Posted on

HHS approves Medicaid housing intervention program in Arizona

 
 

MM Curator summary

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: AZ will join a growing list of states using Medicaid dollars to address housing needs for members.

 
 

An article from

Dr. Elizabeth Maziarka uses a stethoscope during an examination of patient June Mendez at the Codman Square Health Center April 11, 2006 in Dorchester, Massachusetts. Joe Raedle/Getty Images via Getty Images

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:

  • The HHS approved a Medicaid intervention program in Arizona targeting drivers of health outcomes with a focus on housing insecurity, according to a Friday release from the department.
  • It’s the latest 1115 demonstration approval from the agency, following others in Oregon and Massachusetts targeted at expanding access to coverage and addressing nutrition and housing needs.
  • The HHS is encouraging more states to stand up such programs, Secretary Xavier Becerra and CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in the release.

Dive Insight:

Social determinants of health have been increasingly highlighted amid rising healthcare costs and growing acknowledgment that lifestyle and circumstances can dictate health outcomes.

The coronavirus pandemic brought even more attention to the issue, as the virus has disproportionately claimed the lives of people of color and those in underserved communities.

The program in Arizona will focus on making sure Medicaid beneficiaries have adequate housing with resources to help them transition from temporary to more stable living situations.

The intervention will provide support for community and transitional housing for those with unique needs or for people transitioning out of institutionalized care. It will also help provide rent or temporary housing for up to six months for those transitioning out of congregate settings or homeless shelters, according to the release.

Arizona’s Medicaid program will also offer case management and outreach.

The CMS is approving health-related social infrastructure funding to support Arizona’s efforts, and it will require a rigorous evaluation of outcomes and impacts of the program, the agency said.

“Everyone deserves the chance to receive the care they need to live safe and healthy lives,” Becerra said in the release.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/HHS-arizona-medicaid-intervention-1115-demonstration/634258/

Posted on

Food insecurity and the end of the public health emergency

 
 

MM Curator summary

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: The Medicaid wind-down will also have effects on other benefit programs like SNAP.

 
 

 
 

Expansions to social safety net programs during Covid-19 have been essential for low-income Americans hit hard by the pandemic. But the stabilizing impact of these expansions will be at risk when the federal Covid-19 Public Health Emergency, which was initially declared on January 31, 2020, comes to an end, possibly by Jan. 11, 2023.

Ending the public health emergency will end expansions to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the nation’s flagship programs that provide individuals or households with low incomes health insurance and combat hunger, respectively.

Households rarely experience food insecurity, poverty, or poor health in isolation. Instead, they are linked in a cycle in which high health care costs strain household budgets and lead to food insecurity while, at the same time, food insecurity leads to stress and poor nutrition, which results in poor health.

advertisement

Given significant gaps between wages and costs of living for families with low incomes, households generally participate in multiple federal assistance programs to make ends meet. In 2017, 89% of children receiving SNAP support also received support from Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). During Covid-19, both programs experienced dramatic increases in enrollment.

When the public health emergency ends, many individuals and families will experience the cumulative impact of losing access to both Medicaid and SNAP or losing access to Medicaid and having SNAP benefits reduced. Health care organizations must take an active role in supporting patients navigating the systems necessary for them to access health services and achieve food security.

advertisement

Double loss of Medicaid coverage and SNAP benefits

The end of the PHE and the program expansions attached to the declaration will significantly affect millions of Americans who continue to struggle to access medical care and afford food.

Much has been written about the “unwinding” of Medicaid and SNAP. In brief, when the public health emergency ends, program benefits and access will be affected in myriad ways:

Medicaid: Access will be restricted as states will discontinue continuous coverage — under which Medicaid agencies have been prohibited from disenrolling participants unless they request that, move out of state, or die — and will return to annual reviews to determine Medicaid eligibility. Enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP increased by 12 million between March 2020 and July 2021, an increase that was largely attributable to automatic renewals keeping people covered, rather to than new enrollees. An estimated 5 to 14 million people could lose Medicaid coverage, depending on how states make their Medicaid redeterminations.

SNAP: Benefit levels will be reduced following the expiration of SNAP’s Emergency Allotments, which entitled participants to the maximum allowable benefit for their household size. On average, participants will lose an estimated $82 per month. Access to SNAP will also be restricted as three-month time limits are reinstated for able-bodied adults without dependents, which has been shown to reduce enrollment among eligible adults, and exemptions for college students come to an end, which had simplified the eligibility requirements for college students and enabled an estimated 3 million additional students with low incomes to qualify for SNAP.

The loss of Medicaid will affect access to other food assistance programs, further increasing food insecurity. Medicaid coverage confers automatic income eligibility for free school meals (also known as direct certification) and for WIC, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children (also known as adjunctive eligibility). As more than three-quarters of WIC participants rely on adjunctive eligibility, ending continuous coverage could result in a loss of WIC coverage.

Linkages between food insecurity and access to health care in the pandemic

Interviews with representatives of Medicaid managed care organizations indicate that the pandemic highlighted the “magnitude of unmet social needs” facing their patient populations — needs that existed long before the onset of Covid-19. Of all the social determinants of health, food security, they note, was the most urgent concern among those covered by Medicaid at the onset of the pandemic.

Individuals who experienced food insecurity before the pandemic were more likely to forgo health care, a trend that has continued during the pandemic, when overall rates of forgone care have been an ongoing concern. One study, for example, found that adults who reported food insecurity were more likely to forgo medical care, while another study found that delaying pediatrician visits due to Covid-19 was higher in households where children did not have enough to eat.

Evidence of the co-occurrence of hardship continues into 2022 for households with low incomes. Using data from the Census Household Pulse Survey in July and August of 2022, we found that 30% of respondents covered by Medicaid reported sometimes or often not having enough to eat — formally known as food insufficiency — and that 52% reported using SNAP (see the chart below). These results are expected, as people covered by Medicaid have low incomes and are more likely to participate in SNAP. What these data emphasize is that many individuals stand to be harmed by the simultaneous rollback of benefits from both programs.

Given the interconnectedness of health and food security and the inevitable rollback of expansions to Medicaid and SNAP when the public health emergency expires, actions by health care organizations, advocates, agencies, and policymakers are vitally necessary.

 
 


Actions for health care organizations

  • Increasing the capacity for addressing health-related social needs is the place to start. For example, heath care organizations should maintain external active partnerships with community organizations to address health-related social needs. This is especially important for quickly adapting to emergencies like Covid-19. Donald Berwick, the former administrator of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, has suggested that health care organizations invest in teams dedicated to addressing health-related social needs, including food security.
  • Health care systems collect and store rich health data. Through actions such as integrating food insecurity screening questions and referrals into their electronic health record systems and health outcomes tracking, health care systems can generate implementation science studies and case studies that provide evidence of workflows that strengthen enrollment in social safety net programs.

Actions for community-based organizations and state agencies

  • Medicaid agencies can adopt several best practices, including simplifying the process for enrollees, reducing the burden on frontline staff, conducting outreach to update contact information, and facilitating transitions to other coverage.
  • SNAP state agencies should request waivers of the three-month time limit for SNAP able-bodied adults without dependents as soon as 60 days’ notice is given of the end of the public health emergency, because the U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends submitting a request for waivers 60 days before the implementation date.
  • Medicaid agencies should adopt the CMS state option to automatically renew Medicaid coverage for participants under 65 who receive SNAP. Since nearly all SNAP participants qualify for Medicaid, this will reduce administrative burdens for state and local agencies and will prevent participants from temporarily losing coverage during the redetermination process.
  • The 12 states that have not done so should expand Medicaid. Increases in Medicaid enrollment after Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act were associated with reduced food insecurity in California.
  • Community-based organizations and state agencies should have resources ready for those households who have improved their income and no longer qualify for SNAP or Medicaid but are still struggling with food insecurity.

