Health Care Lobbying Rose in 2018
Hospitals and health systems spent $99.7 million lobbying in Washington, D.C. last year, just barely more than in 2017 but much less than in 2009, when the focus of health care lobbying was the Affordable Care Act, then just a proposal and not a law.
The issues on which they spent the most money lobbying were the 340B program, site-neutral Medicare payments for outpatient services, safety-net hospitals, Medicare-for-all proposals, and Medicaid funding.
Learn more about what hospitals spent their lobbying money on, who were the biggest lobbying spenders, and where industry groups figure in the overall spending in the Healthcare Dive article “Hospital lobbying in 2018 — by the numbers.”
The report, from the Institute for Medicaid Innovation, focuses on how state Medicaid programs, through alternative payment models and especially through managed care organizations, have implemented new programs designed to address social determinants of health such as inadequate social supports and housing, food insecurity, lack of transportation, and others. It also highlights federal regulations that facilitate the implementation of new ways to address social determinants of health and presents brief case studies in which states, state Medicaid programs, and Medicaid managed care organizations tackle social determinants of health.
Currently, Medicaid DSH allotments to the states are scheduled to be reduced $4 billion in FY 2020 and then $8 billion a year in FY 2021 through FY 2025. MACPAC recommends that the cuts be reduced to $2 billion in FY 2020, $4 billion in FY 2021, $6 billion in FY 2022, and $8 billion a year from FY 2023 through FY 2029.
According to a presentation delivered at a MACPAC meeting last week:
The following is MACPAC’s own summary of the sessions.
While many, including members of Congress, insist that the administration cannot move forward with such a proposal without legislation, others suggest that the administration may offer states the opportunity to participate in Medicaid block grants voluntarily, by seeking a federal waiver. What remains to be seen is whether the prospect of greater flexibility to shape their own Medicaid programs is sufficient to entice states to participate in an approach that almost certainly would result in less federal money for those programs.
SNAP’s letter addressed three aspects of the proposed regulation: payment rate ranges, directed Medicaid payments, and Medicaid pass-through payments. The overall theme underlying SNAP’s comments was that the proposed changes represent positive steps but could be taken further to provide additional flexibility for Pennsylvania’s Medicaid program to take stronger steps to ensure the ability of Pennsylvania safety-net hospitals to serve their communities.
While the court conceded that CMS has the authority to address 340B payments, it found that CMS’s drastic payment cuts, introduced in FY 2018, “…fundamentally altered the statutory scheme established by Congress…” for determining 340B payment rates.
According to Kaiser, for-profit companies that sub-contract with Medicaid managed care organizations to review requests for services often deny care to Medicaid patients to save money for the MCOs that employ them and to benefit themselves financially.