Medi-Cal | HealthyCal - Part 2
 

Posts Tagged Medi-Cal

  

Focus: Medi-Cal’s growth

The number of Californians eligible for subsidized care under the Medi-Cal program has grown by nearly 2 million, or 33 percent, in ten years. Figures from California Health and Human Services Agency.

Much of California’s current budget problem can be traced back 10 years to the dot-com boom, when the roaring economy sent tax revenues skyward and created big budget surpluses. Legislators and governors reacted by raising spending and cutting tax rates as if the boom-time would never end. When it did, the state was left with more commitments than it could afford with its now smaller tax base.

One of the programs that was expanded was Medi-Cal, the subsidized health program for the poor. Thanks partly to changes in eligibility rules adopted in 1999 and 2000, California has nearly 2 million more people on Medi-Cal today than a decade ago. The number of people eligible has grown by a third while the state’s population has climbed by only 16 percent. Nearly one out of every 5 Californians now receive their health care through state government.

When Democrats took over the governor’s office with Gray Davis in 1999, giving them their first shot at executive power in 16 years, one of the first things they did was to expand eligibility for Medi-Cal to parents in families with incomes up to 100 percent of the federal poverty level. The limit had been 86 percent of the poverty level. The state also made parents in two-parent working families, rather than just single parents, eligible if they met the income requirements.

Part of the goal of those changes was to make it easier for people to leave welfare and go to work, allowing them to earn a little bit of money without losing their health coverage.

The Legislature and the governor also eliminated quarterly eligibility reviews for families with children on Medi-Cal. Allowing them to go a full year between reviews meant that more families remained on the rolls for longer periods of time. That also contributed to the expansion.

Finally, lawmakers expanded no-cost Medi-Cal coverage for the elderly, blind and disabled, allowing those with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level to join the program.

None of those changes seem dramatic, and they did not exactly turn the program into a Cadillac system. But within a year of the changes, Medi-Cal’s enrollment jumped by 800,000, or about 15 percent. It kept climbing for several years before leveling out in the middle of the decade, but is climbing again now thanks to the economic recession. At least 1.2 million of the 1.8 million additional people eligible for Medi-Cal last year compared to 10 years ago can be traced to those dot-com era changes, according to the state Health and Welfare Agency.

For my last item tracing the growth of Medi-Cal as a portion of the state budget, look here.

 

Babies, bathwater and billions

By Wendy Lazarus

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget could cost the state twice as much in federal funds for health care as it saves for California taxpayers. Figures from California Budget Project.

If someone handed Governor Schwarzenegger a check for a billion dollars, you probably wouldn’t expect him to tear it up or send it to Washington, D.C. to give to other states. But that’s exactly what he has proposed doing in his FY 2010/11 budget. And his budget would eliminate reliable health care for a million California children at the same time.

To be sure, the looming $25 billion-plus budget hole is a serious challenge that requires wrenching choices. But it is precisely in these tough fiscal times that it’s most vital for the state budget to reflect the priorities and wise budget choices Californians want our leaders to make.

Wendy Lazarus

Although nearly 70 percent of California voters think children not having health insurance is a serious problem, the Governor’s budget proposes to save $78 million in General Fund dollars by cutting back eligibility for kids who need California’s Healthy Families Program. This move would result in over 200,000 children losing their health coverage in one fell swoop in May. The governor also proposes a trigger that would save $126 million in General Fund spending by eliminating California’s Healthy Families program entirely—causing nearly one million children to join the ranks of the uninsured—if our state leaders can’t bring home $6.9 billion dollars in federal funds, a worthy goal but a feat virtually no one thinks is possible.

Dropping nearly a million children from health insurance, as the governor’s proposal contemplates, would result in taxpayers paying more in the long run. Uninsured children still need health care. They are just sicker and it becomes costlier to treat them when they finally get care.

The Governor is proposing to hand over to other states $800 million in federal matching funds per year for children’s health that would otherwise come to California.
But on top of that, the federal government pays California two dollars for every one dollar we put into Healthy Families from the General Fund. So the Governor, who has complained that California doesn’t get its fair share of federal funding compared to other states, is, in fact, proposing that California voluntarily hand over to other states $800 million in federal matching funds per year for children’s health that would otherwise come to California. The amount of federal funds lost to California would be well over $1 billion if we include the lost federal Medicaid matching funds from additional cuts that would be triggered.

There are multiple reasons why California doesn’t get its proportionate share of federal dollars, including funding formulas that need to be addressed. But much of the blame is our own: our leaders have chosen not to invest as aggressively as they could in drawing down available federal matches because of a preoccupation with saving state general fund dollars even when it sacrifices federal dollars equal to or greater than any state savings.

