Posted on

Medicaid expansion to get another crack in Wyoming after two defeats in 2021

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: About 25,000 people would be added to the rolls if the measure is passed this time.

 
 

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.

 
 

 
 

(Shutterstock)

CASPER, Wyo. — Another attempt at Medicaid expansion in Wyoming has been proposed for the legislature’s consideration during its upcoming budget session. The Wyoming Legislature’s Joint Revenue Committee is sponsoring House Bill 20, known as the Medical Treatment Opportunity Act.

Medicaid expansion was previously proposed for the legislature’s consideration during its fall 2021 special session. That special session was primarily focused on responding to COVID-19 vaccine-related mandates and the Wyoming Senate voted 8-21 against introducing the Medicaid expansion bill during that session. Medicaid expansion was also proposed for consideration during the 2021 general session and passed in the House of Representatives on a vote of 32-28 but stalled out on a 2-3 vote in the Senate Labor, Health and Social Services Committee

Sen. Cale Case (Fremont County), who is Chair of the Senate Revenue Committee, argued in favor of Medicaid expansion during the October 2021 special session, saying that expanding Medicaid could benefit about 25,000 people in the state.

“They are people that serve you breakfast, clean your hotel rooms,” Case said. “They have children and this would be a great thing for them.”

A poll conducted by New Bridge Strategy in 2021 found that 66% of Wyoming’s registered voters support expanding Medicaid. That included 98% of Democrats in the state, 64% of Independents and 58% of Republicans.

The Medical Treatment Opportunity Act would direct the Wyoming Department of Health, the state’s insurance commissioner and the governor to negotiate with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to amend the state’s Medicaid plan and expand eligibility.

Under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, 90% of the cost of expansion would be paid for by the federal government and Wyoming would pay 10%. The Wyoming Department of Health estimates expanding coverage would cover an estimated 24,000 (between 13,000 and 38,000) residents and net the state $34 million in General Fund savings over the next biennium.

The group Healthy Wyoming held vigils across the state in September 2021 to raise awareness about projected savings for the state under expansion and to share stories of people who have suffered and died without health care.

The Casper contingent met at the Nicolaysen Art Museum on September 17 to hear from health care providers, legislators, and people directly affected by the issue. 

“This issue is a matter of life or death,” said Healthy Wyoming advocate Andrew Schneider in his remarks. He said people who can’t afford to go to the doctor allow chronic conditions, including mental illness, to “linger and worsen.” They also skip cancer screenings and other preventative measures and can’t budget for both prescriptions and food.

Linda Jones spoke about her friend and neighbor Earl, who died three years ago. She said Earl worked a steady job at Walmart until he slipped on the ice and injured his knee, and lost his job while recovering.

Without insurance, he was unable to achieve a full recovery, became afflicted with gout, and sold a cherished Camero to pay bills. His health declined rapidly and he was eventually found dead in his home.

“It was a difficult thing to watch another person be in so much pain and not know how to help,” Jones said. “At the time, we didn’t think there was anything that could be done about Earl not being able to see a doctor. … Now I know that if our state had expanded Medicaid, Earl could have gotten the health care he needed.”

“He wanted to get better; he wanted to work to provide for himself.”

Critics have cited concerns that expansion has led to significant cost overruns and decreased profit margins for hospitals in other states. They also worry that the federal government could change its match rates, leaving Wyoming “on the hook” for a greater percentage of costs.

 
 

Clipped from: https://oilcity.news/community/legislature-community/2022/01/24/medicaid-expansion-to-get-another-crack-in-wyoming-after-two-defeats-in-2021/

Posted on

MO- Funding still pending for Medicaid expansion

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: After being forced to change the eligibility requirements to expand Medicaid, the state legislature has not reached agreement on actually funding the expansion program.

 
 

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.

 
 

 
 

Sen. Dan Hegeman, R-Cosby, is seen in a file photo. Hegeman said Medicaid will be funded for this year, but there are some concerns about the continued impact of funding the expanded coverage. 

File photo | News-Press NOW

2022 funding for Medicaid expansion still needs to be finalized in the state of Missouri.

State Sen. Dan Hegeman, R-Cosby, who serves as the Senate’s budget chairman, said Gov. Mike Parson came up with a supplemental budget that needs to be finalized before March which includes federal dollars for education, expansion of Medicaid and state employee pay raises.

Hegeman said money in the budget is there to fund Medicaid, but there are concerns regarding funding the expanded coverage in years to come.

“Right now we have the money to be able to do the expansion, it’s the long term that people are concerned whether we will continue to have the money to do that, especially if the federal government ever changes the Medicaid program where we have to come up with a larger portion for the state of Missouri,” Hegeman said.

Medicaid expansion was approved by the citizens of Missouri in the November 2020 election. Since then, legislators have been engaged in a lengthy battle in regards to funding.

Hegeman said the general revenue budget is strong and that is why the state is looking at the employee pay raise to establish a base salary of $15 an hour and have a 5.5% increase in pay.

