Medi-Cal | HealthyCal
 

Posts Tagged Medi-Cal

  

Medi-Cal agreement to bring $10 billion from feds to expand, improve care

The Obama Administration has approved an agreement with California that will bring $10 billion to the state over the next five years to improve care for low-income people and the disabled and broaden access to care for people who have not been eligible for the state’s Medi-Cal program.

The initiative is designed to transition California toward the 2014 full implementation of the federal health reform law, when all adults with incomes of 133 percent of the federal poverty level or less will be eligible for Medi-Cal.

The agreement, known as a “waiver” because it waives rules under which the Medi-cal program typically operates, will allow all California counties to participate in the Health Care Coverage Initiative. This program helps counties provide care to childless adults age 19-64 who do not now qualify for Medi-Cal. The state estimates that as many as a half million Californians will now be eligible for care under this program.

The agreement will also boost funding for hospitals that care for the poor without compensation.

And it will transition 400,000 seniors and people with disabilities into managed care plans.

For more details on the waiver, click here.

 

LA cancer screening center closes doors

By Megan Baier
HealthyCal.org correspondent

Megan Baier

Megan Baier

The Elizabeth Center for Cancer Detection in Los Angeles — one of the oldest cancer screening clinics in California — plans to shut down today after treating its last patients.

The center is a victim of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s decision to freeze enrollment in a cancer screening program for low-income women on Jan. 1 and pay for routine mammograms only for women after the age of 50. Those moves caused an abrupt drop in the Elizabeth Center’s patient load and revenues, which had already been strained as its costs exceeded what it was earning from the state.

Founded in 1944 by Elizabeth Mason Hohl M.D., the Elizabeth Center’s mission has centered on prevention and early detection of breast cancer since its inception. The Center has served over 750,000 women — most of them low-income — over its 66-year history.

The Every Woman Counts (EWC) program pays for mammograms and cervical exams for low-income women who are underinsured or uninsured. Nearly 9 out of 10 patients treated at the Elizabeth Center were covered by that one program. In 2009 alone 13,000 women received mammograms at the center.

Medi-Cal reimbursements are lower than reimbursements from private insurance companies and because of the high proportion of patients treated at the Elizabeth Center who are not privately insured, the Center has had to find other sources of income to supplement the reimbursements it got from the state Medi-Cal program.

The Elizabeth Center owned and sold property at 3rd and Loma in Los Angeles in the 1990s and moved to a single location at 1127 Wilshire Blvd, near the Good Samaritan Hospital just west of downtown. The money the center made off the sale of those properties has been providing additional funding to the center since 1997.

Donald Cook, the Executive Director of the Elizabeth Center, said he knew the center could not continue on the path it was on, even before the crisis brought on by the governor’s decision to freeze enrollment in the program that was the center’s major source of income.

“We knew three to four years ago,” Cook said. “We need to get out of this box. We are too dependent on Medi-Cal”.

Cook and the Center’s directors looked for funding elsewhere, from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to the state and all the way up to the federal government, but were not able to get assistance.

If the Center were going to stay open, it would have to serve a smaller proportion of women insured by Medi-Cal or the Every Woman Counts program and a larger proportion of privately insured women.

“We have got to change to 25 percent Medi-Cal, not by eliminating low-income women, but by bringing in insured women” Cook said.

The eligibility changes that took effect Jan. 1 severely limited the population that could access the Elizabeth Center’s mammogram services. So far in 2010, the volume of patients the center serves is down 60 percent, Cook said.

Since January, the Elizabeth Center has been paying more and more out of its own reserves to stay open and has run out of money to do so any longer.

The closure is likely permanent, Cook said.

“It would take a miracle to stay open,” he said. Cook estimates it would take about $2 million for the center to reopen, but once equipment is sold and staff are gone, that prospect is very unlikely.

The Elizabeth Center’s mission is to catch breast cancer in its early stages, while patients have a high survival rate. Cook says, “Early detection is our best weapon today and will be for a long time.”

While the Elizabeth Center may be the first cancer screening clinic to close its doors, the enrollment freeze in the Every Woman Counts program its taking its toll throughout the state.

Deb Weintraub of Susan G. Komen for the Cure in Los Angeles county said the cuts to EWC have resulted in an increasing number of low-income women going with out screenings.

“Ultimately it will cost the state more money,” she said, since decreased access to mammograms will likely result in cancer being caught in later stages when treatment is more expensive. “Prevention is so much more cost effective.”

“Access for proper health care in LA county is disappearing,” Weintraub said, and “really it is the poor women of California who are losing out.”