First Opinion newsletter: If you enjoy reading opinion and perspective essays, get a roundup of each week’s First Opinions delivered to your inbox every Sunday. Sign up here.

Actions for policymakers

There is much that policymakers can do to help reduce food insecurity after the public health emergency is lifted. They can streamline access to Medicaid and SNAP; increase SNAP benefits so they cover the cost of a healthy diet; eliminate the SNAP three-month time limit for able-bodied adults without dependents at the federal level; improve access to SNAP by low-income college students who are otherwise ineligible for benefits; and support SNAP administration through automatic response during disasters and increased funding.

As the public health emergency comes to an end, the U.S. must be ready to ensure that it does not jeopardize the health and food needs of households across the country. Urgent action by health care systems, community organizations, and all levels of government will be necessary to stabilize health and food security among those at greatest risk. While vaccines and treatments lessen the life-altering threat of Covid-19, it is important not to lose sight of the imminent danger to health posed by the expiration of effective expansions of Medicaid and SNAP.

Allison Maria Lacko is a nutrition and policy researcher at the Food Research & Action Center in Washington, D.C. Allison Bovell-Ammon is the director of policy and communications for Children’s HealthWatch at Boston Medical Center, where Richard Sheward is the director of system implementation strategies.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.statnews.com/2022/10/18/ensuring-food-security-and-health-beyond-the-covid-19-public-health-emergency/

Posted on

CA – ‘Separate and unequal’: Critics say Newsom’s pricey Medicaid reforms leave most patients behind

MM Curator summary

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: Hospitals make a valid point- spending Medicaid bucks on food sounds great, as long as the actual healthcare needs are being met first.

 
 

It wasn’t exactly an emergency, but Michael Reed, a security guard who lives in Watts, had back pain and ran out of his blood pressure medication. Unsure where else to turn, he went to his local emergency room for a refill.

Around the same time, James Woodard, a homeless man, appeared for his third visit that week. He wasn’t in medical distress. Nurses said he was likely high on meth and just looking for a place to rest.

In an overflow tent outside, Edward Green, a restaurant cook, described hearing voices and needing medication for his bipolar disorder.

The three patients were among dozens who packed the emergency room at MLK Community Hospital, a bustling health care complex in South Los Angeles reincarnated from the old hospital known as “Killer King” for its horrific patient care. The new campus serves the 1.3 million residents of Willowbrook, Compton, Watts, and other neighborhoods — a heavily Black and Latino population that suffers disproportionately high rates of devastating chronic conditions like diabetes, liver disease, and high blood pressure.

Arguably, none of the three men should have gone, on this warm April afternoon, to the emergency room, a place intended to address severe and life-threatening cases — and where care is extremely expensive.

But patients and doctors say it is nearly impossible to find a timely medical appointment or receive adequate care in the impoverished community, where fast food is easy to come by and fresh fruits and vegetables are not. Liquor stores outnumber grocery stores, and homeless encampments are overflowing. A staggering 72% of patients who receive care at the hospital rely on Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program for low-income people.

“For some people, the emergency room is a last resort. But for so many people who live here, it’s literally all there is,” said Dr. Oscar Casillas, who runs the department. “Most of what I see is preventable — preventable with normal access to health care. But we don’t have that here.”

The community is short 1,400 doctors, according to Dr. Elaine Batchlor, the hospital’s CEO, who said her facility is drowning under a surge of patients who are sicker than those in surrounding communities. For instance, the death rate from diabetes is 76% higher in the community than in Los Angeles County as a whole, 77% higher for high blood pressure — an early indicator of heart disease — and 50% higher for liver disease.

But dramatic changes are afoot that could herald improvements in care — or cement the stark health disparities that persist between rich and poor communities.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is spearheading a massive experiment in Medi-Cal, pouring nearly $9 billion into a five-year initiative that targets the sickest and costliest patients and provides them with nonmedical benefits such as home-delivered meals, money for housing move-in costs, and home repairs to make living environments safer for people with asthma.

The concept — which is being tested in California on a larger scale than anywhere else in the country — is to improve patient health by funneling money into social programs and keeping patients out of costly institutions such as emergency departments, jails, nursing homes, and mental health crisis centers.

The initiative, known as CalAIM, sounds like an antidote to some of the ills that plague MLK. Yet only a sliver of its patients will receive the new and expensive benefits.

Just 108 patients — the hospital treats about 113,000 people annually — have enrolled since January. Statewide, health insurers have signed up more than 97,200 patients out of roughly 14.7 million Californians with Medi-Cal, according to state officials. And while a growing number of Medi-Cal enrollees are expected to receive the new benefits in the coming years, most will not.

Top state health officials argue that the broader Medi-Cal population will benefit from other components of CalAIM, which is a multipronged, multiyear effort to boost patients’ overall physical and mental health. But doctors, hospital leaders, and health insurance executives are skeptical that the program will fundamentally improve the quality of care for those not enrolled — including access to doctors, one of the biggest challenges for Medi-Cal patients in South Los Angeles.

“The state is now saying it will allow Medicaid dollars to be spent on things like housing and nutritious food — and those things are really important — but they’re still not willing to pay for medical care,” Batchlor said.

Batchlor has been lobbying the Newsom administration and state lawmakers to fix basic health care for the state’s poorest residents. She believes that increasing payments for doctors and hospitals that treat Medi-Cal patients could lead to improvements in both quality and access. The state and the 25 managed-care insurance plans it pays to provide health benefits to most Medi-Cal enrollees reimburse providers so little for care that it perpetuates “racism and discrimination,” she said.

Batchlor said the hospital gets about $150, on average, to treat a Medi-Cal patient in its emergency room. But it would receive about $650 if that patient had Medicare, she said, while a patient with commercial health insurance would trigger a payment of about $2,000.

The hospital brought in $344 million in revenue in 2020 and spent roughly $330 million on operations and patient care. It loses more than $30 million a year on the emergency room alone, Batchlor said.

Medicaid is generally the lowest payer in health care, and California is among the lowest-paying states in the country, experts say.

“The rates are not high enough for providers to practice. Go to Beverly Hills and those people are overdosing on health care, but here in Compton, patients are dying 10 years earlier because they can’t get health care,” Batchlor said. “That’s why I call it separate and unequal.”

Newsom in September vetoed a bill that would have boosted Medi-Cal payment rates for the hospital, saying the state can’t afford it. But Batchlor isn’t giving up. Nor are other hospitals, patient advocates, Medi-Cal health insurers, and the state’s influential doctors’ lobby, which are working to persuade Newsom and state lawmakers to pony up more money for Medi-Cal.

It’ll be a tough sell. Newsom’s top health officials defend California’s rates, saying the state has boosted pay for participating providers by offering bonus and incentive payments for improvements in health care quality and equity — even as the state adds Medi-Cal recipients to the system.

“We’ve been the most aggressive state in expanding Medi-Cal, especially with the addition of undocumented immigrants,” said Dustin Corcoran, CEO of the California Medical Association, which represents doctors and is spearheading a campaign to lobby officials. “But we have done nothing to address the patient access side to health care.”

***

The hospital previously known as Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center was forced to shut down in 2007 after a Los Angeles Times investigation revealed the county-run hospital’s “long history of harming, or even killing, those it was meant to serve.” In one well-publicized case, a homeless woman was writhing in pain and vomiting blood while janitors mopped around her. She later died.