Another bill in circulation is House Joint Resolution 117 sponsored by State Rep. Cody Smith, R-Carthage. The bill, which had a hearing on Jan. 19, would require individuals below 138% of the poverty line to be referred to as the “Medicaid expansion population” by appropriation. If an appropriation specifically naming this population is not made for the fiscal year, the population would not be eligible for HealthNet services for that fiscal year. The bill currently is not on the House’s calendar.

The bill also would compel this population to comply with work and community engagement requirements where they would have to work or be involved in community engagement for 80 hours a week.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/government/funding-still-pending-for-medicaid-expansion/article_5144f6e2-7d66-11ec-b5c4-f332668a05d9.html

Posted on

Missouri GOP again pushes for Medicaid work rules despite setbacks elsewhere

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: Lawmakers are working to get key changes to their expansion program, including ways to track costs of Medicaid expansion more precisely and work 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.

 
 

 
 

Rep. Hannah Kelly, R-Mountain Grove, left, Rep. Cody Smith, R-Carthage, Center, and House Republican Aid Ryan Nonnemaker talk during a debate over a Medicaid tax bill in the House chambers at the Missouri State Capitol Building in Jefferson City on Wednesday, June 30, 2021. The special session was called to pass the Medicaid tax bill, which has passed the Senate. Photo by Colter Peterson, cpeterson@post-dispatch.com

Colter Peterson

By Grace Zokovitch St. Louis Post-Dispatch

At a budget committee hearing, Missouri House members asked questions to the bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Cody Smith. Democrats’ questions focused on the work requirement language, and wording that would allow the legislature to fund only portions of people in the Medicaid program.

JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri lawmakers are kicking around work requirements for Medicaid enrollment for the fifth year running.

This year’s push packages the work rules within a proposed constitutional amendment giving the Legislature legal authority to defund voter-approved Medicaid expansion, for which an estimated 275,000 residents are now eligible. That number includes nearly 127,000 low-income adults whose families include at least one full- or part-time worker.

The legislation, sponsored by House Budget Chairman Cody Smith, R-Carthage, would institute a requirement for Medicaid recipients to work or do qualified community engagement for 80 hours a month. If passed by lawmakers, the amendment would go on the November ballot for voters to decide.

These requirements could take the form of traditional employment or fall under the “community engagement” as outlined in the resolution — education, substance abuse treatment, community service, volunteer child care, and job search or readiness training.

“Having those requirements alongside a benefit package like Medicaid is helpful — it helps people enter the workforce, or provide community service, or further their education,” Smith said. “Those are all positive outcomes.”

The proposed work requirements would apply to applicants between ages 19 and 65 and allow for some exemptions.

Exemptions include people with disabilities or serious illnesses, certain caregivers, those with limited access to public transportation or education, and those suffering from traumatic or exceptional circumstances. The proposal allows the Department of Social Services to use discretion in determining a candidate’s eligibility for an exemption.

The House Budget Committee conducted a public hearing on the resolution Wednesday, which is further than past proposals have progressed in recent years.

While Missouri’s debate may be gathering momentum, similar work requirement programs around the country have been collectively hitting a wall.

Other states

In 2018, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services leadership under President Donald Trump’s administration sent a letter to states greenlighting potential work requirement programs, a reversal of former CMS policy. States could institute work requirements by passing the policy and applying for a federal CMS waiver.

The letter led to a wave of attempts to pass work requirements, but court rulings and then the COVID-19 pandemic stalled the states’ programs or applications. At the time President Joe Biden took office last year, none of the 17 states that had attempted work requirements had succeeded.

Biden’s administration halted further attempts at implementation, and CMS has indicated it will not approve new applications.

“I have noted that CMS has not looked favorably upon the requirements in recent past,” said Smith, adding that he felt charged to put forth “good public policy” for the state regardless.

“It would be unfortunate if CMS denied our ability to govern as we see fit in Missouri,” Smith said. “I’m hopeful that they would take the will of the people and a constitutional change as a signal that this is how we want our Medicaid program to work and that they would try to help accommodate that rather than oppose it.”

Effect on enrollment

Testimony at Wednesday’s budget committee hearing was split on the likely end result of the policy — an increase in employment or a decrease in health care.

Proponents argued the requirements built in a “path to independence.” Others countered that barriers to health care were more likely to drive people further from economic stability.

Most testimony opposed the legislation, with many fearing that new bureaucratic and administrative barriers would result in significant disenrollment, even with the exemptions.

Emily Kalmer, representing the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, cited the experience of Arkansas, the only state to fully implement a work policy. The program lasted nearly a year, she said, before a federal judge halted it in 2019. Kalmer said the requirements resulted in the about 18,000 people disenrolling from Medicaid in the first six months.

“In Arkansas, many individuals who met an exemption category were unaware that they were exempt, while others were unable to successfully navigate work requirement reporting and lost their Medicaid coverage,” said Kalmer.

Letters that CMS sent last year to inform states of the work rule reversal cited similar concerns.

