SNAPShots

SNAPShots

Senate Finance Committee Reports on Supplemental Medicaid Payments

The majority members of the Senate Finance Committee have published a report on supplemental Medicaid payments.

According to the new document,

This report seeks to increase educational understanding of Medicaid supplemental payments, as well as outline the reporting mechanisms for these payments to ensure adequate stewardship of taxpayer dollars. 

The report consists of descriptions of the different types of supplemental Medicaid payments that states make to some providers, including:

  • Medicaid disproportionate share payments (Medicaid DSH)
  • non-DSH payments
  • upper-payment limit payments (UPL payments)
  • demonstration supplemental payments
  • medical education payments

It also describes the magnitude of these payments, noting that supplemental Medicaid payments accounted for $50 billion of the $600 billion spent on Medicaid by the federal and state governments in 2016, the most recent year for which comprehensive data is available.  In addition, it outlines how those payments are distributed while also considering how these payments affect the overall adequacy of Medicaid payments to providers; this varies from state to state.

Finally, the report reviews how the states finance their Medicaid programs, including through provider taxes, intergovernmental transfers, and certified public expenditures, and how states report their supplemental Medicaid payments to the federal government.

All Pennsylvania safety-net hospitals receive supplemental payments from the state and consider those payments essential resources supporting their ability to serve the residents of the low-income communities in which they are generally located.

To learn more, see the report “Greater Transparency of Supplemental Payments Needed,” which was prepared by the majority staff of the Senate Finance Committee.

2019-05-06T06:00:12+00:00May 6th, 2019|DSH hospitals, Medicaid supplemental payments, Pennsylvania safety-net hospitals|Comments Off on Senate Finance Committee Reports on Supplemental Medicaid Payments

Uninsured Patients, Provider Taxes Hurt Adequacy of Medicaid Payments

While Medicaid payments now typically cover more than the cost of Medicaid services in many states, they do not cover the costs of caring for low-income patients after providers care for uninsured patients and pay Medicaid provider taxes, a new study has found.
According to a Health Affairs report,

After accounting for supplemental payments, we found that in 2011, disproportionate-share hospitals, on average, received gross Medicaid payments that totaled 108 percent of their costs for treating Medicaid patients but only 89 percent of their costs for Medicaid and uninsured patients combined. However, these payments were reduced by approximately 4–11 percent after we accounted for provider taxes and local government contributions that are used to help finance Medicaid payments.

health affairsBecause they are all disproportionate share hospitals, this is especially a challenge for Pennsylvania’s urban safety-net hospitals.
To learn more, go here to see the Health Affairs analysis “For Disproportionate-Share Hospitals, Taxes And Fees Curtail Medicaid Payments.”

2016-12-20T06:00:49+00:00December 20th, 2016|Pennsylvania safety-net hospitals, Uncategorized|Comments Off on Uninsured Patients, Provider Taxes Hurt Adequacy of Medicaid Payments

OIG Reveals 2016 Plans

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has published its work plan for the 2016 fiscal year.
In 2016, the OIG will continue to examine all aspects of HHS endeavor, including Medicare, Medicaid, hospital services, public health activities, and more. In the coming year it will continue a number of hospital-focused projects while also focusing more on health care delivery, health care reform, alternative payment methodologies, and value-based purchasing initiatives.
hhsOIGAmong the OIG’s planned Medicare projects in 2016 – some of them continued from the past and some of them new, quoted directly from the work plan – are:

