Medicaid
Loophole
to
be
Closed
-
Saving
Taxpayers
Money
Oct.
2000
-
HHS
Secretary
Donna
E.
Shalala
has
announced
a
proposed
rule
to
close
a
loophole
in
Medicaid
regulations
that
costs
federal
taxpayers
billions
of
dollars
without
commensurate
increases
in
coverage
or
improvements
in
the
care
provided
to
Medicaid
beneficiaries.
She
also
announced
administration
support
for
increasing
Medicaid's
disproportionate
share
hospital
(DSH)
payments
to
ensure
a
more
appropriate
and
stable
funding
source
for
hospitals
and
states.
The
proposed
regulation
would
revise
Medicaid's
"upper
payment
limit"
rules,
stopping
states
from
using
certain
accounting
techniques
to
inappropriately
obtain
extra
federal
Medicaid
matching
funds
that
are
not
necessarily
spent
on
health-care
services
for
Medicaid
beneficiaries.
The
changes
would
be
phased
in
to
allow
states
time
to
adjust
their
Medicaid
programs
to
meet
the
new
requirements.
The
proposal
also
allows
a
continued
higher
limit
on
payments
for
public
hospitals
in
recognition
of
their
critical
role
in
serving
low-income
patients.
States
will
have
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
all
aspects
of
the
proposal
before
it
is
finalized.
"We
cannot
stand
by
while
billions
of
taxpayer
dollars
are
used
without
the
accountability
that
federal
taxpayers
deserve,"
Secretary
Shalala
said.
"However
well-intentioned
some
states
may
have
been,
the
practice
today
clearly
constitutes
an
abuse
of
the
Medicaid
system.
States
and
the
federal
government
must
operate
the
Medicaid
program
in
a
fiscally
sound
manner
that
serves
both
Medicaid
patients
and
the
taxpayers
who
support
the
program."
Medicaid
is
a
state
and
federal
partnership
that
pays
for
health-care
services
to
certain
low-income
families
and
individuals,
including
children
and
elderly
nursing-home
residents.
Each
state
administers
its
Medicaid
program
within
the
general
requirements
of
federal
law
and
regulations,
and
the
state
and
federal
governments
share
the
cost
of
the
program.
Under
current
Medicaid
regulations,
states
have
broad
flexibility
in
setting
the
Medicaid
rates
that
they
pay
to
nursing
homes,
hospitals,
and
other
providers.
Specifically,
the
"upper
payment
limit"
requirements
allow
states
to
pay
facilities
in
aggregate
as
much
as
Medicare
would
pay
for
the
same
services.
States
also
can
set
varied
payment
rates
for
public
and
private
providers.
Some
states
are
using
this
flexibility
to
pay
excessive
rates
to
a
few
county
or
municipal
facilities.
After
the
state
claims
federal
matching
funds
based
on
those
payments,
it
can
require
those
facilities
to
return
some
or
all
of
the
extra
money
for
other
uses
in
the
state,
often
unrelated
to
Medicaid
and
in
some
cases
unrelated
to
health
care
at
all.
The
proposal
would
still
allow
states
to
make
higher
Medicaid
payments
to
public
hospitals,
which
often
serve
sicker
patients
who
are
less
likely
to
have
any
health
coverage
at
all.
The
HHS
Inspector
General
is
conducting
a
review
of
the
ways
several
states
have
used
the
extra
money
generated
through
this
loophole.
"We
believe
that
manipulation
by
states
of
the
upper
payment
limit
requirements
undermines
the
financial
integrity
of
the
Medicaid
program,"
said
Inspector
General
June
Gibbs
Brown.
The
use
of
this
loophole
has
grown
rapidly
in
the
past
year.
Twenty
states
now
have
approved
plans.
These
practices
have
accounted
for
nearly
$2
billion
in
increased
Medicaid
costs
in
Fiscal
Year
2000
alone.
Further
expansion
of
these
practices
could
cost
federal
taxpayers
tens
of
billions
of
dollars
over
the
next
five
years
if
left
unchecked.
The
proposed
rule,
to
be
published
in
the
Federal
Register,
would
change
Medicaid's
"upper
payment
limit"
rules
to
prevent
states
from
averaging
payments
across
public
and
private
facilities.
This
would
prevent
states
from
paying
excessive
rates
to
certain
government
facilities.
States
still
could
pay
as
much
as
150
percent
of
the
"upper
payment
limit"
amounts
to
non-state
public
hospitals
to
recognize
their
special
situation
as
safety-net
providers
and
their
delivery
of
large
volumes
of
uncompensated
care.
To
allow
adequate
time
for
states
that
have
come
to
rely
on
the
practice,
the
proposed
rule
would
phase
out
the
extra
payments
over
five
years
for
states
with
approved
plans
in
effect
as
of
Oct.
1,
1999.
Other
states
with
plans
that
lapsed
into
effect
since
then
without
the
Health
Care
Financing
Administration's
express
approval
would
have
a
shorter
two-year
transition
period.
The
proposal
would
not
reduce
federal
Medicaid
funding
for
any
state
during
its
2001
budget
year.
In
addition,
recognizing
the
financing
challenges
facing
hospitals
that
serve
large
numbers
of
low-income
and
uninsured
patients,
the
Administration
supports
increasing
Medicaid
disproportionate
share
hospital
payments
by
$10
billion
over
10
years.
This
would
be
done
through
a
combination
of
increases
in
state
DSH
allotments,
similar
to
legislation
that
has
been
passed
by
the
House
Commerce
Committee,
and
increasing
the
hospital-specific
DSH
limits.
HHS
will
work
with
Congress
on
an
acceptable
formula
for
the
state
allotment
increases,
and
the
administration
recommends
that
the
hospital-specific
limits
be
raised
to
175
percent
of
net
uncompensated
care
costs
beginning
in
2002.
Under
current
law,
Medicaid
disproportionate
share
payments
to
these
hospitals
are
capped
at
100
percent
of
their
costs
for
treating
uninsured
patients
plus
any
costs
for
treating
Medicaid
patients
that
are
not
covered
by
the
Medicaid
reimbursements
that
they
receive.
The
increases
would
help
ensure
the
viability
of
large
urban
safety-net
hospitals.
"The
proposed
regulations,
and
our
joint
efforts
with
the
Congress,
recognize
a
legitimate
use
for
Medicaid
funds
to
support
the
hospitals
that
serve
the
neediest
Americans,"
HCFA
Acting
Administrator
Michael
Hash
said.
"We
recognize
that
states
will
need
time
to
adjust
to
these
changes,
and
we
have
included
a
transition
period
to
ensure
that
facilities
which
serve
low-income
persons
can
be
protected.
By
making
these
changes,
we
will
help
to
preserve
the
public
trust
in
the
Medicaid
program,
which
provides
vital
health-care
services
to
millions
of
Americans."
The
proposed
rule
has
a
30-day
comment
period,
during
which
states,
health-care
providers,
and
others
can
raise
concerns
about
and
suggest
alternatives
to
the
proposed
changes
and
transition
policies.
A
final
regulation
would
be
published
after
analyzing
those
comments.
|