A letter to South Carolina, for example, referenced a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found 77% to 83% of disenrollments would likely be caused by simple nonreporting, based on a nationwide model.

The CMS letter said that work requirements had “only modest and temporary effects on employment, failing to increase long-term employment or reduce poverty.”

Similarly, a 2020 Harvard study reviewing the effect of Arkansas’ Medicaid work requirements on employment found the policy had failed to boost employment.

Opponents noted the requirements leave large gaps in types of employment. People with temporary or seasonal work, gig jobs or those with unpredictable or irregular hours, and other nontraditional work have reportedly been unable to consistently meet requirements, as noted in the CMS letters.

Policy costs

Debate has also centered on the cost of the policy. Though lower Medicaid enrollment decreases the cost, running the work requirement program takes significant funding, critics say.

The administrative costs in five states with approved work requirement proposals, according to a 2019 Government Accountability Office report, ranged from $6 million to $270 million. These costs would be shared between states and the federal government. At the high end, Kentucky’s estimate included significant technology updates.

But Smith said he believes those costs in Missouri “would be minimal.”

“We do already, obviously do eligibility checks, and enrollment, verification, those types of things,” he said. “I’m hopeful that we could fold additional reporting requirements into the process already.”

The legislation is House Joint Resolution 117.

 
 

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-gop-again-pushes-for-medicaid-work-rules-despite-setbacks-elsewhere/article_6852134b-3fbe-51fd-a4c1-7270f5c715bc.html

 
 

Grace Zokovitch

gzokovitch@post-dispatch.com

Posted on

Missouri Medicaid expansion: long waits for applicants

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: Long delays in application processing may be behind the lower-than-expected uptake of expansion in the Show Me State.

 
 

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.

By Jeanne Kuang

Updated January 25, 2022 11:03 AM

In this October file photo from Mountain View, Mo., Carolyn Hayes, 55, answers questions from Good Samaritan Care Clinic volunteer Vicky Medley, a retired Department of Social Services employee, to fill out an application for Missouri’s expanded Medicaid program. Outreach work to get low-income adults enrolled has fallen to grassroots organizations and clinics serving the poor. Jeanne Kuang/The Kansas City Star

JEFFERSON CITY

As soon as the Missouri Supreme Court ruled last July that Medicaid expansion must go forward, Amanda Leach applied.

The 29-year-old southwest Missouri woman and her husband had both been uninsured for years, making too little to afford private insurance, but too much to qualify for Medicaid under the old rules. The new eligibility guidelines, approved by Missouri voters in August 2020 after years of opposition from lawmakers, allowed adults in a family of five to qualify if they earned up to $42,800 a year.

Leach, who has three children, was eager to get coverage for the corticosteroids used to treat her asthma. She could only afford refills during the months she qualified for Medicaid while pregnant. When she showed up at an urgent care center with COVID last July, struggling to breathe, she refused to be hospitalized for lack of insurance.

She ended up waiting nearly four months for Medicaid.

“I couldn’t even tell you how many hours I spent on the phone” checking the status of her application, she said. The state lost her proof of income twice during that time.

Missouri didn’t start officially processing applications for expanded Medicaid until October, partially explaining the delay.

But four months into the program’s official start, long waits like the one Leach faced are increasingly common.

Last month it took the Department of Social Services an average of 70 days to process a Medicaid application, a nearly ninefold increase from a year ago and well past the 45-day maximum set by federal law.

The department says it faces staff shortages as applications pile up. The division that processes applications saw a 20% turnover last year and a more than 70% decline in job candidates, DSS spokeswoman Heather Dolce said in an email. DSS is paying overtime and shifting workers’ assignments to keep up with “a large volume of applications and calls at this time,” Dolce said.

This month, officials told the House Budget Committee, nearly 70,000 Missourians who applied for expanded Medicaid were waiting to find out if they had been approved – more than have been enrolled.

The delays are the latest hurdle in what advocates have criticized as a slow and rocky launch of the expansion.

“Is it going at the appropriate pace? The answer is emphatically no,” said Sheldon Weisgrau, vice president of health policy for the Missouri Foundation for Health. “It is going much slower than anybody anticipated.”

Voters approved the expansion in a constitutional amendment in August 2020. But after lawmakers refused to fund it, Gov. Mike Parson nixed the planned July 1 launch last year. A judge ordered the state to expand the program anyway, but Parson’s administration delayed the start date to October to prepare for the influx of applicants. Full funding for the expansion, including the cost of 55 new employees to determine applicants’ eligibility, still hasn’t been approved by the legislature.

Since October, Missouri has enrolled more than 58,000 newly eligible adults in the program.

That’s well short of signups in Oklahoma, which also expanded Medicaid last year after voter approval. There, the state opened up applications before the planned start date and had 113,000 enrolled in the first month.

It’s also short of Missouri’s own projections. As it prepared to implement the program last year, Parson’s administration estimated that in the fourth month of expansion, Missouri would be covering more than 192,000.

‘Real outreach’

Lack of awareness is one factor hampering full enrollment of the roughly 275,000 low-income Missourians the state expected to gain coverage under the expansion, according to health advocates.

