legislative cycle.”

McCall suggested a connection between privatizing Medicaid and implementation of expanded Medicaid, which was mandated by passage last year of a statewide referendum, but he didn’t elaborate.

None of the other leaders was asked about Stitt’s managed care initiative, but on Friday Virgin said she wants to hear “from both sides” and is concerned solely with how to deliver the best services at the best price.

She noted that the state’s previous experience with managed care was not a good one and said, “What I hear is how this time would be different.”

Clipped from: https://tulsaworld.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/gov-stitt-likely-to-prevail-in-medicaid-fight-says-house-speaker-charles-mccall/article_6f6a540a-6d4a-11eb-8844-93cf7ef48f16.html

 
 

Posted on

Timing fluke could garner Missouri $1.7 billion in additional federal Medicaid funds

 
 

MM Curator summary

 
 

As MO took some time to figure out how to pay for expansion, it may get a lot more federal funding under the Democrats new plan to sweeten the deal for expansion hold outs.

 
 

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.

 
 

Republican state Sen. Dan Hegeman, of Missouri, discusses voter approval of a ballot measure he sponsored during an interview on Thursday, Nov. 5, 2020, in his state Capitol office in Jefferson City, Mo. 

AP Photo/David A. Lieb

(The Center Square) – The Missouri Senate Appropriations Committee will engage in a “perfection debate” Monday afternoon on a proposed bill implementing Medicaid expansion approved by state voters when they adopted Amendment 2 in August. 

According to estimates compiled by State Auditor Nicole Galloway, expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) could cost the state more than $200 million or save it as much as $1 billion annually by 2026.

But Congress could change the calculus – and potentially provide Missouri with a windfall $1.7 billion over two years in Medicaid funding attributable to timing.

While expansion was approved by 53% of voters in Missouri, it won’t be in effect at least until the start of the new fiscal year, July 1. Oklahoma voters also approved Medicaid expansion last summer that goes into effect in July. 

But Missouri and Oklahoma are still among the 14 states that U.S. House Democrats are trying to induce into expanding Medicaid under the ACA.

Billions in additional federal funding for Medicaid expansion for states that have not done so is included in a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package proponents say would provide health coverage to more than 2 million Americans “falling between the cracks in government programs in the midst of the pandemic and economic downturn.”

Under House Democrats’ plan, Missouri could receive up to $1.7 billion by expanding Medicaid. Texas would receive $6 billion, Florida $3.5 billion, North Carolina $2.4 billion, Georgia $1.9 billion, Tennessee $1.7 billion, Wisconsin $1.3 billion and Kansas $330 million by expanding Medicaid under the ACA.

Amendment 2 expands Medicaid for residents between the ages of 19 and 64 with an income level at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Supporters say the measure will provide healthcare to more than 200,000 Missourians who earn less than $18,000 annually.

 
 

 
 

 
 

Republican Gov. Mike Parson and the Legislature’s GOP leaders vigorously opposed the measure. In his State of the State address last month, however, Parson told lawmakers he expected them to execute the will of the people in implementing the expansion.

How the potential $1.7 billion boost influences Monday’s Senate Appropriations Committee’s “perfection debate” on Senate Bill 1 is uncertain.

The bill, filed by committee chair Sen. Dan Hegeman, R-Cosby, would extend the state’s federal match program — the Federal Reimbursement Allowance (FRA) — for Medicaid payments. Nearly 85 percent of all payments to Missouri hospitals through MO HealthNet are covered by the FRA.

The state’s FRA program was established as voluntary before being enacted into law as a provider tax in 1992. Hospitals contribute to the FRA and Missouri’s Medicaid program — MO HealthNet — uses the funds to earn higher returns in federal matching dollars.

SB 1 would continue maximizing federal matching dollars through Medicaid expansion to the burden on state general revenues, Hegeman told the panel when it preliminarily advanced the measure in an 11-1 vote on Jan. 26.

Among extensions is continuing to allow the Missouri Department of Health (DOH) to collect approximately $1.28 billion in Hospital Tax in Fiscal Year 2022 and in FY23. Hospital tax revenues will, in turn, draw approximately $2.391 billion in federal funds each year to the state.

Missouri Hospital Association (MHA) Executive Director Rob Monsees told the panel that adding 200,000 people to the state’s Medicaid program will generate “a substantial amount of new FRA dollars. Some of those dollars can help provide an offset to the cost of expansion.”

Sen. Bill Eigel, R-Weldon Spring, the lone dissenter, said the FRA is growing too big and needs reform. “We have thrown money at a broken program with no meaningful reform whatsoever,” he said.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.thegriffonnews.com/news/state/timing-fluke-could-garner-missouri-1-7-billion-in-additional-federal-medicaid-funds/article_72201da5-fce7-5e0b-8c5f-c9015f1ff34d.html

 
 

 
 

Posted on

Feds never replied to South Dakota’s request to join Medicaid work program, DSS secretary says

 
 

MM Curator summary

 
 

SD’s work requirement request will not have to be un-approved, because CMS never responded to it.

 
 

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.

 
 

PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — A 2018 plan by then-Governor Dennis Daugaard’s administration to have many adults in Minnehaha and Pennington counties work in return for Medicaid benefits never went forward, because the federal agency didn’t respond to South Dakota’s application.

That’s according to state Department of Social Services Secretary Laurie Gill. President Biden’s administration sent letters to states Friday halting waivers issued by the federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare under President Trump and rescinding the offer. More than half the states applied.

There is currently no mandatory work requirement tied to the Medicaid program in South Dakota, Gill said Friday in a written statement to KELOLAND News.

“Currently, the only way a state Medicaid program can implement mandatory work requirements is to obtain a waiver from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS). The Dept. of Social Services submitted a waiver request in July, 2018.  As of today, DSS has not yet received a response from CMS,” Gill said.

South Dakota’s Career Connector was to focus on Sioux Falls and Rapid City, the two largest cities in the state. The 32-page waiver application proposed cutting off benefits after three months of non-compliance. More than 200 pages of public comments were included in the August 10, 2018, packet.

The plan called for the state Department of Labor and Regulation to be responsible for “conducting the employment assessment, identifying the integrated resource team, developing the employment and training plan, identifying monthly milestones, tracking achievement of monthly milestones, and tracking/verifying hours worked” and to notify Social Services when a Medicaid recipient in the program didn’t fulfill the requirements.

“Closure of the participant’s Medicaid eligibility will not affect the eligibility of a child, spouse, or other household member that is not required to participate,” the application said.

An estimated 15% of the approximately 1,300 participants in the two counties would have become ineligible annually because of increased income or choosing to not participate, according to the plan, which calculated the 1,300 received approximately $9,672,000 from Medicaid in federal fiscal 2017.

Daugaard spoke about the plan in his State of the State speech opening the 2018 legislative session and distributed a governor’s column on it. After winning election in November 2018, Governor Kristi Noem chose Greg DeSautel to replace Lynne Valenti as secretary, then tapped Gill in mid-2019 following DeSautel’s resignation.

Clipped from: https://www.keloland.com/news/capitol-news-bureau/feds-never-replied-to-south-dakotas-request-to-join-medicaid-work-program-dss-secretary-says/