MLK Community Hospital rose from its ashes in 2015 as a private, nonprofit safety-net hospital that runs largely on public insurance and philanthropy. Its state-of-the-art facilities include a center to treat people with diabetes and prevent their limbs from being amputated — and the hospital is trying to reach homeless patients with a new street medicine team.

Still, decades after the deadly 1965 Watts riots spurred construction of the original hospital — which was supposed to bring high-quality health care to poor neighborhoods in South Los Angeles — many disparities persist.

Less than a mile from the hospital, 60-year-old Sonny Hawthorne rattled through some trash cans on the sidewalk. He was raised in Watts and has been homeless for most of his adult life, other than stints in jail for burglary.

He hustles on his bike doing odd jobs for cash, such as cleaning yards and recycling, but said he has trouble filling out job applications because he can’t read. Most of his day is spent just surviving, searching for food and shelter.

Hawthorne is one of California’s estimated 173,800 homeless residents, most of whom are enrolled in Medi-Cal or qualify for the program. He has diabetes and high blood pressure. He had been on psychotropic medicine for depression and paranoia but hasn’t taken it in months or years. He can’t remember.

“They wanted me to come back in two weeks, but I didn’t go,” he said of an emergency room visit this year for chronic foot pain associated with diabetes. “It’s too much responsibility sometimes.”

Hawthorne’s chronic health conditions and homelessness should qualify him for the CalAIM initiative, which would give him access to a case manager to help him find a primary care doctor, address untreated medical conditions, and navigate the new social services that may be available to him under the program.

But it’s not up to him whether he receives the new benefits.

The state has yielded tremendous power to Medi-Cal’s managed-care insurance companies to decide which social services they will offer. They also decide which of their sickest and most vulnerable enrollees get them.

One benefit all plans must offer is intensive care management, in which certain patients are assigned to case managers who help them navigate their health and social service needs, get to appointments, take their medications regularly, and eat healthy foods.

Plans can also provide benefits from among 14 broad categories of social services, such as six months of free housing for some homeless patients discharged from the hospital, beds in sobering centers that allow patients to recover and get clean outside the emergency room, and assistance with daily tasks such as grocery shopping.

L.A. Care Health Plan, the largest Medi-Cal managed-care insurer in Los Angeles County, with more than 2.5 million enrollees, is contracting with the hospital, which will provide housing and case management services under the initiative. For now, the hospital is targeting patients who are homeless and repeat emergency room visitors, said Fernando Lopez Rico, who helps homeless patients get services.

So far, the hospital has referred 78 patients to case managers and enrolled 30 other patients in housing programs. Only one has been placed in permanent housing, and about 17 have received help getting temporary shelter.

“It is very difficult to place people,” Lopez Rico said. “There’s almost nothing available, and we get a lot of hesitancy and pushback from private property owners not wanting to let these individuals or families live there.”

Patrick Alvarez, 57, has diabetes and was living in a shed without running water until July, when an infection in his feet grew so bad that he had several toes amputated.

The hospital sent him to a rehabilitation and recovery center, where he is learning to walk again, receiving counseling, and looking for permanent housing.

If he finds a place he can afford, CalAIM will pay his first month’s and last month’s rent, the security deposit, and perhaps even utility hookup fees.

But the hunt for housing, even with the help of new benefits, is arduous. A one-bedroom apartment he saw in September was going for $1,600 a month and required a deposit of $1,600. “It’s horrible, I can’t afford that,” he said.

Hawthorne needs help just as badly. But he’s unlikely to get it since he doesn’t have a phone or permanent address — and wouldn’t be easy for the hospital to find. The homeless encampments where he lives are routinely cleared by law enforcement officials.

“We have so many more people who need help than are able to get it,” Lopez Rico said. “There aren’t enough resources to help everyone, so only some people get in.”

***

L.A. Care has referred about 28,400 members to CalAIM case managers, roughly 1% of its total enrollees, according to its CEO, John Baackes. It is offering housing, food, and other social services to even fewer: about 12,600 people.

CalAIM has the potential to dramatically improve the health of patients who are lucky enough to receive new benefits, Baackes said. But he isn’t convinced it will save the health care system money and believes it will leave behind millions of other patients — without greater investment in the broader Medi-Cal program.

“Access is not as good for Medi-Cal patients as it is for people with means, and that is a fundamental problem that has not changed with CalAIM,” Baackes said.

Evidence shows that basic Medi-Cal patient care is often subpar.

Year-over-year analyses published by the state Department of Health Care Services, which administers Medi-Cal, have found that, by some measures, Medi-Cal health plans are getting worse at caring for patients, not better. Among the most recent findings: The rates of breast and cervical cancer screenings for women were worse in 2020 than 2019, even when the demands that covid-19 placed on the health care system were factored into the analysis. Hospital readmissions increased, and diabetes care declined.

“The impact of covid is real — providers shut down — but we also know we need a lot of improvement in access and quality,” said State Medicaid Director Jacey Cooper. “We don’t feel we are where we should be in California.”

Cooper said her agency is cracking down on Medi-Cal insurance plans that are failing to provide adequate care and is strengthening oversight and enforcement of insurers, which are required by state law to provide timely access to care and enough network doctors to serve all their members.

The state is also requiring participating health plans to sign new contracts with stricter quality-of-care measures.

Cooper argues CalAIM will improve the quality of care for all Medi-Cal patients, describing aspects of the initiative that require health plans to hook patients up with primary care doctors, connect them with specialty care, and develop detailed plans to keep them out of expensive treatment zones like the emergency room.

She denied that CalAIM will leave millions of Medi-Cal patients behind and said the state has increased incentive and bonus payments so health care providers will focus on improving care while implementing the initiative.

“CalAIM targets people who are homeless and extremely high-need, but we’re also focusing on wellness and prevention,” she told KHN. “It really is a wholesale reform of the entire Medicaid system in California.”

A chorus of doctors, hospital leaders, health insurance executives, and health care advocates point to Medi-Cal reimbursement rates as the core of the problem. “The chronic condition in Medi-Cal is underfunding,” said Linnea Koopmans, CEO of the Local Health Plans of California.

Although the state has restored some previous Medi-Cal rate cuts, there’s no move to increase base payments for doctors and hospitals. Cooper said the state is using tobacco tax dollars and other state money to attract more providers to the system and to entice doctors who already participate to accept more Medi-Cal patients.

When Newsom vetoed the bill to provide higher reimbursements primarily for emergency room care at MLK, he said the state cannot afford the “tens of millions” of dollars it would cost.

MLK leaders vow to continue pushing, while other hospitals and the powerful California Medical Association plot a larger campaign to draw attention to the low payment rates.

“Californians who rely on Medi-Cal — two-thirds of whom are people of color — have a harder time finding providers who are willing to care for them,” said Jan Emerson-Shea, a spokesperson for the California Hospital Association.

For Dr. Oscar Casillas at MLK, the issue is critical. Although he’s a highly trained emergency physician, most days he practices routine primary care, addressing fevers, chronic foot and back pain, and missed medications.

“If you put yourself in the shoes of our patients, what would you do?” asked Casillas, who previously worked as an ER doctor in the affluent coastal city of Santa Monica. “There’s no reasonable access if you’re on Medi-Cal. Most of the providers are by the beach, so emergency departments like ours are left holding the bag.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

 
 

This article was reprinted from khn.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20221012/e28098Separate-and-unequale28099-Critics-say-Newsome28099s-pricey-Medicaid-reforms-leave-most-patients-behind.aspx

 

Posted on

SDoH- Doctors Prescribe Healthy Meals to Keep Patients Out of the Hospital

MM Curator summary

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: A look at the states that have tried to use Medicaid bucks for food, and what the Oregon waiver means for the overall effort.