The delay and subsequent court case likely confused people who may be eligible, they say, making local, grassroots outreach efforts particularly crucial.

DSS said the department has updated its website, social media platforms and email newsletters with information about the expansion. But advocates say the agency has failed to reach much of the low-income population that could qualify.

“There hasn’t been any real outreach to speak for from the state,” said Timothy McBride, a health economist at Washington University in St. Louis and former chair of the state’s Medicaid oversight committee.

Instead, much of that work is dependent on low-income clinics or other organizations that serve the poor.

Rates of enrollment appear to vary across the state, according to DSS data from the first three months of expansion that Washington University researchers have analyzed.

In some counties, as many as six or seven percent of the low-income adult population that could qualify have been enrolled. The two counties with the state’s highest rates of uninsured adults are lagging behind. McDonald County has only enrolled 3.3% of its low-income adult population, while Scotland County has enrolled 2.7% — just 34 people.

“My hunch is the variation’s reflective of how well people on the ground are doing in enrolling people,” McBride said.

At Scotland County Hospital
in northeast Missouri,
a staff member was trained to help patients sign up, in preparation for the expansion. But hospital officials said worker shortages have forced them to send patients to the nearest DSS office.


 

“We don’t have the horses to pull the cart when it comes to just medical care,” said CEO Randy Tobler, an advocate of expansion for the benefits it could bring to his patients and to struggling rural hospitals. “We’ve not been able to do outreach … Frankly, we’ve just put that on the back burner.”

‘Huge barrier’

Advocates say there are ways the state could more easily enroll large numbers of people who are now eligible for health care: by finding Missourians who already receive other social services.

Leach, for example, is no stranger to DSS, which checks her and husband’s income regularly because their three children have always qualified for Medicaid.

States like Louisiana have used income data from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, to enroll eligible residents without requiring their application.

In Missouri, that hasn’t happened. DSS “can only determine adult expansion eligibility if an application for healthcare coverage is received or an individual is found to be ineligible for another Medicaid category,” Dolce said.

The state is automatically moving some health care recipients from other programs to the expanded Medicaid. It has a financial incentive to do so. The state pays only 10% of the costs for recipients in the expanded program, compared with about 35% for other Medicaid beneficiaries.

Of those currently enrolled, Family Support Division director Kim Evans told lawmakers this month, about 27,000 are women who had been receiving family planning coverage under a separate state program.

The recent delays in application processing have created a dilemma for advocates who are trying to get more people enrolled, Weisgrau said.

“Ideally, you want to be out there waving the flag for this and beating the drum and letting people know what’s available,” Weisgrau said. “But when all you’re doing is putting people into a queue that takes more than two months for them to find out if they’re eligible, it creates a real problem and a lot of those people get frustrated.”

Applicants who haven’t heard back might give up on an application, or apply more than once, adding to the backlogs, Weisgrau said.

In October, a slip and fall landed Leach in the hospital with a broken calf bone and crushed ankle. By the time the bill arrived about a month later, she was finally approved for coverage. But the cost of her ER visit and surgery still caused a brief panic. Without Medicaid, she would have owed the equivalent of 18 months of mortgage payments.

She works in homeless outreach at a Springfield church, The Connecting Grounds, where she and a colleague have helped more than 100 people apply.

Even with use of the church’s computers, the application process and wait times can be challenging for people living in poverty who don’t have reliable Internet, phone service or even a permanent address, she said.

If they get locked out of the state’s online application they have to mail or fax their proof of income. If there is a question about their application they can’t always be reached.

“When I was trying to get through, the shortest wait time I had (on the phone) was three and a half hours,” Leach said.

“You don’t have the time to do that if you’re buying (cell phone plans) by the minute. And they can’t get hold of you about stuff when you never know if your phone is going to be on or if you’re going to have cell service. So that has been a very huge barrier for a lot of our folks.”

This story was originally published January 25, 2022 10:34 AM.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article257658623.html

Posted on

Oklahoma’s Medicaid costs surging

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: Medicaid expansion costs have begun to put serious financial strain on the state appropriations process.

 
 

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.

 
 

Ray Carter | January 25, 2022

Ray Carter

Due to passage of State Question 802, Oklahoma’s Medicaid program was expanded starting last July to include many able-bodied adults. The expansion, which was authorized by the federal Affordable Care Act (better known as “Obamacare”), was touted as a way to expand health services with little real cost to state governments because a high rate of federal matching funds was provided.

But during an Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA) budget presentation to state lawmakers this week, OHCA officials listed “sustainable funding for expansion population” as one of the major challenges facing the agency.

“We still have to work on a sustainable funding mechanism for expansion,” Kevin Corbett, CEO of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, told members of the House Appropriations and Budget Committee.

Last year, lawmakers had to provide an additional $164 million in state appropriations just for the Medicaid expansion population. That money came mostly from an increase in the Supplemental Hospital Offset Payment Program (SHOPP) fee assessed on some hospitals’ revenue.

