There is a bit of a black hole when it comes to the incoming Trump Administration and what they may do with Medicaid, which I why I think the more information and different analysis the better-and I find this piece interesting when looking at Colorado’s administrative spend. For a state that claims to run an efficient program, while staring at a close to $1 Billion state budget deficit, a 43% administrative share seems like something we should be able to improve.
🚨 CBO Goes #DOGE Wild, Offers Cap to Fed #Medicaid Admin Match Rates At the request of the House and Senate Committees on the Budget, the Congressional Budget Office (#CBO) has released 74 options to reduce the federal budget deficit from 2025 to 2034. It is a cornerstone doc to guide #GoodGovernment decision-making. That said, I want to discuss why the CBO's proposal to cap federal Medicaid match rates for admin expenses at 50% is troubling. First, a primer: to run a state #Medicaid program, you need to have a Medicaid program. You need people, processes, & tech to: ▪️ Enroll low-income kids & adults in coverage; ▪️ Build & manage plan & provider networks (& oversee #MCOs); ▪️ Confirm svc eligibility; ▪️ Manage claims processing; ▪️ Support #HIE, from #EHR adoption to application; ▪️ Oversee & report on system integrity (e.g., detect fraud, waste, & abuse) & performance (e.g., quality measurement), among countless other functions. As part of the federal-state Medicaid deal, the federal govt covers at least half of these costs, w certain functions receiving a higher match rates (e.g., #MMIS claims processing, fraud control, EHR incentives, system upgrades). And despite the bevvy of new federal & state functional and reporting reqs placed on Medicaid prgns, admin costs have remained at ~5% of total spend. (For comparison, private health plan #MLRs allow double that.) Now, this isn't a small number. In FY23, total national Medicaid admin spending was $34.4B, w ~39% of that covered by states, ~61% by the feds. Rebalancing this to 50-50, CBO believes would save $69B over 10 yrs (~$6-8B/yr). But here's the rub: ▶️ The enhanced match is where innovation happens. It is what supports system upgrades, state health infrastructure development -from #HDUs to #APCDs- data improvement & system monitoring. Cutting it would cut the wheat from the chaff, esp for smaller states. ▶️ Smaller states benefit most. For giggles, I ran a quick hit on CMS-64 data (below). Even though admin match rates aren't tied to state income like #FMAPs, the results don't look too different (which raises other Qs for me.) ▶️ There is no alternative. Cutting Medicaid admin costs will only stretch already thin state systems. If the new Admin wishes to empower states, states need effective infrastructure. Alternatively, we could start collaborating -regionally or nationally- on more efficient, shared infrastructure. (My phone is always on.) There is much in the CBO report worth debating, but too often, I find, it is our #healthdata infrastructure that gets short shrift, and is quietly cut in last-minute deals. Our nation needs big, hairy, revolutionary thinking when it comes to how we fix our leaking #healthdata pipes, but cutting funding for our crude model without an alternative is not a solution. h/t MACPAC - Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission National Association of Health Data Organizations, Civitas Networks for Health https://lnkd.in/eZk_2rFB
Board Member @ PorchLight | Owner's Consultant, Multi-Family Housing Development
2moWell said!