 

Group homes sue state over rate freeze

By Daniel Weintraub

An association of group homes that care for Californians with developmental disabilities has sued the state to in federal court, arguing that a freeze on reimbursement rates since August of last year violates federal law.

The suit was filed by the California Association of Health Facilities in U.S. District Court, Los Angeles on behalf of 528 group homes serving 3,500 low-income people who are mentally or physically disabled

“This rate freeze has resulted in tremendous financial hardship for hundreds of providers who are caring for the state’s most vulnerable residents, generally in community-based settings,” said Jim Gomez, the group’s president. “These facilities are completely dependent on the Medi-Cal program for their funding and financial survival.”

Filed April 30, the suit argues that California’s 2009 budget package effectively froze Medi-Cal payments at 2008-2009 levels for these facilities. According to the association, the federal government requires the statwe to re-evaluate Medi-Cal payment rates annually.

For the 2009-2010 rate year, beginning Aug.1, 2009, the average Medi-Cal rates would have increased from 1.1 percent to nearly 9 percent, depending on the type of facility.

 

Measure would restore breast cancer screenings for low-income women

Legislation to reinstate breast cancer screenings for low-income women as young as age 40 will be heard — and likely passed — by the Senate Health Committee today.

The bill, by Sen. Jenny Oropeza, herself a cancer survivor, would reinstate a service the state cut on Jan. 1, citing insufficient funds to keep up with rising demand for the screenings. Under the bill, SB 836, women who are eligible for the services based on their income would get screenings at any age if they exhibited symptoms and upon request if they are over age 40.

“The decision to suspend screening can be deadly to California’s low-income women,” Oropeza said. “Those who can least afford help in detecting and fighting this deadly disease are the ones most affected.”

The state late last year suspended new enrollments in the program for six months and reduced the age at which women were entitled to a screening from 50 to 40. The changes were expected to result in about 50,000 fewer women being screened for cancer.

The changes coincided with a national report suggesting that it is not cost-effective to provide regular mammograms to women before the age of 50. But the state said its decision to cut back eligibility for the program was not based on that recommendation.

The bill would require a two-thirds majority in the each house of the Legislature for passage, and the governor’s signature to become law. Given that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger approved the decision to reduce the services, prospects for reversing it are uncertain at best.

 

How the reform bills would affect seniors

A new policy brief from the University of California provides a great synopsis of how the health reform bills will affect seniors. I covered some of this in my analysis of the bill Sunday night, but this paper goes into more detail focused just on the elderly population and Medicare and Medi-Cal.

–The prescription drug “doughnut hole.” Currently, Medicare pays 75 percent of the first $2,830 of a person’s prescription drug costs. Then the patient is responsible for 100 percent until their costs reach $6,300. After that Medicare pays 95 percent. Under the health reform legislation, people who exhausted the first limit would get a $250 one-time rebate. This rebate would go to about a half million Californians. The legislation also creates a 50 percent discount for brand name drugs for people who are in the “doughnut hole” where they are responsible for 100 percent of their drug costs.

–Improved access to care. The bill grants a 10 percent bonus to primary care doctors who take Medicare patients. In California, only 16 counties have enough primary care docs for their population. The legislation also eliminates co-insurance payments and cost sharing for preventive services, such as cancer screening and diabetes diagnostic tests.

–Long-term care. The legislation provides $10 million a year for four years to increase funding for aging and disability resource center, which help seniors and disabled people find services they need. The bill also provides up to $3 billion to help transition people out of nursing homes and back into their own homes using community-based services. The bill also creates a new national long-term care insurance program to provide resources to care for people in their homes.

To download the full report in PDF form, click here: Health reform impact on seniors.

Photo: From the White House.

 

The trouble with Medicaid

ashby wolfe

Ashby Wolfe MD, MPP, MPH

By Ashby Wolfe

Ashby Wolfe is a resident physician in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento. She holds an MD as well as masters degrees in public policy and public health. She blogs at www.ashbywolfe.com and is a guest blogger for HealthyCal.org on issues of family medicine and community health. Her opinions are her own and do not necessarily represent the views of UC Davis or HealthyCal.org

A recent experience I had trying to get one of my patients some simple medications to treat an asthma condition demonstrates why so many doctors are frustrated by dealing with the Medi-Cal program, some to the point of refusing to take patients whose care is paid for by the state.

Medicaid, known as Medi-Cal in California, is the partly state-funded, partly federally-funded health insurance program for low-income families. It’s not Medicare – that is the national health insurance for all persons over age 65. The Medicaid program is available state-by-state to certain eligible groups, particularly low-income women, children and their families.