However, hospital officials have since announced they no longer want to pay the SHOPP fee, even though hospital officials previously endorsed both the creation of SHOPP and the expansion of Medicaid. Hospital officials instead urged lawmakers to divert other tax collections away from other uses.

In the first six months, officials have added roughly 200,000 individuals to Medicaid as a result of expansion, although Corbett said only 160,000 represent true new enrollees since the remainder previously had coverage through other government programs.

The added costs created by expansion come amidst a dramatic surge in the overall cost of Oklahoma’s Medicaid program.

“You can see we’ve had a growth with regards to this program,” Corbett said. “If you look at just where we were in 2017 and where we are for fiscal ’22, it rises from a $5.5 billion budget, or organization, to an $8 billion budget, almost 46-, 47-percent increase, largely due to enrollment increases as well as cost or utilization of services.”

Most of the increased cost has been borne by the federal government because of increased federal-matching rates in recent years, he said, but that is changing this year as the matching-rate for the traditional Medicaid program is being cut by the federal government.

“That is not fixed financing with regards to our federal partners,” Corbett said. “It changes every year.”

To offset the reduction in federal matching funds will require an additional $24.4 million in state appropriations in the next state-budget year, according to OHCA officials.

In addition, officials anticipate the cost of serving those enrolled in the traditional Medicaid program will increase 2.6 percent in the next year while the cost of serving those enrolled in Medicaid through the Obamacare expansion will surge 6 percent next year. As a result, OHCA officials are requesting another $52.3 million for maintenance of the existing program, along with the $24.4 million to offset declining federal payments.

Those increased state expenses may be only a glimpse of more to come.

OHCA’s budget presentation showed that the per-person cost of Medicaid enrollees has been on a steady upward swing, increasing from $4,831 per person per year in the 2020 budget year to $5,385 per person in the coming state budget year, an increase of more than 11 percent in just three years.

And, while Medicaid expansion was touted by supporters as a way to save rural hospitals, OHCA budget materials show the vast majority of expansion funds are likely going to urban facilities. OHCA figures show 61 percent of expansion enrollees live in urban areas.

Clipped from: https://www.ocpathink.org/post/oklahomas-medicaid-costs-surging

Posted on

Texas cut Medicaid staffing during the pandemic. Millions are now at risk of being dropped from the program.

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: Many in the state are concerned that staffing levels needed to process benefits programs applications are not sufficient to deal with the PHE wind down.

 
 

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.

 
 

 
 

More than 1 million Texans were added to Medicaid coverage during the pandemic, many of them children, thanks to emergency federal funding that deters states from dropping recipients during the health crisis.

But those gains could soon be erased, according to patient advocates, who worry that state health officials are not prepared for the influx of new and returning Medicaid applications that could pour in as early as this spring, when the Biden administration is scheduled to lift the emergency declaration.

The state health agency has already shown signs it may not be ready, falling behind last summer in processing food assistance sign-ups, which uses the same employees as Medicaid. That backlog followed a round of staffing cuts the agency was ordered to make in 2020 as part of an early pandemic response by Republican state leaders.

“We had said this will be an issue, and it’s now coming to a full head,” said Melissa McChesney, a health policy adviser at UnidosUS, a Latino advocacy group.

 

From January to October, the state’s timeliness rate for processing food assistance applications fell from over 90 percent to 66 percent, even though the total number of people signing up remained nearly the same. That means a third of all people seeking help were unable to get it within 30 days.

 
 

“It’s not that they weren’t eligible, it’s that the case was never even determined if they were eligible,” said Rachel Cooper, a senior policy analyst at the left-leaning think tank Every Texan.

 
 

Now add to the uncertainty millions of Medicaid recipients who will need to be quickly cleared to gain or continue their medical coverage.

The agency cut the equivalent of just over 700 eligibility jobs last fiscal year, much of it through a hiring freeze; as of the fall, it was down by what would amount to about a thousand positions from the end of 2019 — a 15-percent cut for an agency that had roughly 7,000 eligibility workers in 2019.

 
 

A spokesperson said the Health and Human Services Commission is working with health plans and other contractors to prepare for the renewals and will automate the process as much as possible, cross-checking details on recipients with available wage and Social Security data. The agency is urging Medicaid recipients to update their contact information by going to YourTexasBenefits.com.

 
 

Missed deadlines, coverage gaps

 
 

Since the pandemic began, Medicaid enrollment in Texas has grown by more than 1.2 million people, to just over 5 million total recipients as of October. That includes nearly 1 million children and more than 200,000 low-income women who are pregnant or gave birth during the health emergency.

 
 

The growth has been a blessing for many families whose children have been frequently bumped from the program because of missed deadlines or other procedural errors, only to later reapply and be accepted back into Medicaid. That ricochet can leave eligible children without coverage for months at a time.

 
 

The state Legislature recently reduced the number of spot checks to twice annually, down from four times. Critics say the automated process can be rife with old data and misrepresent a family’s actual income. Once a family is flagged as no longer eligible for Medicaid, it has only less than two weeks to respond from when the state mails a request for documentation.