 
 

 
 

Rita Scanlon, 92, talks to a Meals on Wheels driver at her home in Rhode Island. A handful of states are gearing up to provide similar meals through Medicaid for people with diabetes, congestive heart disease and other chronic illnesses. David Goldman
The Associated Press

Meals on Wheels had been delivering healthy meals to thousands of older adults in Portland, Oregon, for more than 50 years when a local hospital asked whether the group could cook similar meals for patients leaving the hospital after acute bouts of diabetes, heart disease and other chronic illnesses.

The answer was a resounding yes, according to Suzanne Washington, CEO of the local organization Meals on Wheels People. The group signed on with that Portland hospital five years ago and later agreed to provide meals for two others in the area.

Three years ago, data from the first hospital showed that patients with diabetes, congestive heart diseases and other chronic illnesses who received what are known as medically tailored meals were half as likely to be admitted to the hospital compared with those who didn’t receive meals, and the total cost of their care was substantially lower.

But medically tailored meals prescribed by hospital dieticians are still only a small fraction of the more than 8,000 meals the Portland nonprofit delivers daily.  

The federal government’s recent approval of Oregon’s request to modify its Medicaid program, the joint federal-state health insurance program for people with low incomes, could change that.

Oregon and other states have dabbled in Medicaid nutrition programs aimed at improving patients’ health in non-clinical, non-pharmaceutical ways, said Oregon Health Authority Director Patrick Allen in an interview with Stateline.

“But never have those efforts become a defined benefit in Medicaid that everyone who qualifies is entitled to receive,” he said. “This is a really big deal.”  

In the past decade, about a dozen states have cobbled together Medicaid and other funding to offer medically tailored meals and other nutrition programs on a limited basis. But none has made nutrition services available to substantial numbers of patients, as new efforts in several states would do.

Oregon’s $1.1 billion, five-year program will be available for youth with special needs and people experiencing homelessness. Along with housing and other social supports, the program will offer three medically tailored meals per day for up to six months for people with, or at risk of, diet-related illnesses.

Massachusetts also received federal approval under a wide-ranging $67 billion, five-year Medicaid waiver to provide food vouchers and medically tailored meals, as well as housing for children, pregnant women and women who have given birth in the past 12 months.

The Massachusetts waiver is groundbreaking because it allows Medicaid to pay for meals for the entire family — not just the patient, said Katie Garfield, director of whole person care at Harvard Law School’s Center for Law and Policy Innovation.

It’s well known that parents who receive medically tailored meals will share their food with children and older adults living in the household, reducing the effectiveness of those meals at healing the patient’s chronic condition, Garfield said.

“Allowing Medicaid to supply meals for the entire family is a major step forward,” she said.

Later this year, New York and Washington state are slated to receive approvals from the federal government for similar nutrition programs.  

Food Is Medicine

A regular diet of fruits, vegetables and other nutritious food has long been shown to stave off and treat chronic illnesses and promote healing after surgery. And unlike pharmaceuticals, nutritious food does not have side effects.

It’s also well established that a deficit of nourishing food is a major cause of health disparities among people with low incomes and people of color, who suffer disproportionately from heart diseases, diabetes and other deadly and debilitating illnesses. 

Local nonprofit groups have been providing healthy meals and reporting improved health outcomes since the mid-1980s, when groups in New York and San Francisco began providing meals for HIV patients to boost weight gain and help manage their symptoms.

But with few exceptions, Medicaid, which covers nearly 90 million people, has failed to allow large-scale coverage of healthy meals as a way of preventing and managing chronic disease. That’s despite numerous studies showing that medically tailored meals cut both prescription drug and hospitalization costs.

A handful of states are working to change that. And they’re counting on big savings in their health care budgets in the process.

In addition to Oregon and Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Washington are among the states that have experimented with a variety of Medicaid programs to help residents get the meals they need to prevent and treat diet-related diseases.

The Biden administration’s new emphasis on nutrition and health is expected to spur an expansion of limited Medicaid nutrition programs in states that already have them and encourage development of new food programs in states that don’t.

As part of a national strategy announced last month at a White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, the Biden administration vowed to work with Congress to provide funding for medically tailored meals under Medicare, nutrition education and other nutrition programs under Medicaid, and improved access to nutrition and obesity counseling under both health care programs.

Cost Cutting

A major driver of health care costs, chronic diseases account for 81% of all hospital admissions, 91% of all prescriptions and 76% of all doctor’s visits, according to figures cited by several leading medical groups. More than half of Americans suffer from at least one diet-related chronic disease.

Research compiled by the Food is Medicine Coalition, a research and advocacy group, shows that only six months of dietary interventions such as medically tailored meals can reduce overall medical costs by 16%, or $220 per month per patient. That’s a result of 58% fewer emergency department visits, 49% fewer hospital admissions and 72% fewer nursing home admissions.

According to the research, only 1 in 10 adults are meeting Department of Agriculture dietary standards for fruits and vegetables. That’s primarily because millions of people either can’t afford healthy food or live in neighborhoods where it isn’t available. Many also lack the education to know which foods should be included in a healthy meal and don’t have adequate kitchens to prepare them in, food and nutrition experts say. 

Alissa Wassung, executive director of the Food is Medicine Coalition, said nonprofits in the field are “feeding people who are the sickest of the sick, who are driving a lot of the health care costs that we’re trying to address.”

It makes sense that using medically tailored meals to avoid costly prescription drugs and frequent emergency department visits would save millions in health care spending, Wassung said.

But despite the mounting evidence, only a tiny fraction of those who could benefit from food assistance are getting it, advocates say.

In addition to meals, some states have encouraged local health care providers to write fruit and vegetable prescriptions for diet-related conditions, providing vouchers physicians can give patients to purchase the food they need. Other states contract with local nonprofits to deliver fruit and vegetable boxes to families, along with instructions on preparing healthy meals.

In California, where a Medicaid waiver for healthy food programs was approved in 2021, more than 14 million people are covered by the federal-state program; 15% of them have diabetes.

“They could be on insulin for the rest of their lives, or we could reduce or eliminate the need for medication through food-based interventions,” said Katie Ettman, food and agriculture policy manager for the social justice nonprofit, the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association, or SPUR.

“When we think about the scale of the opportunity to improve health through food interventions,” Ettman said, “it only works when we have funding through the health care system.” She and other advocates want Medicaid and other public and private insurance carriers to make nutrition services a part of their basic coverage, equal to pharmaceuticals and clinical care.

Another missing link, said Harvard’s Garfield, is a health care infrastructure that includes dietary screening procedures, diagnosis and billing codes and staff protocols for prescribing diet interventions. Once that’s established, she said, food interventions could become as commonplace as prescribing medications or performing surgeries to treat chronic conditions.

Next, Garfield said, a network of local food providers must be established to work with the health care system like drug stores that fill prescriptions.  

In Oregon, Meals on Wheels People stands ready to cook and deliver thousands more medically tailored meals every day as soon as the Medicaid program is ready to pay for them, Washington said. 

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/10/12/doctors-prescribe-healthy-meals-to-keep-patients-out-of-the-hospital

Posted on

Op-Ed- Biden’s Medicaid plans will send the program completely off the rails

MM Curator summary

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: The op-edder takes issue with having 21M people that are ineligible for Medicaid and CMS making it harder to kick them off. By his estimates, that’s $16B per month on ineligible Medicaid bennies. This all gets funded with your paystub, so as long as you are cool with it- we’re good.