In California in 2008, of the 36 million California residents, 16 percent of the population received health insurance through this program. I happen to think programs like Medi-Cal are important and worthy of state funding. This program allows women with low incomes to afford care when pregnant, and it allows adults and children to receive basic medical care (vaccines, annual check-ups) and sometimes dental and vision care.

However, as you have probably heard, the number of doctors who see patients with Medicaid insurance is decreasing. Why? If a program like this pays for basic health services to women and children in need, why is it such an unpopular program among doctors?

For starters, Medicaid pays doctors far less for providing care than other insurance plans. To add insult to injury, Medicaid fees paid in California were 83% of the Medicaid national average in 2008, ranking California 47th overall among states.

Doctors also face a significant complexity to providing care to patients with Medicaid, as there are often specific rules, regulations and paperwork that must be completed to get approval for certain types of care. These issues makes the process of care frustrating, and as a result some physicians may choose to stop seeing Medicaid patients, because there is no rule that says doctors must see patients with every type of insurance in their offices.

As a result, sometimes patients who are eligible for Medicaid seek care in emergency rooms, where there is a rule (the national EMTALA legislation) that everyone – regardless of insurance – must be cared for. Patients who come into the ER often have multiple chronic diseases that have gotten worse because they have not seen a regular doctor, and this can be frustrating for both patients and docs alike, since it can feel like there is no one but the ER and hospital to care for these patients on a regular basis.

Yet I still see patients with Medicaid insurance in my office. I have always thought it an important thing for me to provide the same care to patients of all income levels and all insurance types. However, my patience for my own philosophy was tested the other day, when a patient of mine came into my office because she was having trouble breathing. Let’s call her Ms. Jones.

Ms. Jones has asthma, in addition to 3 other medical conditions for which she takes a total of 8 medications. Ms. Jones has Medicaid insurance, which helps pay for her regular visits with me and for her medications. She tends to have breathing problems in the springtime, when pollen in the air irritates her lungs and can cause an asthma attack. This was the reason she was seeing me in my office the other day.

After examining Ms. Jones, I was concerned that she was on the brink of another attack, and so I prescribed a 5-day course of steroids, a relatively inexpensive medication, in addition to her current inhalers in order to treat her condition and prevent worsening of the attack (which could land her in the hospital).

The next day I called the patient to make sure that she was feeling better, and Ms. Jones told me that she tried to get her medications after our visit, but was told by the pharmacy that the 5-day course of steroid medication could not be dispensed because a Treatment Authorization Request (TAR) had to be approved by the state Medicaid office first. She was told her medications would be available in about a week.

I grew more concerned listening to the patient describe that she was feeling more out of breath than she did in my office, and her inhalers weren’t helping. Wanting to prevent a serious asthma attack, which could be solved directly with the prescriptions I had ordered yesterday, I told the patient that I would call her right back after speaking with the pharmacist directly. I spoke with the pharmacy, who told me that because the patient was already on 8 chronic medications, any additional prescriptions (regardless of why they were needed or how long they would be needed) could only be approved by a Treatment Authorization Request to the Medicaid office. The pharmacist suggested I call the Medicaid office directly to request a TAR override.

So, that is what I did next. I spent the next 30 minutes on the phone, talking to pre-recorded machine voices, attempting to speak to a real person and ask how to override a TAR for medications. Finally, I managed to speak with a representative who told me that the state office no longer does TAR overrides. However, she advised me that the pharmacy might be able to release the medications to the patient, as long as the patient was willing to pay cash for the full cost of the prescription.

Nevermind that Ms. Jones is on Medicaid because she makes less than $20,000 per year. At this point, I thought to myself that this is exactly why some doctors don’t take Medicaid. They don’t want to deal with this frustration. It should be easier than this to get a cheap prescription filled for a patient the same day she needs it – rather than sending the patient to the ER to get the same treatment at triple the cost (not to mention the cost of seeing another doctor who would do exactly what I did yesterday).

I called the patient back. She didn’t have any extra cash to pay out-of-pocket for her medications, and she was still feeling the same as she was yesterday. Ms. Jones was not in a situation where she needed emergency services, but I worried that if she didn’t get her medications in the next day, she might. So I called another pharmacy – a different pharmacy – and as luck would have it, they were willing to provide the patient with the prescription medications and submit an authorization request to Medicaid so that they would get reimbursed next week for the medications they gave the patient that day. Several days later, Ms. Jones is feeling better and I feel good that because of my work, she didn’t have to go to the ER.

What was the cost of my time to Ms. Jones for my efforts? I could have just told Ms. Jones to go to the ER, where she would have faced a long wait, a large bill and received the same treatment I prescribed. I don’t get paid less if I send my patients to the ER. I don’t get paid more if I spend time helping Ms. Jones get her prescriptions. That day, I didn’t have the time, but I made the choice to make time because I felt strongly about the treatment I felt the Ms. Jones needed. Not every doctor has the time to do what I did for Ms. Jones, and doctors throughout California continue to withdraw from the Medicaid program. Who then will care for people like Ms. Jones?