 
 

In 2019, 40 percent of children who were bumped from the program re-enrolled within six months, suggesting they had been wrongly dropped.

 

Texas is also one of a dozen states that has refused to expand Medicaid to adults who make too little to qualify for subsidized insurance through the Affordable Care Act. Republican leaders have publicly avoided the issue in recent years, but previously argued that Medicaid was inefficient and pointed to other problems like the high costs of certain medical care.

“Having reliable access to care is sometimes more than just having a clinic available to you,” said Andrea Caracostis, a doctor who heads a federally qualified health clinic in Houston. “It has to do with your ability to pay for it, and if they have assistive Medicaid, that’s one less thing they have to worry about.”

For new mothers who may end up losing Medicaid coverage, there are other programs they can move into that provide some access to basic services like health screenings and contraceptives, and potentially private insurance if they can afford it. But it will fall largely on local health providers to help them navigate what can be a confusing maze of applications.

 
 

The bigger concern, advocates say, is thousands of eligible children suddenly losing coverage because of an overwhelmed system. That’s what happened in Utah in mid-2020 when the state restarted renewals of its Children’s Health Insurance Program. More than 6,000 children, or 41 percent of all recipients in the program, lost their coverage and had to reapply, according to news reports.

 
 

Missouri saw a smaller but still significant drop in 2018 and 2019 when it restarted renewals with an overhauled eligibility system.

 
 

“I can only imagine it’s going to take a hit on us as well,” Caracostis said. “All the revenue we were counting on for X amount of Medicaid patients we may not have later on.”

 
 

Last week the Biden administration extended the health emergency for three more months amid the latest COVID wave. If it is the last extension, states could begin processing renewals as early as May 1.

 
 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Texas-cut-Medicaid-staffing-during-the-pandemic-16803350.php

Posted on

Insurers’ challenges to North Carolina Medicaid contracts are over with dismissals

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: The final two protests officially withdrew this week.

 
 

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 end of appeals by two insurance providers fighting how North Carolina’s health department decided who would run its new Medicaid managed-care initiative means legal challenges over the awarding of the contracts are now over.

The Court of Appeals last week agreed to accept the voluntary dismissal request by the two providers that lost out on contracts awarded in 2019 by the Department of Health and Human Services. Four conventional insurers and one physician partnership received the awards to run the program, which began last July and covers 1.6 million Medicaid consumers.

My Health by Health Providers — composed of 12 local hospital systems and a New Mexico-based insurer — contended the DHHS process was flawed and biased against provider-led organizations like My Health. Aetna Better Health Care of North Carolina also challenged the process, but a Superior Court judge limited its involvement in the case. The judge last year affirmed the decision of an administrative law judge upholding DHHS award decisions.

The two providers appealed and were scheduled to participate Wednesday in oral arguments before a three-judge panel. But the groups’ lawyers asked last week that their appeal be withdrawn.

“Although My Health still believes in the merits of its appeal and the promise of provider-led managed care, My Health and its North Carolina health system owners have decided that they do not want to disturb the management of care for over 1.6 million North Carolina Medicaid beneficiaries during this global pandemic,” the motion reads. Aetna also asked for a dismissal given My Health’s decision, the motion read.

The dismissal means there are no pending challenges involving the awarding of the managed-care contracts, a DHHS spokesperson said Tuesday.

DHHS Deputy Secretary Dave Richard, who oversees Medicaid, said this week in a news release that agency leaders are “pleased at this outcome and believe it affirms the integrity and fairness of the department’s procurement process.”

Under managed care, the state Medicaid program has moved most of its recipients from a traditional fee-for-service model to one in which organizations receive fixed monthly payments for every patient its providers see and treat.
 

Clipped from: https://www.bpr.org/post/insurers-challenges-north-carolina-medicaid-contracts-are-over-dismissals#stream/0

Posted on

Georgia suing Biden administration over Medicaid rejection

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: GA is suing CMS, saying the case is about whether the federal government keeps it promises.

 
 

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.

 
 

 
 

article

MARIETTA, GA – APRIL 10: Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp speaks at a news conference about the state’s new Election Integrity Law that passed this week at AJ’s Famous Seafood and Poboys on April 10, 2021 in Marietta, Georgia. Major League Baseball announced

Expand

Georgia sued the Biden administration Friday over its decision to revoke approval of a work requirement in the state’s plan to expand Medicaid coverage to more low-income Georgians.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Brunswick, Georgia, says the decision last month by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was an illegal and arbitrary “bait and switch of unprecedented magnitude.” It seeks a court order reinstating the original plan with the work requirement.

“Simply put, the Biden administration is obstructing our ability to implement innovative healthcare solutions for more than 50,000 hardworking Georgia families rather than rely on a one-size-fits-none broken system,” Georgia Gov Brian Kemp, a Republican, said in a news release announcing the lawsuit.

He accused the Democratic president’s administration of playing politics.

CMS said it does not comment on litigation.