 
 

 
 

The Biden administration refuses to grant state waivers that get Medicaid recipients into work and eventually off the program. Darren McGee- Office of Governor Kathy Hochul

Medicaid is on the verge of becoming the most broken welfare program in American history. President Joe Biden is moving forward with three dangerous policies that will further undermine its already-shaky integrity and even expand it into housing, food and climate change. State leaders and Congress must fight to restore Medicaid to its mission of protecting the health and well-being of the truly needy.

The most immediate threat comes from Biden’s three-month extension of the COVID public-health emergency, which was set to expire Oct. 13. So long as the emergency is in effect, states receive added Medicaid funding on the condition they don’t cut ineligible recipients from the rolls.

As I show in a new paper, Medicaid could swell to 100 million enrollees by January, or nearly a third of America’s population. Yet at least 21 million are ineligible, and that number will only rise. Taxpayers are spending $16 billion per month on ineligible recipients, a high cost that grows higher by the day.

The emergency is set to expire in January, but it’s possible if not probable Biden will extend it again to keep as many people on Medicaid as possible. (He’s already extended it several times, despite stating early this year that normal life could resume and saying last month, “The pandemic is over.”)

 
 

There is a need to restore Medicaid to its mission of protecting the health and well-being of those in need.Getty Images/Drew Angerer

Even if he lets the emergency end, his administration wants states to take well over a year to remove ineligible enrollees. In all likelihood, the president will keep finding ways to keep people on Medicaid who shouldn’t be.

Which leads to the second policy Biden is pushing. In August, his administration proposed a rule that in the name of improving “retention” would make it much harder to identify ineligible enrollees. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services wants to ban states from conducting in-person interviews to determine program eligibility. States rely on these interviews precisely because they make it easier to identify waste and fraud. The Biden administration also wants to limit the information states can request from Medicaid recipients, making it more difficult to discover if they’re ineligible while reducing the frequency of eligibility reviews.

What’s more, Team Biden is trying to force states to help ineligible enrollees find different coverage before removing them from Medicaid. That will add such an intense administrative burden to cash-strapped state governments that they’ll likely avoid the hassle of removing ineligible people altogether. (Hilariously, the rule claims to help reduce “administrative burden.”) If this rule moves forward, the Biden administration will end any serious attempt at program integrity, even though Medicaid is already rife with abuse and on the fast track to insolvency.

Finally, the Biden administration is pushing Medicaid far beyond its purpose. Last month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved unprecedented waivers for Massachusetts and Oregon. Both states can now use scarce Medicaid dollars to pay for enrollees’ food and housing, on the grounds that such issues influence health outcomes. That’s not what Congress created Medicaid to cover.

The situation is laughably bad in Oregon. The federal government is letting the state spend Medicaid money on things like air conditioners and air filters. Why? Because those items help residents deal with climate change, and climate change purportedly affects individual health.

 
 

Medicaid could increase to 100 million enrollees by January, or nearly a third of America’s population.Shutterstock

These waivers are all the more extraordinary since the Biden administration refuses to grant state waivers that get Medicaid recipients into work and eventually off the program. This White House would rather use Medicaid to address “extreme weather” than promote employment, which has proven health benefits, from mental health to lower mortality.

None of Biden’s Medicaid policies should be allowed to stand. Medicaid already dominates state budgets, with nearly $1 out of $3 spent going to the program. To remove ineligible enrollees and protect taxpayers, governors should immediately opt out of the extra funding provided under the public-health emergency. Doing so will allow states to begin cleaning up their Medicaid rolls instead of waiting, potentially indefinitely, for the federal government to untie their hands.

Meanwhile, Republicans and sane Democrats in Congress should push for policies that prevent the Biden administration from gutting state eligibility reviews. They should also seek to restrict state Medicaid waivers to direct health issues. Such measures should make their way into must-pass laws, thereby overcoming the threat of a Biden veto.

The alternative is to let Medicaid break to the point of irreparability. It’s already too close.

Sam Adolphsen, a former chief operating officer at the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, is policy director at the Foundation for Government Accountability.

 
 

Clipped from: https://nypost.com/2022/10/06/bidens-medicaid-plans-will-send-the-program-completely-off-the-rails/

Posted on

OR- Oregon is guaranteeing kids won’t get kicked off Medicaid until at least age 6

 
 

MM Curator summary

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: Kiddos will stay on Medicaid until age six, no exceptions. Even if momma and daddy win the lottery and become millionaires on their 3rd birthday.

A newsletter briefing on the health-care policy debate in Washington.

 
 

 
 

A newsletter briefing on the health-care policy debate in Washington.

Good morning to everyone, especially these brown bears eating pounds and pounds of salmon to prepare for winter. Send your favorites to rachel.roubein@washpost.com

Today’s edition: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is officially expanding eligibility for the monkeypox vaccine. House Republicans are probing biosafety practices overseen by two key federal agencies. But first … 

Oregon wants to keep kids covered during their critical, early-stage development

A child receives the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine at the Fairfax County Government Center. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Oregon is testing out a new concept in Medicaid: Keep children continuously enrolled in the safety net program until they turn 6 years old. 

The first-of-its-kind idea, to be piloted over five years, is designed to stop children from getting kicked off their health coverage during years crucial to their development. Federal health officials signed off yesterday on the program, which more states could emulate in the coming months. 

Story continues below advertisement

“We have near universal health insurance coverage for senior citizens in this country,” said Bruce Lesley, the president of the First Focus on Children, an advocacy group. “Where we really would like to get with kids is that the public programs should basically assume coverage unless someone says, ‘No, I have private coverage.'”

Oregon’s pilot program comes at a critical moment for safety net coverage. Millions of children are at risk of losing their Medicaid coverage when the public health emergency for the coronavirus ends. Such a notion is already fueling a push in Congress to include policies in a year-end deal that would further maintain coverage for kids.

Joan Alker, the executive director of Georgetown’s Center for Children and Families:

The Biden Administration has approved Oregon’s transformative Section 1115 Medicaid request which will provide a major new support for young families. pic.twitter.com/ufBAKTkm8Z

— Joan Alker (@JoanAlker1) September 28, 2022

The details

The idea of continuous enrollment for kids isn’t new — it’s one advocates and some Democrats have been pushing for years. Over half of states have a requirement that kids can’t be kicked off their coverage for 12 months, even if a family’s income changes. 

Story continues below advertisement

The point is to avoid a temporary loss of health coverage, known as churn.
It occurs frequently in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and is essentially when people cycle on and off the programs in a short period of time, and can happen when a person’s income fluctuates, for instance.

  • Roughly 11.2 percent of children with full benefits are disenrolled and then subsequently re-enrolled within one year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

Now, Oregon is pioneering a new approach. The state will soon allow children to remain on Medicaid until their sixth birthday. After that, children 6 years old and older, as well as adults, can stay enrolled for two years at a time, regardless of changes in their finances or other family circumstances.

Will other states follow suit? Joan Alker, the executive director of Georgetown’s Center for Children and Families, said she’s “cautiously optimistic,” and some states have already begun to propose such policies.

Story continues below advertisement

  • Washington state asked the federal Medicaid agency this summer for permission to cover children with Medicaid for the first six years of their lives.
  • New Mexico has drafted an application that would also provide continuous Medicaid enrollment up to age 6.
  • California lawmakers asked state officials to seek sign-off from the federal government to continuously cover children with Medi-Cal until they turn 5.
Challenges loom

Amid the coronavirus pandemic, Congress offered states a deal. They could get enhanced funding for their Medicaid programs from the federal government if they pledged not to remove anyone from the program’s rolls until the public health emergency ended.

States are already bracing for the complex process of determining who is still eligible for the programs whenever the public health emergency is over. Children and young adults are expected to be disproportionately impacted, with the Department of Health and Human Services predicting that 5.3 million could lose their Medicaid or CHIP coverage.

