A low-income person, eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled, is hit by a car or a bullet. Gravely injured, she arrives at the hospital unconscious. Thanks to expert, intensive care that lasts for days or weeks, she gradually recovers. Eventually, her health improves to the point where she can complete the paperwork needed to apply for Medicaid.
Such a hospital can be paid today, thanks to Medicaid’s “retroactive eligibility.” Even if the combination of medical problems and bureaucratic delays prevents an application from being filed and completed for several months, Medicaid will cover the care if the patient was eligible when services were provided.
The newest version of the Senate health bill—the Better Care and Reconciliation Act, or BCRA—would end this longstanding feature of the Medicaid program for beneficiaries who are neither elderly nor people with disabilities. If services are received in one calendar month and the application is completed the following month, the hospital would be denied all payment, even if the patient was eligible and the services were both essential and costly.
It does not matter if the state is led by a governor who understands the devastating impact of this change on hospital infrastructure, especially in rural areas where many hospitals are hanging on by a thread. Today, states have the flexibility to seek waivers that limit retroactive eligibility. Under the BCRA, that flexibility would disappear, as states are forced to end retroactive coverage, whether they like it or not.
Almost certainly, this provision would come as a surprise to most senators who are being asked to support the BCRA. It is only one of many unpleasant surprises lurking largely undiscovered throughout the bill.
Following are other selected examples.
A Massive Expansion In Federal Power Over State Budgets
The BCRA grants the federal government startling new power over state Medicaid programs and state budgets. Federal dollars per person would be capped, based on state data about prior spending. But in setting the initial cap for each state, the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) could change the amount to rectify what the secretary views as problems in the “quality” of state data. In later years, many states could have their caps adjusted up or down by as much as 2 percent per year. That may sound like a small number, but when applied to billions of federal Medicaid dollars going to a state, it could make or break a state’s entire budget. Medicaid costs triggered by a public health emergency are exempt from the cap, but only if “the Secretary determines that such an exemption would be appropriate.” No statutory limits bound the Secretary’s use of this decision-making authority, which can have an extraordinary fiscal impact on states experiencing an epidemic or other public health crisis.
These provisions would give HHS remarkable new leverage over states, which current or future administrations could use to compel state policy changes in any desired direction. The aggressive use of available leverage has been an unfortunate feature of past administrations’ relationships to state Medicaid programs, but it could become substantially more pronounced with the increased federal authority granted by the Senate bill.
Adding To Uncertainties Surrounding State Expenditures
One recurring theme in Medicaid’s history involves state efforts to claim federal matching funds without spending the requisite state dollars. The Senate bill appears to increase this risk. Under Section 207 in the Senate bill, new opportunities emerge for states desperate to counteract the loss of billions of federal dollars. The bill authorizes unprecedented waivers involving federal funding for tax credits that help consumers buy private health insurance. So long as officials complete a form explaining how the waiver’s replacement of federal safeguards would provide an “alternative means” of increasing “access to comprehensive coverage, reducing average premiums, and increasing enrollment,” a state arguably could convert some or all of this federal money into so-called “pass-through” funds that can be used for purposes unrelated to health care. Unlike the Senate bill’s new public health emergency provisions, which require federal audits of state expenditures, states’ use of pass-through dollars has no statutory audit requirement. A state could convert subsidies meant for health insurance to other uses, or simply use the money to close a budget shortfall. As the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) explained about the virtually identical prior version of this section, the Senate health care bill would “substantially reduce the number of people insured” if states “reduced subsidies, received pass-through funds, and used those funds for purposes other than health insurance coverage.”
Medicaid Treatment For Mental Health And Substance Use Disorders
The bill repeals the current requirement that Medicaid programs must cover all “essential health benefits,” including treatment of mental health and substance use disorders. CBO found that, as the per capita limits in the Senate bill grow progressively tighter, federal Medicaid funding would eventually decline by more than a third, compared to current law. States facing such an enormous drop in federal support may see themselves as having no alternative but to cut services classified as optional, which the Senate bill redefines to include mental health and substance abuse treatment.
A Disordered Process
These problems could have been averted had the legislative process followed regular order, with hearings, legislative staff explaining the bill’s provisions, expert testimony, a public markup, and opportunities to address policy and drafting anomalies. Embedded in a measure with underlying policy goals that the authors of this blog post find fundamentally questionable, the picture that emerges is extraordinarily troubling—a legislative effort to divert more than a trillion dollars away from health care for people who are sicker, poorer, older, and indigent, while leaving states with such massive funding deficits and federal leverage that some states may attempt to stem their losses in ways that harm their vulnerable residents even more.
Even people sympathetic to the bill’s core aims, however, have good reason to oppose the Senate making such consequential decisions without taking the elementary legislative steps needed to detect and avoid terrible mistakes. Continuing to shun all the protections of regular order, the Senate appears poised to act on a bill that almost certainly includes additional unpleasant surprises going beyond those discussed here. With legislation that governs one-sixth of the US economy and that directly affects the health and economic security of millions of constituents, Senators are being asked to vote largely in the dark.
