Federal Regulations For Reimbursement Procedures

Federal Regulations For Reimbursement Procedures

Introduction

Medicaid proponents strongly criticize both the Republican and Democratic proposals. Both block grants and spending cuts would effectively place limits on federal funding to particular states, they note, which could reduce the level of care for Medicaid recipients. Reducing federal spending, while requiring states to maintain the same level of services, would effectively act as an unfunded mandate on local governments, the National Association of Public Hospitals says.

Discussion

OIG supplemental compliance program guidance note that many of the health care facilities serve a large number of low-income patients largely depend on Medicaid funding, and that a reduction in federal Medicaid spending could result in a reduction in payments to the hospitals (Jonas & Kovner 2001). They note that if the states were not able to supplement their federal Medicaid funding, they would be forced to either cut back services or cut reimbursement payments to hospitals.

The loss of income would likely force many hospitals to close or to reduce services, advocates say, which would have an adverse impact on their ability to continue to provide services to Medicaid beneficiaries. According to OIG, roughly one-third of the nation's doctors place a limit on the number of Medicaid patients they see, and one-fourth of the doctors say that they will not see any Medicaid patients. Cuts in the Medicaid program would only exacerbate the problem, advocates warn.

The National Governors' Association, a bipartisan group of state governors, also says that caps on federal reimbursement procedures would place an undue burden on the states. Any unilateral federal cap on the OIG supplemental compliance program will shift costs to state and local governments that they simply cannot afford, the association says. A task force of the governors' association in 1997 called on the Clinton administration to ...