  • Hospitals’ use of outpatient and inpatient stays under Medicare’s two-midnight rule. We will determine how hospitals’ use of outpatient and inpatient stays changed under Medicare’s two-midnight rule, as well as how Medicare and beneficiary payments for these stays changed, by comparing claims for hospital stays in the year prior to the effective date of the two-midnight rule to stays in the year following the effective date of that rule. We will also determine the extent to which the use of outpatient and inpatient stays varied among hospitals.
  • Analysis of salaries included in hospital cost reports. We will review data from Medicare cost reports and hospitals to identify salary amounts included in operating costs reported to and reimbursed by Medicare. Employee compensation may be included in allowable provider costs only to the extent that it represents reasonable remuneration for managerial, administrative, professional, and other services related to the operation of the facility and furnished in connection with patient care.
  • Medicare oversight of provider-based status. We will determine the number of provider-based facilities that hospitals own and the extent to which CMS has methods to oversee provider-based billing. We will also determine the extent to which provider-based facilities meet requirements described in 42 CFR Sec. 413.65 and CMS Transmittal A-03-030, and whether there were any challenges associated with the provider-based attestation review process. Provider-based status allows facilities owned and operated by hospitals to bill as hospital outpatient departments. Provider-based status can result in higher Medicare payments for services furnished at provider-based facilities and may increase beneficiaries’ coinsurance liabilities. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has expressed concerns about the financial incentives presented by provider-based status and stated that Medicare should seek to pay similar amounts for similar services.
  • Comparison of provider-based and freestanding clinics. We will review and compare Medicare payments for physician office visits in provider-based clinics and freestanding clinics to determine the difference in payments made to the clinics for similar procedures and assess the potential impact on Medicare of hospitals’ claiming provider-based status for such facilities. Provider-based facilities often receive higher payments for some services than do freestanding clinics.
  • Review of hospital wage data used to calculate Medicare payments. We will review hospital controls over the reporting of wage data used to calculate wage indexes for Medicare payments. Prior OIG wage index work identified hundreds of millions of dollars in incorrectly reported wage data and resulted in policy changes by CMS with regard to how hospitals reported deferred compensation costs.
  • Inpatient rehabilitation facilities—adverse events in postacute care for Medicare beneficiaries. We will estimate the national incidence of adverse and temporary harm events for Medicare beneficiaries receiving postacute care in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). We will also identify factors contributing to these events, determine the extent to which the events were preventable, and estimate the associated costs to Medicare.
  • CMS validation of hospital-submitted quality reporting data. We will determine the extent to which CMS validated hospital inpatient quality reporting data.
  • Ambulatory surgical centers—payment system. We will review the appropriateness of Medicare’s methodology for setting ambulatory surgical center (ASC) payment rates under the revised payment system. We will also determine whether a payment disparity exists between the ASC and hospital outpatient department payment rates for similar surgical procedures provided in both settings.
  • Use of electronic health records to support care coordination through ACOs. We will review the extent to which providers participating in ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program use electronic health records (EHRs) to exchange health information to achieve their care coordination goals. We will also assess providers’ use of EHRs to identify best practices and possible challenges to the exchange and use of health data, such as degree of interoperability, financial barriers, or information blocking.
  • Accountable Care Organizations: Strategies and Promising Practices. We will review ACOs that participate in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (established by section 3022 of the Affordable Care Act). We will describe their performance on the quality measures and cost savings over the first three years of the program and describe the characteristics of those ACOs that performed well on measures and achieved savings. In addition, we will identify ACOs’ strategies for and challenges to achieving quality and cost savings.

Among the Medicaid projects the OIG will undertake, again presented in language taken directly from its work plan, are:

  • Transportation services—compliance with Federal and State requirements. We will determine the appropriateness of Medicaid payments by States to providers for transportation services.
  • Health-care-acquired conditions—prohibition on Federal reimbursements. We will determine whether selected States made Medicaid payments for hospital care associated with health-care-acquired conditions and provider-preventable conditions and quantify the amount of Medicaid payments for such conditions.
  • State use of provider taxes to generate Federal funding. We will review State health-care-related taxes imposed on various Medicaid providers to determine whether the taxes comply with applicable Federal requirements. Our work will focus on the mechanism States use to raise revenue through provider taxes and determine the amount of Federal funding generated.
  • State compliance with Federal Certified Public Expenditures regulations. We will determine whether States are complying with Federal regulations for claiming Certified Public Expenditures (CPEs), which are normally generated by local governments as part of their contribution to the coverage of Medicaid services.
  • Reviews of State Medicaid Fraud Control Units. We will continue to conduct in-depth onsite reviews of the management, operations, and performance of a sample of MFCUs. We will identify effective practices and areas for improvement in MFCU management and operations.
  • Medicaid managed care reimbursement. We will review States’ managed care plan reimbursements to determine whether MCOs are appropriately and correctly reimbursed for services provided.
  • Medicaid managed care entities’ identification of fraud and abuse. We will determine whether Medicaid MCOs identified and addressed incidents of potential fraud and abuse. We will also describe how States oversee MCOs’ efforts to identify and address fraud and abuse.
  • HRSA—duplicate discounts for 340B-purchased drugs. We will assess the risk of duplicate discounts for 340B-purchased drugs paid through Medicaid MCOs and describe States’ efforts to prevent them.

To learn more about the OIG’s plans in 2016, go here to see the document Work Plan Fiscal Year 2016.

2015-11-19T06:00:09+00:00November 19th, 2015|Affordable Care Act, Health care reform|Comments Off on OIG Reveals 2016 Plans

States Turning More to Providers to Fund Medicaid

States are relying more on provider taxes and other sources to raise their share of Medicaid funding, a new study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found.
According to the GAO, state use of such funding rose 21 percent from 2008 to 2012.  Most of the money came from health care provider taxes, provider donations, intergovernmental transfers, and Medicaid certified public expenditures.
While the study examined the issue nation-wide it focused on Medicaid financing in three states:  California, Illinois, and New York.
Use of provider taxes is of special interest to Pennsylvania safety-net hospitals because it appears the state’s proposed FY 2016 budget may call for funding more of the state’s Medicaid program with proceeds from hospital provider taxes.
To learn more about how states are financing their share of their Medicaid programs and why this is of interest to policy-makers, see the recently re-released GAO report States’ Increased Reliance on Funds from Health Care Providers and Local Governments Warrants Improved CMS Data Collection and a newly published companion to the report titled Questionnaire Data on States’ Methods for Financing Medicaid Payments from 2008 through 2012.
 

