Skip to main content
Sister Publication Links
  • ESG: THE IMPLEMENTATION IMPERATIVE
Subscribe
  • Sign Up Free
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • News
    • Current News
    • Providers
    • Insurance
    • Digital Health
    • Government
    • Finance
    • Technology
    • Safety & Quality
    • Transformation
    • People
    • Regional News
    • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Patients
    • Operations
    • Care Delivery
    • Payment
    • Midwest
    • Northeast
    • South
    • West
  • Unwell in America
  • Opinion
    • Bold Moves
    • Breaking Bias
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • Vital Signs Blog
    • From the Editor
  • Events & Awards
    • Awards
    • Conferences
    • Galas
    • Virtual Briefings
    • Webinars
    • Nominate/Eligibility
    • 100 Most Influential People
    • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
    • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
    • Excellence in Governance
    • Health Care Hall of Fame
    • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
    • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
    • Top 25 Innovators
    • Diversity in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
      • - Leaders to Watch
    • Women in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Women Leaders
      • - Women to Watch
    • Digital Health Transformation Summit
    • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
    • Leadership Symposium
    • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
    • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
    • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
    • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
    • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
    • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
    • - Hospital of the Future
    • - Value Based Care
    • - Supply Chain
    • - Hospital at Home
    • - Workplace of the Future
    • - Digital Health
    • - Future of Staffing
    • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
  • Multimedia
    • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
    • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
    • Video Series - The Check Up
    • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
  • Data Center
    • Data Center Home
    • Hospital Financials
    • Staffing & Compensation
    • Quality & Safety
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Data Archive
    • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
    • Surveys
    • Data Points
  • MORE+
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Media Kit
    • Newsletters
    • Jobs
    • People on the Move
    • Reprints & Licensing
MENU
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. Medicaid
February 08, 2020 01:00 AM

MFAR rule cuts Medicaid spending, increasing the CMS' power

Michael Brady
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print
    Man providing insurance card to healthcare provider
    Modern Healthcare Illustration / Getty Images

    As the CMS’ much anticipated Medicaid block grant guidance released in January was making headlines, hospital industry stakeholders were quietly assembling their case for why they think the Medicaid Fiscal Accountability Regulation is such a bad idea.

    The industry is gearing up for a fight, saying the regulation would harm beneficiaries and overly empower the CMS.

    The proposed rule aims to boost the transparency of supplemental payments, and also gives the CMS sweeping new authority to regulate how states finance their Medicaid programs.

    “We are deeply concerned that, if finalized, this rule would end up denying millions of Americans access to healthcare,” said Erin O’Malley, senior director of policy for America’s Essential Hospitals.

    Under Medicaid fee-for-service, states receive matching funds from the federal government to pay for their state Medicaid programs. The Trump administration says that states are taking advantage of the matching-funds system to maximize the amount of money they receive from the federal government. Increased scrutiny of supplemental payments to providers would ensure the fiscal integrity of the Medicaid program, CMS officials argue.

    To that end, the Medicaid Fiscal Accountability Regulation—MFAR—would markedly increase federal oversight of how states fund their Medicaid programs.

    Medicaid makeover

    The Medicaid Fiscal Accountability Regulation would change many aspects of the Medicaid program.

    Reporting changes
    Under the proposed changes to the upper payment limit, states that want to add or renew supplemental payments would have to report considerably more information and go through an intensive review process. States would need to have their payments reapproved by the CMS every three years.

    States would have to quantify their yearly audits of disproportionate-share hospital payments.

    Reimbursement changes
    Supplemental payments to doctors under the upper payment limit would be capped at 50% of base payments or 75% in rural areas and other regions with a shortage of clinicians. The CMS estimated the change would cut Medicaid payments by 
$222 million nationwide.

    Medicaid financing changes
    The proposed rule would also rein in the ability of states to raise their portion of Medicaid money by clamping down on their ability to impose healthcare taxes such as provider taxes. It would also limit states’ power to raise funds from intergovernmental transfers, certified public expenditures and provider donations. These changes would likely cut Medicaid spending overall by lowering state-generated Medicaid funds and the corresponding matching federal dollars.

    States also wouldn’t be able to adjust fee-for-service payments for Medicaid services according to eligibility or for enrollment based on a waiver.

    “It’s impossible to overstate how dramatic a change it would be for state Medicaid programs to have to comply with all of these rules at the same time,” said Anil Shankar, a partner with Foley & Lardner.

    MFAR would also limit how states pay providers by increasing state and provider reporting requirements and eliminating payment and financing arrangements that many state Medicaid programs rely on. States would probably have to restructure or abandon existing financing mechanisms, either of which would be extremely disruptive.