The work requirement was approved by then-President Donald Trump’s administration, but CMS announced last month that it was revoking approval of both that plan and a related Georgia proposal to charge some Medicaid recipients monthly premiums for their health coverage.

This case is about whether the federal government must keep its promises,” the lawsuit says.

CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a letter to the state that the work requirement could be impossible for people to meet during the pandemic, when it was critical that low-income Georgians have access to health coverage. The Kemp administration said at the time it planned to challenge the decision in court.

Republicans had presented Georgia’s plan as a financially responsible alternative to a full expansion of Medicaid services under the Affordable Care Act, which 38 states have already done. The plan sought to add an estimated 50,000 poor and uninsured Georgia residents to the Medicaid rolls in its first two years. But to be eligible, new Medicaid recipients would have to engage in a minimum number of qualifying hours through work, job training, education, volunteering, or other similar activities.

Democrats in Georgia say full expansion would cover hundreds of thousands of people at a much lower cost to the state. That’s because the ACA, President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, gave states the option of expanding Medicaid to low-income adults who make up to 138% of the federal poverty level, with the federal government picking up 90% of the cost. More than 10 million people in the U.S. have gained coverage that way.

Kemp has said full expansion would cost the state too much money in the long run.

The Biden administration is separately reviewing Georgia’s plan to overhaul how residents buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. That plan — under which Georgia residents would bypass healthcare.gov and shop for federally subsidized health insurance through private agents — was also approved by the Trump administration.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/georgia-suing-biden-administration-over-medicaid-rejection

Posted on

CMS Updates Healthcare Worker Vaccine Mandate Guidance

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: After SCOTUS affirmed the CMS vaccination requirements, states in the lawsuit have been given more time to comply.

 
 

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.

 
 

CMS said facilities in most states challenging the healthcare worker vaccine mandate must have their workers fully vaccinated by March 15.

 
 

Source: US Supreme Court/Xtelligent Healthcare Media

 
 

By Jacqueline LaPointe

January 18, 2022 – CMS has issued interpretative guidance on its healthcare worker vaccine mandate following the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the mandate to be enforced while some states challenge it in courts.

The guidance released a day after the Supreme Court ruling states that facilities participating in Medicare and Medicaid in 24 states must ensure their employees have at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by Feb. 14, 2022. Employees must be fully vaccinated by March 15, 2022.

The new compliance deadlines specifically apply to the following states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

CMS said the guidance specifically does not apply to Texas at this time and surveyors in that state should not seek to implement or enforce the final rule requiring the vaccine mandate for healthcare workers.

Facilities in states not identified in the guidance are expected to abide by compliance deadlines set in a Dec. 28, 2021, memorandum. That document requires facilities to have their employees fully vaccinated by Feb. 25.

READ MORE:
AHA Shares New Concerns with Vaccine Mandate for Healthcare Workers

Failure to comply with the healthcare worker vaccine mandate could result in termination from the Medicare and Medicaid programs, according to the latest guidance. Nursing homes, which are required to implement a vaccine mandate policy under a separate rule, are also subject to civil monetary penalties and claim denials if they do not comply.

Termination is the sole enforcement remedy CMS can take for non-compliance among hospitals and other acute and continuing care providers. However, the agency clarified that that its “primary goal is to bring [healthcare] facilities into compliance” before terminating them from Medicare and Medicaid programs per Conditions of Participation.

The guidance stresses though that facilities failing to maintain compliance with the healthcare worker vaccine mandate within 90 days after the issuance of the guidance will be subject to enforcement action. The guidance as released on Jan. 14, 2022.

Surveyors contracted by CMS will begin surveying for compliance with the vaccine mandate by Feb. 14. They will be surveying as part of initial certification, standard recertification or reaccreditation, and complaint surveys.

CMS has provided more specific guidance by facility type on its website.

READ MORE:
Some Hospitals, Health Systems Go Back on Vaccine Mandates

In a statement following the Supreme Court’s ruling last week, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said the agency is “extremely pleased the Supreme Court recognized CMS’ authority to set a consistent COVID-19 vaccination standard for workers in facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid.”

“CMS’ vaccine rule will cover 10.4 million health care workers at 76,000 medical facilities. Giving patients assurance on the safety of their care is a critical responsibility of CMS and a key to combatting the pandemic,” Brooks La-Sure continued.

COVID-19 vaccines have reduced the risk of severe disease and protect both patients and healthcare workers from contracting the virus, the CMS leader emphasized.

However, the agency, according to Brooks-LaSure, is disappointed that the Supreme Court did not back the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Emergency Temporary Standard requiring private employers to implement vaccine mandates for their employees.

“The bottom line is that vaccine requirements work and are an important tool to protect patients – and also to keep our [healthcare] workers healthy,” Brooks-LaSure said.

Supreme Court OKs Vaccine Mandate for Healthcare Workers

READ MORE:
Over One Third of Physicians Disagree with COVID Vaccine Mandate

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the federal government can enforce a final rule mandating healthcare workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19 while cases challenging the mandate are being appealed.

