Seniors, disabled could find services impacted by per capita caps

The implementation of per capita caps on Medicaid funding would not account for the disproportionate amount of program spending on certain groups of Medicaid enrollees. The Kaiser Family Foundation’s (KFF) issue brief on state variation in spending, issued in light of the American Health Care Act’s (AHCA) (H.R. 1628) proposed spending limits, notes that although seniors and the disabled make up 23 percent of Medicaid enrollment, 64 percent of program funds are spent on these groups.

Populations

Children and nonelderly adults with disabilities account for spending three times greater than their enrollment share, and spending on seniors is slightly more than double their enrollment share. These groups have greater health needs and use more acute care and long-term care services as opposed to those who are enrolled based only on income. Children without disabilities cost an average of $2,463 in 2011, while disabled children cost $16,802. Per enrollee spending on nonelderly adults with disabilities was $3,247, while spending for nonelderly disabled adults was $16,613 and spending for seniors was $13,249.

State programs

Spending also varied widely by state: Tennessee spent $6,945 per disabled child while New Hampshire spent $53,557. Some states spend less than $15,000 on disabled adults and seniors, while others pay $25,000 or more. This disparity stems from various coverage pathways offered to seniors and the disabled either at higher income levels or for some significantly disabled children regardless of parental income, provided at a state’s discretion. Variation in spending levels also depends on how many receive community care versus institutional care, with some states targeting home- and community-based services to those who are at risk of needing institutional care in the future. Other states offer personal care or attendant care services.

The brief pointed out that changing the federal Medicaid payment structure from guaranteed payments to states to a per capita cap could bind states to their current coverage provision, locking in these differences between states. In addition, these caps would not account for spending on newly discovered drugs or treatments, and could hamper state responses to emergency situations such as natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina or issues like the opioid epidemic and the Flint water crisis. States may be forced to cut some services they have chosen to provide under their Medicaid programs due to limit federal funding, such as long-term care services, which could especially impact seniors and the disabled.

Highlight on Wisconsin: Medicaid waiver could be first of its kind

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) supports a number of novel Medicaid requirements for the state’s beneficiaries, including premium payments, drug testing, and a work requirement. Although a formal plan is not expected to be released until mid-April and sent to HHS by the end of May, if the plan is approved, Wisconsin would become the first state in the country with mandatory drug testing for Medicaid beneficiaries. Testing would be based upon Medicaid applicants’ answers to a screening. The proposal would mandate treatment for those who test positive. The screening is designed to limit the number of individuals in the program.

Price and Verma

The Wisconsin approach is part of a bigger theme of Republican-led states looking to limit Medicaid spending. Governors expect reciprocation from new HHS and CMS leaders regarding the restrictive ideals and, accordingly, are looking to get more out of Medicaid waivers than the Obama Administration allowed. The strategy is not without its rationale. In their first joint action, HHS Secretary Price and CMS Administrator Verma sent a letter to state governors discussing potential improvements to the Medicaid program. In that letter, Price and Verma wrote that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148) expansion of Medicaid “to non-disabled, working-age adults without dependent children was a clear departure from the core, historical mission of the program.” Also, prior to her position as Administrator, Verma worked on a proposed work requirement for Indiana’s Medicaid program. The Obama Administration rejected that proposal.

Drug screening

While the Obama Administration allowed states to differ in the expectation they placed upon program enrollees, governors like Walker are hoping they will see more eye-to-eye with Price and Verma than they did with Obama Administration officials on restrictive policies like work requirements. In light of the recent failure of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) in Congress, and that legislation’s attempt to cut Medicaid funding through per-capita caps, the Trump Administration is incentivized to find savings in other places. Walker believes Wisconsin’s plan is a promising approach. However, there is concern that the Trump Administration will be opposed to the drug screening because the Administration is trying to appear sympathetic to the growing drug epidemic. Opponents criticize the drug screening measuring, noting that the best way to help drug abusers is to expand Medicaid and provide them with the care they need.

Unconstitutional?

Other critics have called the drug screening measure illegal. However, the state’s Medicaid director defended the plan to test Medicaid recipients for drug use, rejecting assertions that the requirement would be unconstitutional. In addition to asking the Trump Administration whether Wisconsin can drug test childless adults on Medicaid, Governor Walker plans to request the ability to drug test able-bodied adults seeking other public benefits including food stamps and jobless payments—a request the Obama administration denied.

Will the AHCA affect Medicaid’s nonelderly adults with disabilities?

The changes to Medicaid under the American Health Care Act (AHCA), as approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, carries potential implications for the nearly seven million nonelderly adults with disabilities currently covered under Medicaid, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) issue brief. KFF’s issue brief describes how the AHCA would change Medicaid and offers insight on its potential effect upon nonelderly adults with disabilities by examining the type of insurance nonelderly adults with disabilities have, how they qualify for Medicaid, what their characteristics are, what services they receive from Medicaid, and how much Medicaid spends on the disabled.

The AHCA would change Medicaid in three major ways: (1) it would change Medicaid’s financing structure to a per capita cap, resulting in an estimated $880 billion reduction in federal Medicaid spending from 2017 to 2026, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO cost estimate of AHCA) (see CBO: Republican plan saves billions as 24M lose coverage, Health Law Daily, March 14, 2017); (2) it would repeal the enhanced federal matching funds for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA, section 2001) (P.L. 111-148) enrollees as of January 1, 2020, except for those enrolled by December 31, 2019, who do not have a break in eligibility of more than one month; and (3) it would end the enhanced federal matching funds for Community First Choice (CFC) (ACA, section 2401), which provides attendant care services for people with disabilities, as of January 1, 2020 (see ‘American Health Care Act’ earns first stamp of approval, Health Law Daily, March 9, 2017).

