A coalition of governors and hospital groups says it has the support of nearly two-thirds of the members of Congress to block a Bush administration plan to cut $5 billion in Medicaid funding.
Governors, state Medicaid directors and public hospitals are urging Congress to pre-empt a new rule proposed to take effect in September that would limit federal reimbursements to government-run hospitals.
The proposal would save $5 billion in the federal government’s share of Medicaid bills, but it would force states to pick up the difference or to cut funding for government-run hospitals. State and hospitals officials say the cuts could jeopardize hospital services at a time when states and Congress are trying to deliver health care to more Americans.
“This proposed rule, which basically takes $5 billion out of the system, is going to be a major obstacle in terms of states moving forward with broad reform,” Raymond C. Scheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association, said at a Capitol Hill briefing Wednesday (March 21).
The NGA sent a letter to congressional leaders asking them to pass legislation to stop the administration from imposing the new limits. Opponents of the cuts released a list of 64 U.S. senators and 263 U.S. House members who want the administration to drop its proposal.
State officials and hospitals hope to either persuade the administration to back off its rule or persuade Congress to override the change. The administration asked for public comment on the rules through this week; it would have to publish final rules before they could take effect.
Larry S. Gage, president of the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, said the fight over funding for public hospitals is frustrating for his members because people in the health industry would rather be spending time advocating for an expansion of health insurance for children than fighting a regulatory change.
Rick Pollack, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, warned that the Medicaid changes would have far-reaching impacts, affecting even patients who aren’t on Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program that serves 59 million poor citizens. That’s because hospitals would have less money to spend on trauma care, neonatal care and burn treatments.
“Many of you may think that this rule is really complex, but in reality it is really very simple. It would destabilize public hospitals and other safety-net hospitals. It would impact not just the low-income uninsured, but everyone in a community who relies on these providers. … And it would leave gaping holes in state budgets,” he said.
The Bush administration first indicated it would try to make changes in the rules for payments to public hospitals in February 2006.
The rules it unveiled this year would crack down on what it calls “questionable methods of state Medicaid financing” that the administration contends allows hospitals to recoup more money than they should.
For example, the rules would prohibit hospitals from charging Medicaid more for a procedure than it actually costs. Hospitals say the long-standing practice allows them to offset shortfalls in funding for other services.
“We believe the lack of transparency and accountability undermine public confidence in the integrity of the Medicaid program as it is extremely difficult to track the flow of taxpayer dollars,” administration officials explained in the draft of those rules.
“These arrangements, regardless of the merits, are hidden in archaic, nearly indecipherable language that may be further re-interpreted over time, placing federal and state dollars at risk as well as creating tensions and conflicts among the states,” the administration added.
Budget considerations could potentially hamper efforts to block the administration’s rules. It’s unclear whether the Democratic leadership in Congress would require cuts elsewhere to offset the $5 billion in savings the administration was counting on when it drafted its budget.
Powered by
By estaben minnik on Mar 22, 2007 3:35:53 PM
Cutting the budget for Medicaid looks like an attack on the poorest of the poor. Yet, it is the firmly entrenched presence of gross racketeering EVERYWHERE in the medical cartel that ends up getting most of this money, right from the various other 'insurers' to the suppliers with their contracted $40 tampons and $15 aspirins. So many dirty fingers in the pie.
Medicaid programs are not even allowed to know or try to determine where their disbursments actually go. The hapless working poor have even less to know or say about it.
America's peasantry is growing in leaps and bounds, and it seems likely that fed expenditure should INCREASE just because of these huge numbers of helpless citizens even if the theft of these funds was stopped.
It is confusing enough with all the disinformation spewed everywhere to know what to do. In fact, it really isn't important, because it is a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering immensity of the problem, and it's only elitist fiat currency that is being thrown at problems rather than any attempt to enforce actual justice, which is the gov's true job.
The poor are not to blame as the din of oinking, reeting, and squealing rises from the bankruptcy of the system. The poor have lost already. The greed of the rest, and their vicious eating down of their organisations and each other is just proof of their depravity.
All governments are biblically obligated to provide basic support for the peasantry that their policies have created, or they will be swept from power.
Report as Offensive