    Though any of the proposed changes would significantly affect the Medicaid program, the CMS is pushing for them all at once. Stakeholders are anxious about how that could affect Medicaid programs throughout the country.

    “The administration purports that these changes would strengthen the overall fiscal integrity of the Medicaid program,” O’Malley said. “It runs counter to that goal because, in large part, it would weaken state flexibility.”

    The changes could cut total Medicaid funding by up to $49 billion annually or roughly 8% each year, according to an analysis conducted for the American Hospital Association by Manatt Health.

    That would slash payments to hospitals by as much as $31 billion or 17% per year. Meanwhile, the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission estimated that supplemental payments for the Medicaid program totaled $48.3 billion in fiscal 2018.

    While those estimates are imprecise, they are suggestive of how the changes would impact states and providers. Payment cuts could make providers less willing or able to care for Medicaid beneficiaries, which would decrease their access to care.

    State variation

    But those spending cuts wouldn’t be evenly distributed because states differ in how they raise the state portion of the funds, so hospitals, physicians and beneficiaries in certain states could be hit particularly hard while others remain mostly untouched.

    States spent $1.3 billion on supplemental payments to physicians and other health professionals in 2018, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

    Supplemental payments accounted for less than 5% of fee-for-service spending in Kansas, Massachusetts, Nevada and West Virginia. But Florida, Iowa and Michigan spent more than 40% of their traditional Medicaid funds on supplemental payments that year.

    It’s hard to know how things would play out for individual providers because there’s little to no information about supplemental payments to each provider. The proposed rule tries to rectify that by increasing state and provider reporting requirements. That approach is consistent with previous recommendations from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, HHS’ Office of Inspector General, MACPAC and others.

    “Where CMS has the strongest case is that they don’t have enough transparency about what’s going on around (supplemental) payments,” said Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families.

    But many experts warn that the administration’s proposal goes well past transparency, giving the CMS broad new authorities and limiting the ability of states to raise funds for their Medicaid programs.

    States often rely on funding mechanisms like provider donations to fund the state portion of fee-for-service Medicaid funding, but the proposed rule would make that far more difficult. “This rule is about reducing the ability to generate state funds, which can draw down the federal match,” Park said.

    The additional requirements would make it tough for states to ensure that their financing arrangements comply with MFAR because they would have to redesign them and get approval from critical stakeholders, including state legislatures, which could take months or years. “It would add needless administrative burden to states and to CMS,” O’Malley said.

    Many states like Indiana have part-time legislatures so they have limited time and resources to adjust to “broad and sweeping changes in federal law,” said Brian Tabor, president of the Indiana Hospital Association.

    “That makes it difficult to plan at the state level,” he said. The Medicaid Fiscal Accountability Regulation “creates a lot of uncertainty for state budgetmakers and providers.”

    Strong words for a sweeping Medicaid reg

    From public comment letters on the proposed rule

    “IU Health does not agree with CMS’ imposition of arbitrary limits on practitioner payments based on the Medicaid base payment, nor do we agree with CMS’ outright elimination of (average commercial rate)-based supplemental payments. In particular, this proposed change would negatively impact access to quality care and compromise innovation at IU Health.”

    Tory Callaghan Castor, Senior vice president of government affairs
    Indiana University Health
    Indianapolis


    “The proposed rule would severely curtail the availability of health care services to millions of individuals across the country and hundreds of thousands here in Colorado. Many of its provisions are not legally permissible. Therefore, we request that the agency withdraw the proposed regulation in its entirely.”

    Elizabeth Concordia, President and CEO
    UCHealth
    Aurora, Colo.

    Limited flexibility

    But even if states were able to make the changes that they thought were necessary, they couldn’t be sure that the CMS would approve them. The proposed rule would give the agency broad new discretionary standards through abstract frameworks like “totality of circumstances,” “net effect” and “undue burden.” The authority is so extensive that states would have no way to know how the CMS would enforce the rule or that it would enforce it consistently.

    “In a nutshell, the current clarity under the law is being replaced by a ‘just trust us’ standard,” said Debbie Johnston, senior vice president of policy development for the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association.

    That could end existing arrangements and create a chilling effect among states that might eliminate or roll back their efforts to raise the state portion of fee-for-service Medicaid funds. If states are unable to make up the funding gap elsewhere, they would likely cut their Medicaid funding and, in turn, lower their federal match and federal Medicaid spending. But governors and state legislatures would still be on the hook for funding base payments to Medicaid providers, which means that they would be forced to make up the funds elsewhere. That could mean increasing sales or income taxes or drawing from their general funds and crowding out other priorties like education, law enforcement or transportation.

