TITLE

Medicaid: HCFA Reversed Its Position and Approved Additional State Financing Schemes: GAO-02-147

PUB. DATE
October 2001
SOURCE
GAO Reports;10/30/2001, p1
SOURCE TYPE
Government Document
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Some states have taken advantage of the flexibility that Congress built into the Medicaid program by devising schemes that inappropriately boost the federal share of program expenditures. These schemes were adding billions of dollars a year to federal Medicaid costs without the states paying their statutorily specified share of program costs. Moreover, some of the federal funds were being spent for non-Medicaid purposes. After hearing about these financing schemes, Congress passed the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA). In response, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) issued regulations in January 2001 to curtail financing schemes involving excessive payments to local government providers for which a separate upper payment limit did not exist. However, less than a month after the revised upper payment limit regulation became effective, HCFA decided to amend the regulation to shorten the time some states were allowed to comply with it. This reversal resulted in the approval of new financing schemes for several states that had pending proposals mimicking the schemes identified last year. The transition periods were of varying lengths, depending on how long a state had been receiving excessive federal payments from one of these schemes. Believing that states just starting to receive excessive federal payments did not need the two-year transition period established in the January regulation, HCFA decided to shorten the transition period to limit federal liability. Although the September regulation--which limited the length of time states can operate their newly approved excessive funding schemes--will reduce the drain on federal Medicaid funds, GAO questions HCFA's decision to approve additional financing schemes, given the explicit effort to curtail them.
ACCESSION #
18197436

 

Related Articles

  • The Senate's blueprint.  // AHA News;10/31/2005, Vol. 41 Issue 22, p4 

    Expresses views on the U.S. Senate blueprint of the fiscal year 2006 budget reconciliation measures which guides Medicare and Medicaid payments. Concerns on the Senate's budget legislation; Amount of the Medicare payment reduction proposed by the House; Need for the Congress to pass the budget...

  • New Medicaid Rules Called Further Threat to Budgets. Harp, Lonnie // Education Week;11/21/1990, Vol. 10 Issue 12, p21 

    The article reports on the fiscal analysts' warning that the federal budget approved in the 101st U.S. Congress will further burden already-strapped states treasuries by imposing new Medicaid mandates that will cost states an estimated three billion dollars over the next five years. The Medicaid...

  • A Sensible Idea. Barkey, Patrick M. // Indiana Business Magazine;Apr2007, Vol. 51 Issue 4, p6 

    The author reflects on health care financing in Indiana. He discusses that tax-favored treatment of employer-financed health-insurance benefits costs the federal government treasury more than it spends on Medicare. He added that it encourages the proliferation of insurance plans that covers...

  • In deep. Sloane, Todd // Modern Healthcare;10/17/2005, Vol. 35 Issue 42, p22 

    Comments on issues surrounding the federal spending of funds for health care in the U.S. Failure of the government to plan for the disaster relief operations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; Background on the proposed reduction of Medicaid and Medicare; Projected budget deficit for 2006.

  • A Physician's Solution to Healthcare. Eck, Alieta // New American (08856540);8/6/2012, Vol. 28 Issue 15, p21 

    The article focuses on the issue of high healthcare costs in the U.S. It mentions that government healthcare programs like such the Medicaid and Medicare as well as health insurance have contributed to the increasing costs of healthcare in the country. It says that affordable healthcare costs...

  • Assessing the RUG-III Resident Classification System for Skilled Nursing Facilities. White, Chapin; Pizer, Steven D.; White, Alan J. // Health Care Financing Review;Winter2002, Vol. 24 Issue 2, p7 

    Presents a study which used resident-level data on clinical characteristics and the costs of providing care to estimate the effectiveness of the RUG-III case-mix classification system used by the CMS to classify the residents for Medicare payment. Variance explanation of the RUG-III; Details of...

  • Funding gap widens for personal care.  // Community Care;9/28/2006, Issue 1642, p12 

    The article reports on the gap in funding the cost of free personal care policy in Scotland in 2006. A number of councils in the country received a low funding from the Scottish executive. There are deficits in funding in North Lanarkshire, Edinburgh, South Lanarkshire, Aberdeen, Borders,...

  • Health spending. Kondro, Wayne // CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal;1/6/2009, Vol. 180 Issue 1, p29 

    The article reports on the Canadian health spending on drugs in 2008. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, the spending on drugs of the country has faster growth rate than the spending for physicians and hospitals. It says that the spending for drugs constitutes 17.4% of...

  • Belt tightening leads to low growth in US healthcare spending. Roehr, Bob // BMJ: British Medical Journal (Overseas & Retired Doctors Edition;1/9/2010, Vol. 340 Issue 7737, p71 

    The article reports on the 4.4% increase in spending on health care in the U.S. in 2008, according to an annual report prepared by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in January 2010. The result, considered the lowest rate since the government began tracking the figure in 1958, was...

Share

Read the Article

Other Topics