That’s already spurring advocates to push Congress to pass policies to keep kids covered in a year-end spending deal. A requirement that children can’t lose their coverage for a continuous 12 months was originally included in Democrats’ sweeping social spending bill but was ultimately left on the cutting room floor when the legislation was narrowed. And such a policy is a top priority for key party leaders, such as House Energy and Commerce Chair Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.).

Story continues below advertisement

  • “We’re hoping that people recognize that when the public health emergency ends, there’s going to be a lot of kids kicked off,” Lesley said. “Having 12-month continuous [coverage] would really help — not completely eliminate that — but it would help mitigate the loss of coverage for lots of kids.”

 
 

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/29/oregon-is-guaranteeing-kids-wont-get-kicked-off-medicaid-until-least-age-6/

Posted on

Providers- Marion County agency wants SCOTUS to strip protections for millions of vulnerable Americans

 
 

MM Curator summary

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: 19 paragraphs and 522 words before we get anything resembling what the issue is actually about. And nothing about some of the reasons the agency may be doing this (other than they are terrible evil bad guy villains as the journo suggests). I guess I’ll just believe the headline whole-cloth and get angry like I am supposed to.

 
 

Marion County’s public health agency is asking the U.S. Supreme Court

The Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion County wants the nation’s high court to throw out a lawsuit over poor care at one of its nursing homes in a case that could also bar beneficiaries of safety net programs like Medicaid from suing if their rights are violated. 

The public health agency’s case is setting off alarm bells for beneficiaries and their advocates. They say the case would have a devastating impact on many of the nation’s most vulnerable people. 

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

IndyStar Investigations:Christian college coach created a culture of doping and sex, star runners allege

In all, more than a quarter of the U.S. population depends on federal programs that could be affected.

“They just want to get rid of a headache,” said Lucas Waterfill, a Medicaid recipient from Indianapolis who has cerebral palsy. “For us, it’s standing up for our lives.”

The Democrat-led agency has found an ally in Indiana’s Republican attorney general, Todd Rokita. Rokita’s office submitted a court brief earlier this year pleading for SCOTUS to side with Marion County’s public health agency, and even asked the justices to be allowed to participate in oral arguments in Washington, D.C. when they take place on Nov. 8.

But a decision in Health & Hospital’s favor would have repercussions far beyond Indianapolis — or Indiana. It would, according to legal experts, effectively take the “entitlement” out of the nation’s entitlement programs.

“It’s the ability to enforce your rights that makes them rights,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University. “Once you lose the right to hold, in this case, public officials accountable, the notion that you have an entitlement just becomes an empty promise.”

She compared the potential consequences to the Supreme Court’s decision in June to overturn abortion rights.

“This case is to Medicaid,” she said, “what Dobbs was to abortion.”

Health & Hospital officials have largely refused to speak publicly about the potential impact of the case, citing the sensitivity of the ongoing litigation. In a brief statement emailed to IndyStar, the agency said all of its actions are guided by its mission to promote health and provide care to those who are underserved.

Millions of Americans could be affected

The case’s impact could be enormous.

States have a long history of trying to deny federal benefits to those entitled to them, especially in the Medicaid program where states share in the cost.

For decades, Americans in need of services have relied on a federal civil rights law to protect their benefits.

The law, passed in the wake of the Civil War to protect the rights of Black Americans, gives citizens broad rights to sue when their federal rights are violated. And past U.S. Supreme Court decisions have found that beneficiaries of public assistance programs can rely on the law to sue when benefits are improperly withheld. 

In Indiana, the law has been used to secure assistance for foster children, hepatitis C patients and children with severe disabilities.

Health & Hospital, however, is arguing that the law doesn’t apply to those beneficiaries. It says lawsuits involving spending programs shouldn’t be allowed unless Congress specifies that right when adopting a law. A decision in its favor would prohibit such lawsuits in the future, making it easier for the state and local governments that partner with the federal government on public assistance programs to deny benefits.

Medicaid is one program that would be affected. More than 82 million Americans rely on the medical safety net, including 1.8 million Hoosiers — most of whom are low-income, elderly or disabled.

But it isn’t the only one.

Health & Hospital wants the U.S. Supreme Court to bar lawsuits from recipients of other federal public assistance spending programs, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. 

“It could be a very, very big deal,” said Nicolas Terry, a health law professor at the Indiana University McKinney School of Law. “And in my opinion, quite a harmful deal for people who rely on government services.”

A monumental decision made in secret

Despite the potentially huge impact of the case, Health & Hospital made the decision to petition the Supreme Court without any public input. In fact, the agency’s board of trustees never even voted on it. 

Health & Hospital has defended its decision-making process, arguing its board has long deferred to executive staff on legal matters.

But the secrecy garnered a sharp rebuke on Friday from Indiana’s public access counselor, who found that Health & Hospital violated the state’s open door law.

“While some executive, operational, and administrative duties will necessarily have to be delegated to staff, the volitional decision and act of pursuing further litigation with our country’s highest court is something else altogether,” wrote Public Access Counselor Luke Britt, who is appointed by the governor to arbitrate disputes over public access to meetings and records.

He said Health & Hospital’s board should have held a public meeting on whether to pursue a Supreme Court appeal. 

“It strains credulity that a board of any organization would not feel it incumbent to weigh in on matters of substantial import such as filing a petition for certiorari with SCOTUS,” Britt wrote.

It’s not clear what the public access counselor’s opinion will mean for the Supreme Court case. Local activists have been lobbying the agency’s board to withdraw its petition, but so far without success.

Morgan Daly, public policy director for the Indiana Statewide Independent Living Council, filed the open door complaint with the public access counselor. She hopes Health & Hospital’s board will hold a public vote on the issue.

“We don’t believe the trustees have been given information about what this case is about and its implications for Hoosiers and people across the country,” she said. “The public would hate this.”

Activists ratchet up pressure

The public agency, whose mission is to “promote and protect the health of everyone in the community and provide health care to those who are underserved,” has spent more than $700,000 on the case so far.

That has angered not just beneficiaries and their advocates, but also liberal political groups that have traditionally identified closely with Health & Hospital’s work. 

“How much of our health care dollars that are supposed to be helping people is now going to a lawsuit, a petition, that is going to hurt people?” said Mike Oles III, a field director for Our Revolution, a progressive political action group, during a recent City-County Council committee meeting. “I would be ashamed if I was on this city council.”

Health & Hospital’s seven-member board is appointed by the Indianapolis mayor, City-County Council and Marion County Board of County Commissioners — all offices controlled by Democrats. The agency’s president and CEO, Paul Babcock, previously served as Mayor Joe Hogsett’s director of health and public safety.

Babcock declined an interview about the case. But in an emailed statement, he said the agency is guided by its mission in “every action.”

“Our divisions, including the Marion County Public Health Department and Eskenazi Health, serve the needs of traditionally underserved populations, and they do so with great success,” he said.

He also reiterated one of the main arguments his legal team is making in court: that the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act doesn’t include a “private right of action to sue nursing homes or nursing home operators.”

He did not mention in his statement anything about the broader question his agency wants the U.S. Supreme Court to consider, which is whether beneficiaries of federal safety net programs across the country can sue in court to protect themselves.

In response to questioning from city-county councilors during a Sept. 22 committee meeting, Babcock argued that nursing home patients had other avenues to keep facilities accountable, such as filing a complaint with the Indiana Department of Health.

“I do not believe that rights will be lost,” he said.

‘None of those remedies really do anything’

In court filings, Health & Hospital points to what it calls “an extensive set of remedies intended to ensure that states and nursing facilities live up to their statutory obligations.” Those remedies include denying nursing homes access to Medicaid funds and replacing their managers. 