    States, hospitals and patient advocates think that the CMS should slow down because it hasn’t collected enough data and carried out a complete analysis.

    “The fiscal impact on the Medicaid program from the implementation of the policies in the proposed rule is unknown,” the CMS said in the proposed rule.

    “CMS recognizes the critical importance of supplemental funding to the safety net, but those payments must support value and improve care and the quality of life of our Medicaid beneficiaries. Through the Medicaid Fiscal Accountability Rule, we are increasing transparency, integrity, and clarity, to ensure Medicaid resources serve the best interests of patients,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said.

    Critics argue that the agency should go through a normal policymaking process before making sweeping changes to the Medicaid program. That means collecting all the necessary information, analyzing it, working with stakeholders to develop targeted policy solutions, allowing them to comment on the proposals and permitting enough time for states and providers to implement the changes.

    “That’s how a regulatory process should work,” Park said. “They’ve thrown against the wall a whole bunch of proposals with, apparently, little interest in figuring out the potential downsides of such an approach or justifying the benefits.”

    Related Article
    Governors warn Trump rule could lead to big Medicaid cuts
    Letter
    to the
    Editor

    Send us a letter

    Have an opinion about this story? Click here to submit a Letter to the Editor, and we may publish it in print.

    Recommended for You
    Diverse people and magnifying glass
    A state-by-state look at the impact of Medicaid determinations
    Medicare - insurance - people standing in line
    Health industry groups to assist Medicaid enrollees losing coverage
    Most Popular
    1
    More healthcare organizations at risk of credit default, Moody's says
    2
    Centene fills out senior executive team with new president, COO
    3
    SCAN, CareOregon plan to merge into the HealthRight Group
    4
    Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan unveils big push that lets physicians take on risk, reap rewards
    5
    Bright Health weighs reverse stock split as delisting looms
    Sponsored Content
    Daily Dose Newsletter: Sign up to receive a late afternoon weekday roundup of that day’s breaking news and developments in healthcare.
    Get Newsletters

    Sign up for enewsletters and alerts to receive breaking news and in-depth coverage of healthcare events and trends, as they happen, right to your inbox.

    Subscribe Today
    MH Magazine Cover

    MH magazine offers content that sheds light on healthcare leaders’ complex choices and touch points—from strategy, governance, leadership development and finance to operations, clinical care, and marketing.

    Subscribe
    Connect with Us
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS

    Our Mission

    Modern Healthcare empowers industry leaders to succeed by providing unbiased reporting of the news, insights, analysis and data.

    Contact Us

    (877) 812-1581

    Email us

     

    Resources
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise with Us
    • Ad Choices Ad Choices
    • Sitemap
    Editorial Dept
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Code of Ethics
    • Awards
    • About Us
    Legal
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Request
    Modern Healthcare
    Copyright © 1996-2023. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • News
      • Current News
      • Providers
      • Insurance
      • Digital Health
      • Government
      • Finance
      • Technology
      • Safety & Quality
      • Transformation
        • Patients
        • Operations
        • Care Delivery
        • Payment
      • People
      • Regional News
        • Midwest
        • Northeast
        • South
        • West
      • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Unwell in America
    • Opinion
      • Bold Moves
      • Breaking Bias
      • Commentaries
      • Letters
      • Vital Signs Blog
      • From the Editor
    • Events & Awards
      • Awards
        • Nominate/Eligibility
        • 100 Most Influential People
        • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
        • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
        • Excellence in Governance
        • Health Care Hall of Fame
        • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
        • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
        • Top 25 Innovators
        • Diversity in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
          • - Leaders to Watch
        • Women in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Women Leaders
          • - Women to Watch
      • Conferences
        • Digital Health Transformation Summit
        • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
        • Leadership Symposium
        • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
        • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
      • Galas
        • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
        • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
        • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
        • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
      • Virtual Briefings
        • - Hospital of the Future
        • - Value Based Care
        • - Supply Chain
        • - Hospital at Home
        • - Workplace of the Future
        • - Digital Health
        • - Future of Staffing
        • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
      • Webinars
    • Multimedia
      • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
      • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
      • Video Series - The Check Up
      • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
    • Data Center
      • Data Center Home
      • Hospital Financials
      • Staffing & Compensation
      • Quality & Safety
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Data Archive
      • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
      • Surveys
      • Data Points
    • MORE+
      • Contact Us
      • Advertise
      • Media Kit
      • Newsletters
      • Jobs
      • People on the Move
      • Reprints & Licensing