California has used this faulty fiscal logic decade after decade in both Democratic and Republican Administrations, while other states like New York and Illinois have maximized their federal “take home” by investing state dollars to bring down far more federal funds. But California’s policies have cost us much more than lost federal dollars in our budget—we’ve also undermined highly-effective programs like Healthy Families, and we’ve given up the jobs and economic stimulus that programs such as Medi-Cal have been proven to deliver to local communities.

Rather than voluntarily forfeit federal funds, California should build on last year’s success, when health plans, First 5 California, hospitals, and families using the Healthy Families Program all stepped up and found ingenious ways to lower costs and cobble together the General Fund match required to keep the program whole at this critical time. Succeeding again this year would protect our kids. It would also leverage state funds and federal funds for children to the maximum extent possible.

Wendy Lazarus is Founder & Co-President of The Children’s Partnership, a national child advocacy organization, with offices in Southern and Northern California and Washington, DC, working to ensure that all children—especially those at risk of being left behind—have the resources and the opportunities they need to grow up healthy and lead productive lives.

 

In health and human services, demand grows while funds shrink

Kim Belshe

By Kim Belshé

California enters 2010 in extraordinary fiscal circumstances, with a significant structural budget deficit that continues to require spending reductions in all areas of state government.

At the same time, caseloads in our state’s biggest health and human services programs have grown dramatically in recent years, a reflection of both policy decisions to support the state’s safety net as well as the more recent dramatic economic downturn.

We are facing something akin to a perfect storm of growing need and reduced resources – with a downward spiraling economy that is driving more residents out of jobs and into public safety net programs at the very time state revenues to meet essential public needs have dropped dramatically.

* Next year, Medi-Cal is expected to serve 7.5 million people, an increase of more than 870,000 people, or 13 percent, in the last three years.

* CalWORKs cases have increased more than 14 percent in the last three years, with more than 71,000 new cases added to the state’s main welfare program for families.

* The number of developmentally disabled individuals in California continues to climb as autism diagnoses increase, with a 45 percent increase in the caseload in the last decade.

* The In-Home Supportive Services program has grown dramatically as well, with a 71 percent increase in the number of recipients in the last 10 years.

Health and Human Services (HHS) expenditures have grown by 43 percent over the past 10 years, while state revenues have increased by 23 percent.

California faces a fundamental disconnect between the revenues coming into the state and the expenditures required by current program obligations – an extraordinary gap that requires a serious and sober discussion of the state’s priorities and values. With budget crisis after budget crisis, we face the same challenging question: how do we manage the cost of health and human services programs as demand goes up and revenues go down?

In January, Governor Schwarzenegger proposed solutions to bring California’s budget back into balance for fiscal year 2010-11.

These proposed solutions reflect the Governor’s priorities for the state: no new taxes; full funding of education’s Proposition 98 guarantee; better alignment of prisons and HHS spending with other states; and greater federal program flexibility and more equitable federal funding.

Proposals to reduce or eliminate a number of HHS programs – such as the elimination of the Medi-Cal optional adult day health care program and the dramatic reduction in In-Home Supportive Services — represent reductions in optional benefits not offered by most states.

These proposals have been met with tremendous opposition. Concerns have been raised that services reductions will harm some of our state’s most vulnerable, disadvantaged residents. Opponents also argue we are sacrificing federal funds by not investing in programs that bring federal support. By definition, these proposed reductions will impact people in need and will have real consequences. It is also true that reducing state funding does result in a loss of federal support. That being said, we have to have the dollars to begin with to maintain our investment in these programs.

Some believe more tax revenue is the answer and that Californians must be persuaded to pay more taxes to support the state’s growing health and human service needs and protect the safety net from any cuts. It is an intellectually honest approach.

Unfortunately, it’s not a realistic one in this economic and political climate.

It is well understood in the corridors of the Capitol that health and human services will face reductions next year.

History shows us that when budgets fall out of balance, legislators and governors prioritize spending for education over funding for health and human services. Absent the Constitutional protections afforded K-14 spending and the judicial interventions that direct much of the state’s correctional spending, HHS is vulnerable to budget reductions. It is a difficult and unfortunate irony that the Agency that is charged with overseeing services and supports to our state’s most vulnerable, at-risk and underserved residents is the Agency most vulnerable to budget reductions.

While much of the policy and political debate will be about where budget solutions are best secured, there can be no doubt that reductions will occur in HHS. The salient question for advocates, stakeholders and recipients is how do we achieve savings in health and human service programs in ways that make the most sense and do the least damage?

As the second-largest program in state government and one of its fastest growing, Medi-Cal has to be part of the solution.

In fiscal year 1998-99, the annual cost per Medi-Cal recipient was $2,925. Ten years later, the cost had grown to $4,549 per recipient. The overall cost of Medi-Cal has nearly doubled in 10 years, from $19 billion in total funds 1998-99 to $37 billion in total funds in 2008-09.

The growth in Medi-Cal is putting significant and growing fiscal pressure on the state’s general fund.