But Emily Munson, public policy director for Indiana Disability Rights, a federally mandated advocacy group, said other enforcement mechanisms fail to effectively protect beneficiaries. 

Withholding reimbursements can cause more problems for residents who aren’t getting proper care, since it is Medicaid that pays for that care. As for a change in management, IndyStar searched 12 years of federal data and could not find a single time when that enforcement measure was used in Indiana.

“None of those remedies really do anything,” Munson said, “to help the person who has been harmed.

Nursing home residents also could sue under state medical malpractice law, but Indiana has one of the lowest caps on total damages in the nation. The malpractice law also requires plaintiffs to first take their case to a medical review committee of doctors or nurses — a process that can take years and cost tens of thousands of dollars, all before setting foot in a courthouse.

“Indiana nursing homes want the financial benefit of receiving additional federal funds because of county hospital ownership, but they don’t want Indiana families to receive the benefit of additional federal legal remedies when neglect occurs to their loved ones,” said George Gray, an attorney who represents nursing home residents.

Dementia patient’s family claims illegal drugging

Health & Hospital’s case began when the family of the late Gorgi Talevski, a Valparaiso nursing home resident, sued the agency in federal court in 2019 for violating the 80-year-old dementia patient’s rights under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act.

Talevski’s nursing home, Valparaiso Care and Rehabilitation, is one of 78 that Health & Hospital has acquired so that it can collect extra Medicaid funds available to government-owned nursing homes. Over the last two decades, the Marion County government agency has quietly become the state’s largest nursing home operator and raked in $1.8 billion in added Medicaid payments.

IndyStar investigation:Nursing home residents suffer as county hospitals rake in millions

Talevski’s family claims the nursing home drugged him with unnecessary medications and improperly transferred him to a facility an hour-and-a-half away. Those alleged practices, known as chemical restraint and patient dumping, are prohibited under the 1987 federal nursing home law.

Health & Hospital has denied any wrongdoing. It claims its facility took those actions because Talevski was being violent and sexually aggressive toward staff and other residents. 

Regardless of the issues surrounding Talevski’s care, Health & Hospital says lawsuits like his have no place in federal court.

The appeal to the Supreme Court seemed like a longshot. The justices only accept 1% to 2% of the cases they are asked to review. 

But Health & Hospital’s sweeping request caught the court’s attention, and in May the justices agreed to review it. In a month, the case will reach a climax when attorneys for Marion County’s health agency and Talevski’s family head to D.C. to argue their sides in front of the court’s conservative majority. 

‘This means life or death’

For many people, what’s at stake transcends the walls of a Valparaiso nursing home. It’s about their ability to advocate for themselves. 

“My life depends on Medicaid,” said Waterfill, the Medicaid user from Indianapolis. 

He receives care 12 hours a day, he said, most of it funded by Medicaid.

“That’s the difference between me being stuck in bed or me having a job or me having a life,” said Waterfill, who is a standup comic. “For a lot of people, this means life or death.”

Without the threat of lawsuits by beneficiaries, he fears states may try to cut benefits for people like him. It’s not an unfounded fear. Indiana Disability Rights highlighted in court documents seven cases in Indiana over the past 15 years where Medicaid recipients had to sue to protect their benefits.

Waterfill said he can imagine any number of scenarios in which the state might try to withhold benefits he desperately needs.

“I think this case just adds another layer of red tape to an individual’s ability to stand up against the state to keep their Medicaid,” Waterfill said. “It really targets the most vulnerable people in our society and in our state. I just think it’s unnecessary. I think they are trying to slip this in the side door.”

Contact IndyStar reporter Tony Cook at 317-444-6081 or tony.cook@indystar.com. Follow him on Twitter: @IndyStarTony.

Call IndyStar courts reporter Johnny Magdaleno at 317-273-3188 or email him at jmagdaleno@indystar.com. Follow him on Twitter: @IndyStarJohnny.

This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Marion County agency wants SCOTUS to strip protections for millions of vulnerable Americans

Microsoft may earn an Affiliate Commission if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/marion-county-agency-wants-scotus-to-strip-protections-for-millions-of-vulnerable-americans/ar-AA12ENoZ

Posted on

Senate leader: NC hospitals’ Medicaid proposal not ‘serious’

 
 

MM Curator summary

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: NC GOP is insisting that any expansion deal come with the resources needed, mainly through loosening competitive control under CON reqs- and Big Hospital don’t like that at all.

 
 

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina Senate leader Phil Berger on Tuesday called an offer from state hospitals to expand Medicaid to hundreds of thousands of the working poor “not a serious proposal,” saying loosened regulations for medical construction projects didn’t go far enough

 What You Need To Know

Senate leader Phil Berger called an offer by the state’s hospitals “not a serious proposal”

The N. C. Healthcare Association proposed an expansion plan with changes to medical construction and service regulations 

Senate Republicans said those changes are necessary, but Berger said the suggestions aren’t good enough 

If action isn’t taken by year’s end, expansion efforts would reset as a new edition of the 170-member General Assembly is seated in January 

Berger’s dismissal of the proposal late last week from the North Carolina Healthcare Association short-circuited any expectations — though much improved compared to months ago — that a Medicaid expansion agreement could be at hand. Still, Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, an expansion advocate, urged Berger separately Tuesday to make a counteroffer.

Expansion also would create an influx of several billion dollars from the federal government that the state is missing out on, Cooper added. North Carolina is one of a dozen states that haven’t accepted the federal government’s Medicaid offer originating from the 2010 health care law.

“When we have lives at stake, … we don’t have any time to lose,” Cooper said at an Executive Mansion event unrelated to Medicaid. “Whatever it takes, we have to be all in on this.”

The House and Senate passed competing expansion proposals in June, and the next month Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore expressed their commitment to work together for the initiative.

Senate Republicans insist any final agreement must contain provisions to increase the supply of medical services to handle the additional patients that Medicaid would bring. Chief on their list is scaling back and streamlining “certificate of need” laws that require health regulators to sign off on expansion plans by medical providers.

Berger had complained in recent months that the North Carolina Healthcare Association, a lobbying group for over 130 hospitals, health systems and other groups, wouldn’t accept a significant pullback of certificate of need laws.

The association’s offer, which came a few days after Cooper urged the hospitals to engage with Berger, would do away with such laws for psychiatric inpatient beds and beds to treat people with chemical dependency. Within five years, it also would scale back regulations for operating rooms in ambulatory surgical centers.

Although Berger recognized the association’s willingness to move on the issue, he criticized the form and the substance in a Legislative Building news conference.

Berger said the association’s offer looked “like it was more to deal public relations than a substantive or a serious proposal.” And he said the ambulatory surgical center rule changes would appear to make it so the only entities that could open such a center would be another hospital.

“It looks to me like it’s more designed to further entrench the monopolies that the hospitals have,” Berger said.

Association spokesperson Cynthia Charles said later Tuesday that there could be many more independently owned ambulatory surgical centers in the state if the proposal were carried out.

The “association has made a serious and fair proposal that took shape over several weeks,” Charles said in a written statement. “The General Assembly had said that they were interested in getting input from hospitals and health systems on this issue and we have provided it. The next steps are up to them.”

Berger didn’t say specifically whether Senate Republicans would make a counteroffer, adding that the Republican-controlled House, the governor and the hospitals know their certificate of need position and that senators previously sent “several alternatives” to the House. He wouldn’t provide further specifics.

The Medicaid bill passed by the House in late June directed Cooper’s administration to develop an expansion plan by mid-December — after which legislators would take an up or down vote on it. The legislation left out supply-side medical reforms like certificate of need. In July, Moore called the Senate version a “nonstarter.”

