The state recently
signaled that it would not pursue participation in the Community First
Choice option. This would mandate that the state through Medicaid provide home-
and community-based health care services to individuals whose household income
is 150 percent of the federal poverty limit. These services would have to be
provided regardless of whether without their provision an individual would be
at risk to require institutional care such as in a nursing home, and also are
possible if that risk is present and income is above that level.
Currently, a household may receive Medicaid services in Louisiana if generally
having an income at 25 percent of the FPL and having any of several other
qualifications such as the household having children, the elderly, or developmentally
disabled individuals. The FPL limits may be substantially higher for qualification
depending upon theses statuses. The CFC option makes new services more widely
available principally for the elderly because for most instances of disability there
are other (Section 1915c) waiver programs that already cover individuals’ needs,
at FPL levels usually much higher than the typical.
If entering into the program, states would get a six percent boost in
its reimbursement rate. At Louisiana’s current 62 percent level, this would
mean that the state still would pay nearly a third of all costs for new
clients, on an estimated
21,000 new enrollees would have cost as much as $645 million more a year. Under
the original interpretation of the law, the state thought it would cover many
fewer people and services, but federal rules issued subsequent to the law’s
passage expanded those.
In fact, much overlap with the waiver programs would be created, which
operate under a different set of rules that give the state more control over
determining eligibility and in cost control. In essence, it was the lack of
this flexibility in the new program that encouraged the state to abandon the
effort.
By accepting the CFC as its requirements now are interpreted, the state
would have committed the same mistake it made over a decade ago when it began
setting up waiver programs, when in its haste to comply with both federal (Olmstead) and state (Barthelemy) court decisions that said
the state was not allowing those with disabilities the chance to receive state
aid in the least restrictive setting, it poorly matched actual need to
resources provided and was overgenerous in its service provision. The legacy
of this is a set of waiting lists of varying lengths for various services,
in part because resources are not wisely used (there are other reasons as well,
such as lack of coordination in application and distribution of waiver slots). The
blunt nature of the CFC would create a new entitlement that would discriminate
poorly among truly needy households that don’t have much in the way of
resources (many of whom can be covered under existing waiver programs) and
those not so needy with many more resources.
Also a method to provide increased service provision is to steer away
from the institutional
bias present still in long term care provided through state resources. Too
much money is shunted to nursing homes instead of to less expensive and more appropriate
options. The Legislature has been reluctant to make more than marginal changes
to this policy that wastes potentially a hundred million or more of dollars a
year.
So the real solution is to make the existing waiver programs work
better, an ongoing activity of the state since the advent of Gov. Bobby
Jindal administration, and to reallocate existing funds, which both might even
lead to expanding eligibility where prudent to bring greater efficiency that
allows serving more and more quickly, instead of heaping on another program
that does not give states adequate ability to pursue cost efficiency in
implementation. Naturally, this is lost
on those ideologically wedded to the expansion of government who, despite
all of the empirical evidence, continue to deny that general Medicaid expansion
would not produce higher state costs and worse outcomes for clients, as they
blame the CFC turnaround on Jindal’s sensible rejection of the larger
expansion.
No comments:
Post a Comment