In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed that the final rule mandating the vaccine for healthcare workers in facilities participating in Medicare and/or Medicaid “fits neatly within” the authority Congress has granted to HHS to impose conditions on federal funds.

“After all, ensuring that providers take steps to avoid transmitting a dangerous virus to their patients is consistent with the fundamental principle of the medical profession: first, do no harm,” an opinion released alongside the decision stated. “It would be the ‘very opposite of efficient and effective administration for a facility that is supposed to make people well to make them sick with COVID–19.'”

The final rule originally required healthcare workers to have at least their first shot by Dec. 6, 2021, and be fully vaccinated by Jan. 4, 2022, unless workers had medical or religious reasons for exemption. HHS estimated that the rule would impact approximately 10.3 million people working in hospitals and other healthcare settings.

Several states challenged the final rule and eventually won their cases, with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued preliminary injunctions against the implementation of the vaccine mandate in states involved in the cases.

HHS suspended enforcement of the vaccine mandate for healthcare workers in light of the court decisions, but later reinstated the mandate in all states not involved in the cases. Currently, the government is enforcing the mandate in about half of the states, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

The federal department also updated compliance deadlines, requiring Medicare and Medicaid facilities to have their staff vaccinated with the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by Jan. 27, 2022. Staff must be up to date on COVID-19 immunization by Feb. 28, 2022.

In a statement Thursday, the American Hospital Association (AHA) said it will work with hospitals to comply with the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

“Now that the Supreme Court ruling has lifted the ban on the CMS vaccine mandate, the AHA will work with the hospital field to find ways to comply that balances that requirement with the need to retain a sufficient workforce to meet the needs of their patients,” stated Rick Pollack, AHA president and CEO.

“[W]e urge any [healthcare] providers that are not subject to the CMS requirement to continue their efforts to achieve high levels of vaccination. We must continue to work together as a field to use vaccines as the powerful tool that they are to protect everyone in our communities,” Pollack continued.

AMA responds to Supreme Court ruling

The American Medical Association (AMA) released a statement Thursday on the Supreme Court’s ruling. The statement says:

“While the American Medical Association (AMA) is pleased by today’s opinion allowing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid’s (CMS) interim rule requiring COVID-19 vaccines for health care workers to take effect, we are deeply disappointed that the Court blocked the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) emergency temporary standard for COVID-19 vaccination and testing for large businesses from moving forward.

Workplace transmission has been a major factor in the spread of COVID-19. Now more than ever, workers in all settings across the country need commonsense, evidence-based protections against COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death — particularly those who are immunocompromised or cannot get vaccinated due to a medical condition. In fact, recent data released by United Airlines shows that before their own vaccine requirement went into effect, on average, more than one United employee was dying each week from the virus; however, today, none of their vaccinated workers are currently hospitalized with COVID-19 despite breakthrough infections and 3,000 current positive employees.”

AMA urges large employers to “to do their part to safeguard their workforces and communities so we can defeat this COVID-19 pandemic together.”

Article was originally published on Jan. 13, 2022.

Clipped from: https://revcycleintelligence.com/news/supreme-court-oks-vaccine-mandate-for-healthcare-workers
 

Posted on

FL- Florida Government Sued Over Alleged Medicaid Services Contract Breach

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: A mental health provider is suing the state for removing it from the Medicaid network.

 
 

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.

 
 

On Thursday a case was filed in the Southern District of Florida by Mental Health Network, Inc. (MHN) against Simone Marstiller, in her capacity as Secretary of the State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). The case is regarding breach of contract for the provision of Medicaid services.

The federal Medicaid program provides funding for state Medicaid agencies provided that the agencies agree to administer their programs in accordance with Title XIX of the Social Security Act. Under this act, the complaint says, “a state is only allowed to restrict a provider from participating in the Medicaid program for a reasonable period of time, and prior to imposing any such restriction, the state’s Medicaid agency must meet certain conditions: (1) give the provider notice and an opportunity for a hearing; (2) find that the provider engaged in certain bad conduct: and (3) ensure that the restrictions do not result in denying reasonable access to Medicaid services. Similarly, 42 C.F.R. § 455.422 requires a state to give terminated providers “any appeal rights available under procedures established by State law or regulations.””

MHN is a behavioral health provider which specializes in therapy provided at home, focused on the community of Tavernier. The provider was contracted with AHCA to provide mental health services under the Florida Medicaid State Plan. AHCA has sent a 30 day notice terminating MHN’s participation in the plan, which MHN argues violates the provisions of the federal Medicaid program noted above.

MHN also argues that certain provisions in the Florida State  statutes are directly contrary to the federal law on this subject, including a provision that permits termination of a provider without an appeal.

The plaintiffs are suing for violations of the Federal Medicaid Act, argues that the termination process violates Due Process, and argues that the action was arbitrary and capricious. The plaintiff is represented by Duane Morris, LLP

 
 

Clipped from: https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/health/florida-government-sued-over-alleged-medicaid-services-contract-breach/