When the legislature’s primary work session ended July 1, legislative leaders scheduled monthly three-day sessions, including one that began Tuesday, to take up any urgent matters — or potentially an expansion agreement. Like the previous two monthly meetings, this week’s session also will have no recorded votes.

If action isn’t taken by year’s end, Medicaid expansion efforts would reset as a new edition of the 170-member General Assembly is seated in January.

Clipped from: https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlotte/news/2022/09/21/senate-leader–nc-hospitals–medicaid-proposal-not–serious-

Posted on

Medicaid and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

 
 

MM Curator summary

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: Florida ambulance and LTC providers are calling foul over the state’s decision to set labor costs for them.

 
 

 
 

Three Florida health care organizations and a Largo-based provider sued the state on Tuesday, arguing that state legislators illegally opened them up to class-action lawsuits if they fail to pay employees at least $15 an hour as required in the new state budget.

The lawsuit, filed in circuit court in Leon County, asks a judge to issue a temporary injunction and block the enforcement provision from taking effect. The main argument is that the Republican-controlled Legislature “logrolled” substantive issues in the annual budget, which is supposed to be limited to just budgetary matters.

The groups that filed the lawsuit against the state and the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) include the Florida Ambulance and Florida Assisted Living
associations, Home Care Association of Florida and assisted living facility Heather Haven III.

The legal action targets language included in several areas of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget that impacts health care providers participating in the Medicaid managed care and Medicaid fee-for-service delivery systems. That language states that any employee who does not get paid $15 an hour can sue starting in January. The budget language allows employees to file class-action lawsuits.

Florida’s minimum wage currently is $10 an hour and will increase to $11 on Sept. 30. The wage will continue to increase annually by $1 until 2026 when it reaches $15 an hour. No other employer in the state can be sued for failing to pay an employee $15 per hour.

 
 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs also argue lawmakers may not have included enough money in the budget to cover the $15 wage mandate and that the risk of lawsuits could have health care providers withdrawing from the Medicaid program.

“Such an injunction will … prevent the Plaintiffs’ members and other Medicaid providers from facing the potentially crippling legal liability of class action lawsuits associated with increased pay for “direct care employees,” Tallahassee lawyer William Dean Hall III wrote in a Sept. 27 court filing.

“Ensuring that the plaintiffs Members and other Medicaid providers can reasonably continue to provide care to Floridians on Medicaid will ensure continued access to quality care for such citizens going forward.” 

In addition to the temporary injunction, the plaintiffs also are seeking declaratory relief, noting that “an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and the Defendants regarding whether the Challenged Sections are unconstitutional,” Hall wrote.

“The Plaintiffs require a judicial determination of their rights and duties in this area, specifically regarding whether the Challenged Sections amount to improper substantive lawmaking in an appropriations bill.”

 
 

Florida Politics reported the Florida Assisted Living Association sent a letter to Gov. Ron DeSantis imploring him to intervene on their behalf as the Oct. 1 minimum wage deadline for direct care providers inches closer. The Home Care Association of Florida followed with its own letter asking DeSantis to delay the $15 minimum wage requirement.

The associations noted that while they will be required to pay their direct care staff $15 an hour effective Oct. 1, the Medicaid managed care companies have not increased their reimbursement rates to offset the increased salary costs.

AHCA did not immediately respond to Florida Politics’ request for comment.

Clipped from: https://floridapolitics.com/archives/559013-medicaid-providers-ask-circuit-court-to-protect-them-from-15-minimum-wage-related-lawsuits/

Posted on

New Rule Makes Clear that Noncitizens Who Receive Health or Other Benefits to which they are Entitled Will Not Suffer Harmful Immigration Consequences

MM Curator summary

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: Biden undoes Trump heresy.

 
 

Accessing Children’s Health Insurance Program and Most Medicaid Benefits Will Not Affect Immigration Status

Today, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a final rule applicable to noncitizens who receive or wish to apply for benefits provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and States that support low-income families and adults. The rule, which details how DHS will interpret the “public charge” ground of inadmissibility, will help ensure that noncitizens can access health-related benefits and other supplemental government services to which they are entitled by law, without triggering harmful immigration consequences. By codifying in regulation the “totality of the circumstances” approach that is authorized by statute and which has long been utilized by DHS, the rule makes it clear that individual factors, such as a person’s disability or use of benefits alone will not lead to a public charge determination.

The final rule applies to noncitizens requesting admission to the U.S. or applying for lawful permanent residence (a “green card”) from within the U.S. When assessing whether a noncitizen is “likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence,” DHS will not penalize individuals who choose to access the vast majority of health-related benefits and other supplemental government services available to them, including most Medicaid benefits (except for long-term institutionalization – such as residing in nursing home – at government expense) and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). DHS will also not consider non-cash benefits provided by other government agencies including food and nutrition assistance such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); disaster assistance received under the Stafford Act; pandemic assistance; benefits received via a tax credit or deduction; and government pensions or other earned benefits. Receipt of cash-based benefits, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and other similar programs, will not automatically exclude an individual from admission or green card eligibility, and will instead be considered in a “totality of the circumstances” analysis.

“People who qualify for Medicaid, CHIP, and other health programs should receive the care they need without fear of jeopardizing their immigration status,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. “As we have experienced with COVID, it’s in the interest of all Americans when we utilize the health care and other services at our disposal to improve public health for everyone.”

“This final rule reinforces a core principle of the Biden-Harris Administration: that healthcare is a right, not a privilege, and no one should be deterred from accessing the care they need out of fear,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure. “Today’s final rule is an important step toward achieving this goal for many Medicaid and CHIP enrollees and their families, and CMS will continue to do everything in our authority to make sure people have access to programs that keep them safe and healthy.”

“Federal civil rights laws require that all people be afforded fair and just decisions when applying for health benefits and other supplemental government services, free of bias, stigma, and discrimination,” said Office for Civil Rights Acting Director Melanie Fontes Rainer. “Today’s rule sets up safeguards to help ensure that people with disabilities and older adults who are not U.S. citizens can access health care without fear.  OCR will continue our robust enforcement of civil rights laws to ensure the rights of historically marginalized groups are upheld and defended.”

“People with disabilities and older adults who are not U.S. citizens no longer have to fear that using services that can help them maintain their health, live independently and contribute to their communities will cost them legal residency in our country,” said Alison Barkoff, Acting Administrator of the Administration for Community Living. “The rule explicitly rejects stereotypes that people with disabilities are more likely to become a public charge and is in keeping with the civil rights protections that are the bedrock of American values.”  

This final rule is the product of action first taken by the Biden-Harris Administration in 2021 to reverse the previous administration’s 2019 public charge rule, which had the harmful effect of discouraging many immigrants from seeking benefits, such as CHIP and other government services for which they, their children, or their families were eligible, out of fear of jeopardizing their immigration status. This chilling effect extended even to those categories of noncitizens who, by law, are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility, including refugees, asylees, noncitizens applying for or re-registering for temporary protected status (TPS), special immigrant juveniles, T (trafficking victims) and U (crime victims) nonimmigrants, and self-petitioners under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). With the publication of today’s final rule, the Biden-Harris Administration is continuing its efforts to reverse these harmful effects and ensure that these programs remain accessible for eligible individuals and families in need.

The final rule does not expand eligibility for Medicaid, CHIP, or other benefits to more people but clarifies DHS policy regarding recipients.

The final rule will be effective on December 23, 2022.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/09/08/new-rule-makes-clear-noncitizens-who-receive-health-or-other-benefits-which-they-are-entitled-will-not-suffer-harmful-immigration-consequences.html