Here is a summary of the KFF findings:

  • Type of health insurance. Thirty-six percent of nonelderly adults with disabilities are working for pay compared to 77 percent of those without disabilities. Among those who are working, 64 percent have access to employer-sponsored health insurance, compared to 68 percent of nondisabled workers. Thirty-one percent of nonelderly adults with disabilities have Medicaid, compared to 10 percent of those without disabilities. Only 41 percent have private insurance, compared to 74 percent of those without disabilities.
  • How do they qualify for Medicaid? KFF found that some nonelderly adults with disabilities are eligible for Medicaid through the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and some through a disability-related pathway based on both their low income and functional limitations.
  • Nearly 85 percent of nonelderly adults with disabilities have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) ($24,120 per year for an individual in 2017). Fifty-seven percent are white, 23 percent black, 16 percent Hispanic, and 3 percent Asian. About one-third of those enrolled in Medicaid have three or more functional limitations, which is more than two and one-half times the rate for those disabled who are privately insured and more than double the rate of those who are uninsured.
  • What services do they receive from Medicaid? Through Medicaid, nonelderly adults with disabilities have access to regular preventive care as well as medical care for illnesses and chronic conditions. States must provide certain minimum services for adults, such as inpatient and outpatient hospital, physician, lab and x-ray, and nursing home services. States also can choose to provide a broad range of optional services, including prescription drugs, physical therapy, private duty nursing, personal care, rehabilitative services, and case management. Most home and community-based services (HCBS) are also provided at the option of the state.
  • ACA expansion options. Section 2001 of the ACA offered states the option to expand Medicaid to nearly all nonelderly adults with income up to 138 percent of the FPL. As of 2017, 32 states have adopted the expansion. Section 2401 of the ACA created the CFC option to provide attendant care services and supports with a 6 percent enhanced federal matching funds. Eight states elected this option as of 2016. Section 2402 of the ACA also allowed states (17 as of 2015) to offer HCBS through the section 1915(i) option ( Sec. Act §1915(i)), which allows states to serve people with functional limitations that do not yet rise to an institutional level of care. Section 2703 of the ACA also created the Medicaid health homes option, which enables states (22 as of 2016) to provide care coordination services for people with chronic conditions at a 90 percent enhanced federal match for the first two years.
  • How much does Medicaid spend on people with disabilities? As of 2011, people with disabilities accounted for 15 percent of total Medicaid enrollment but 42 percent of program spending. Per enrollee spending for people with disabilities totaled $16,643 in 2011, more than five times higher than for adults without disabilities ($3,247) and nearly seven times higher than for children without disabilities ($2,463). One-half of states spend between $15,000 and $19,999 per enrollee for people with disabilities, and another third of states spend between $20,000 and $34,999 per enrollee for people with disabilities.

KFF believes that the AHCA’s per capita cap and elimination of the enhanced federal financing under the ACA expansion will put the states under budgetary pressures due to a reduction in Medicaid funds. It believes that these budgetary pressures may result in the limitation of Medicaid services for recipients, including the nonelderly disabled. KFF believes that careful consideration of the AHCA implications is warranted.

AHCA’s Patient and Stability Fund would benefit large states, study finds

Large states and states with fewer insurers offering coverage in the individual and small group markets could receive the most money under the American Health Care Act’s (AHCA) Patient and State Stability Fund, according to a study by Avalere. The AHCA, which consists of two bills that came out of the House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees, is touted as an effort to repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148).

Bill

Section 132 of the Ways and Means bill would add title XXII to the Social Security Act to create the Patient and State Stability Fund. The Fund would provide funding for the states and District of Columbia from 2018 through 2026 for eligible states to do any of the following:

  • provide financial assistance to high-risk individuals who do not have employer health insurance to enroll in health insurance coverage in the state’s individual market;
  • provide incentives for entities to enter into agreements with the state to help stabilize health insurance premiums in the health insurance market;
  • reduce the cost for providing coverage in the individual and small group markets;
  • promote participation in the individual and small group markets and increase available insurance options;
  • promote access to preventive services, dental care, and certain services for individuals with mental or substance abuse disorders;
  • provide payments to providers for the provision of health care services as specified by the Administrator; and
  • provide assistance to reduce out-of-pocket costs for individuals enrolled in health insurance coverage in the state.

Funding

The bill would appropriate $100 billion over 10 years to provide allocations to states. According to Avalere, the first 85 percent of the funds would be distributed based on the share of the state’s insurance claims as a percentage of the nation, so states that have more people with insurance and higher medical costs could receive more funding that states lower overall enrollment and spending.

The remaining 15 percent would be distributed to states that have seen an increase in the number of low-income uninsured from 2013 to 2015 or have fewer than three insurers offering coverage in their exchange in 2017.

Distribution among states

According to Avalere, the allocation methodology could result in states like California, Florida, and New York receiving the most money North Carolina, Arizona, Alabama, Oklahoma, and South Carolina could receive disproportionately high amounts of money due to the lack of health insurance participation on their markets in 2017.

The funding levels “vary widely” on a per capita basis compared to the state’s individual market enrollment in 2015, Avalere concluded. They range from $1,830 in the District of Columbia to $220 in Montana.