2015-03-19T06:00:57+00:00March 19th, 2015|Pennsylvania safety-net hospitals, Proposed FY 2016 Pennsylvania state budget|Comments Off on States Turning More to Providers to Fund Medicaid

GAO Questions State Medicaid Financing

States are now financing more than a quarter of their share of Medicaid expenditures with money from sources other than state general funds, according to a new study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
According to the GAO, 26 percent of state share of Medicaid funding comes from taxes on health care providers, transfers from local governments and local government providers, and other sources.  Such funding, the GAO noted, shifts additional Medicaid costs to the federal government.
Pennsylvania uses such funding mechanisms, including its gross receipts tax on Medicaid managed care organizations and state-wide and Philadelphia hospital assessments.
Exacerbating this problem, the GAO reports, is that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which oversees Medicaid, does not assure that it receives complete and accurate data on funding sources from the states, leaving CMS without a complete understanding of how states are financing their Medicaid expenditures.  In the report, the GAO recommends a stronger CMS effort to gather such data – a recommendation that CMS did not accept.
Learn more about the GAO study “States Increased Reliance on Funds From Health Care Providers and Local Governments Warrants Improved CMS Data Collection” by finding the complete report and a summary here, on the GAO web site.

2014-07-31T06:00:42+00:00July 31st, 2014|Pennsylvania Medicaid policy|Comments Off on GAO Questions State Medicaid Financing

SNAP Seeks Provider Fee Help from PA Congressional Delegation

In a message to members of Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation, the Safety-Net Association of Pennsylvania (SNAP) has asked elected officials in Washington, D.C. to protect the state’s ability to levy assessments on providers to help fund the commonwealth’s Medicaid program.  The proceeds from the state’s current provider assessments, SNAP notes, have made a major difference in ensuring the ability of Pennsylvania’s safety-net hospitals to continue serving their many Medicaid patients.
Read SNAP’s message to the Pennsylvania congressional delegation hereSafety-Net Association of Pennsylvania logo.

2012-12-26T15:00:08+00:00December 26th, 2012|Safety-Net Association of Pennsylvania|Comments Off on SNAP Seeks Provider Fee Help from PA Congressional Delegation

Medicaid at Risk in Fiscal Cliff Talks

If Medicaid is a health care program for at-risk low-income people, it appears that Medicaid itself is at risk during the current fiscal cliff talks in Washington, D.C.
While Medicaid was left untouched by last year’s sequestration bill, it is now viewed by growing numbers of policy-makers as a potential source of savings to help stave off the fiscal cliff.
Several aspects of Medicaid, in particular, appear to be vulnerable in the coming weeks.  They include Medicaid provider taxes, which are incurring growing opposition in Washington and which, if ratcheted back, could save more than $25 billion; supplemental payments for Medicaid primary care providers, scheduled to take effect on January 1, which if eliminated would save $13 billion; better management of dual eligibles, which could save $12 billion; and medical equipment spending, where a competitive bidding program similar to that currently being introduced for Medicare could save $5 billion.
While all of these cuts would hurt Pennsylvania’s safety-net hospitals, those hospitals would particularly be affected by any reduction in either the rate at which the federal government matches the state’s Medicaid expenditures or in its ability to levy provider taxes, which are a key contributor to the financial foundation of the state’s Medicaid program.
Learn more about how Medicaid figures in the current fiscal cliff talks and how policy-makers are increasingly looking to Medicaid for savings in this Politico articleFinancial paperwork.

2012-12-17T06:00:28+00:00December 17th, 2012|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Medicaid at Risk in Fiscal Cliff Talks

Reform Medicaid Provider Tax, Editorial Urges

In a recent editorial, the Washington Post called for the federal government to reform the provider taxes that most states use to help finance their Medicaid programs.
Provider taxes essentially enable states to increase the effective rate at which the federal government matches their Medicaid spending.  Past efforts to limit provider taxes have failed, but the Post calls for reform to be phased in over a number of years.
Pennsylvania currently levies two such taxes:  a state-wide hospital assessment and a Philadelphia assessment.  Both are important parts of the financing of the state’s Medical Assistance program.  Provider taxes are thought to be on the table during the current fiscal cliff negotiations between the Obama administration and congressional leaders.
Read the Washington Post editorial on Medicaid provider taxes hereHarrisburg, PA capital building.

2012-12-04T06:00:58+00:00December 4th, 2012|Pennsylvania Medicaid policy|Comments Off on Reform Medicaid Provider Tax, Editorial Urges
Go to Top