This week, a new study sponsored by the California Health Care Foundation will be presented by researchers from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and the Medical Board of California, examining reasons behind why doctors stop seeing Medicaid patients. It is due to be presented on March 26th at the Capitol in Sacramento. Let us hope that the information helps lawmakers and health policy leaders understand that doctors like me want to see Medicaid patients, but that choice is made difficult by our experiences. If we truly want to be able to provide good health care, our health system must allow the right choice to be the easy choice for everyone – regardless of insurance.

 

Appeals court blocks Medi-Cal rate reduction

UPDATED AT 9:06 AM ON MARCH 4

A federal appeals court has blocked the state's attempt to cut reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal to doctors and hospitals, including the UC Davis Medical Center, shown here.

A federal appeals court has once again blocked California from reducing payments to doctors and hospitals that care for the poor under the state’s Medi-Cal program, finding that the Legislature did not sufficiently study the impact of the cuts before enacting them. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also rejected the state’s attempt to cut reimbursements for the wages of in-home care workers by nearly 20 percent.

The appeals court panel upheld lower court injunctions blocking the rate reductions until a full trial on the merits of the case could be held. The Medi-Cal case was brought by the California Pharmacists Association and a long list of other plaintiffs. The case challenging reductions in the wages of in-home care workers was brought by a woman who uses in-home care and the Service Employees International Union, which represents the workers.

The panel did not say that the state could never reduce reimbursement rates. But because the programs are partially funded by the federal government, the state must follow federal rules for managing the services. One of those rules states that Medi-Cal reimbursement rates must be high enough to ensure that care and services available under the plan are available to the same extent that such services are available to the general population. This is known as the “equal access to care” provision.

The state argued in its defense that some of the services at issue are not available at all to the general population because they are designed for the low-income people. But the court found that the state still had a responsibility to determine if the rate cuts would reduce access to care before implementing them.

Writing for a three-judge panel, Judge Milan D. Smith scolded the state for its repeated attempts to cut Medi-Cal rates without sufficient study.

“We have now handed down multiple decisions instructing the State on (its) procedural requirements,” Smith wrote. “We trust that the State now understands” that in order for it to comply with those requirements, it must rely on “responsible cost studies” that provide reliable data on which to base its reimbursement rates. The court in the past has also ordered the state to study the impact of the proposed rate changes before setting the rates. In this case, the court found, “the state did neither.”

California’s reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal are already below average among larger states and the state’s cost per person in the program is among the lowest in the nation.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office said the state will appeal the ruling.

More info:

See the court’s opinions and memoranda here.

Note: An earlier version of this item incompletely identified the plaintiffs in the case involving in-home care.

 

Democrats push budget package

UPDATED…..The Democrats in the Legislature have sent Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a package of budget bills that would trim about $2.3 billion from a projected $20 billion budget shortfall. The lawmakers held back on a complex tax swap involving the gas tax because Schwarzenegger had threatened to veto their version, and they wanted to continue the negotiations. Below is my earlier blog item describing the effect of the package’s key provisions involving health and social service programs:

Democrats in the Legislature will try to push through a series of budget bills that they say will shave roughly $5 billion off the state’s estimated $20 billion budget shortfall this year and next.

The bills largely avoid the kind of deep cuts to health and social service programs recommended by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Instead, the package includes some fund shifts, fee increases, deferrals and a large reduction to spending on health care in the prisons. Even if the package passes and becomes law, however, legislators still will be facing a projected $15 billion shortfall that they will have to address in the coming months.

Here are the key pieces of the package that would affect health and social service programs:

–Delay payments to Medi-Cal providers. The bill recognizes the governor’s authority to delay payments to certain hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, adult day health care centers, home health agencies and mental health inpatient services from June 17 until the start of the new fiscal year in July. This is simply an accounting maneuver for the state, not a real spending cut, but the agencies expected to be paid in June will still have to deal with a cash flow problem as they wait for their delayed payments.

–Continue a 3 percent reductions adopted in past years to most services purchased by Regional Centers that care for people with developmental disabilities, and an identical cut in their operating budgets. The package would also give the centers some flexibility on state rules requiring them to meet staff-to-consumer ratios and have staff or contractors with expertise in criminal justice, special education, family support, housing, community integration and quality assurance.

 
 
 

Home | Cal Health Report | Community Report | Legislation | Ideas | Forums | About Us

©2013 HealthyCal.org