In recent years, Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature have attempted to modify optional benefits to those most in need, change eligibility processes for some groups, and lower the rates paid to physicians and facilities for medical care. Many of these changes have been blocked by federal law or federal Court decisions, and $1.4 billion in savings has been lost. With optional benefits, for example, federal court decisions have effectively left the state with an untenable choice: either eliminate an entire optional Medi-Cal benefit – which Courts have upheld – or continue to provide a benefit that, as currently structured and governed by federal rules, is unaffordable to the state.

Now we must look to find other ways to save. Among them, the Governor’s budget proposes saving $750 million by instituting beneficiary cost-sharing, service limits or benefit caps – an approach adopted by many states.

It’s not easy to make changes that reduce Medi-Cal costs in these ways, but we have to find ways to come together to slow the rate of growth in the program if it is to survive. And, we must find ways to stabilize the program so that it can successfully serve as the foundation for more comprehensive health care reform when and if it comes.

Medi-Cal is not the only area where we need to achieve savings. Many other health and human service programs face reductions in the proposed budget as well.

However, an equally significant aspect of the budget is the Governor’s call for the federal government to provide California with billions of dollars in monies owed as well as flexibility to manage program costs within state resources.

It’s difficult to overestimate how critical it will be to secure the $6.9 billion in federal funding owed to the state next fiscal year and relief from federal rules and court decisions. President Obama’s proposed budget would extend the stimulus act, providing roughly $2 billion of these funds – an important down payment. We urge stakeholders to join the Governor and legislative leaders in their advocacy for federal funds owed, more equitable funding formula, and greater program flexibility.

In the absence of the federal government being a fuller partner with the state in support of the nation’s lowest-cost Medicaid program, the Governor’s budget proposes $3.5 billion in additional HHS spending reductions – cuts that reflect programs that are not required by federal law, including Healthy Families, CalWORKs and the In-Home Supportive Services program.

The years of making minor adjustments to health and human service programs to achieve modest savings are behind us for some time. With court action blocking bipartisan efforts to achieve savings in these programs, our options are getting narrower every year. Real conversations must begin now on how we control the growing costs of health and human services in our state, and how we preserve them going into the future.

There are opportunities before us in the near term to advance necessary and overdue program improvements and more responsible cost control strategies through delivery system reforms – namely, through renewal of the Medi-Cal financing waiver.

The waiver provides an opportunity to “bend the Medi-Cal cost curve” by supporting organized heath care delivery systems that ensure better coordination of care and more efficient use of public funds to assist seniors and persons with disabilities – the vast majority of whom receive their care through an uncoordinated fee for service system that does not integrate primary, acute, substance abuse, mental health, social and long-term care support needs.

The waiver also offers an opportunity to expand health coverage beyond the150,000 low-income Californians covered by our current waiver. Through the current waiver, counties have advanced innovations in specialty care and network development, and creating efficiencies in health care delivery. Through the new waiver, California can build upon and strengthen that foundation.

We recognize and anticipate the issues and concerns regarding pending budget proposals raised by stakeholders, advocates and others. We understand and acknowledge the advocacy efforts that advocates have and will continue to bring to the difficult decisions facing our state.

Reasonable people can disagree on the scope and nature of the proposed budget reductions, but there can be no disagreement regarding the gravity of the budget crisis, the urgency for action and the need for leadership to chart a course through difficult fiscal times.

The Governor’s proposed budget can begin the discussion.

Kim Belshé is secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency.

 

Steinberg, Arnold make joint plea in DC

Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg. Photo from Steinberg's office.

Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg has joined Gov.  Arnold Schwarzenegger in Washington D.C. for a two-pronged bipartisan push for more aid and federal breaks for California. Steinberg message, according to his staff, is this:

Without additional federal assistance, California will be forced to make budget-balancing decisions that will further delay California’s economic recovery.  A sustained national economic recovery is not possible without California.  And the budget deficit problems facing California are neither unique nor self-inflicted.  At least 40 other states this year are confronting unprecedented budget deficits that are a product of a national recession caused by forces outside of California’s control.

Steinberg’s press secretary, Nathan Barankan, said Steinberg agrees with most of Schwarzenegger’s requests to the feds. Here, in Barankan’s words, is where they are not in sync:

–The Governor is only asking for a 9-month extenstion of the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund dollars.  Senator Steinberg has requested a 12-month extension.

–Senator Steinberg strongly supports federal healthcare reform efforts, and remains confident that congress and the President will ensure that the final version of such reform will ensure that California is able to afford it.

– The Governor seeks federal approval of various utilization controls and benefit limits in Medi-Cal.  Senator Steinberg supports the concept of greater state flexibility, but is not prepared to endorse the Governor’s requests before they can be thoroughly evaluated to ensure the changes are not harmful to Californians.

 
 
 

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

©2013 HealthyCal.org