IBJNews

Fee could feed $100M to hospitals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana hospitals could pull in more than $100 million a year from the federal government under a new assessment fee included in the state’s 2011 budget bill.

The law, approved April 29 by the Legislature, authorizes a hospital assessment fee of roughly $200 million a year, which would be paid by the state’s roughly 120 hospitals.

The Indiana Medicaid program would use the extra money to increase its payments to hospitals that treat low-income patients covered by Medicaid. The higher payments in turn would draw extra money from the federal government, which matches state hospital payments at roughly a 2-to-1 ratio.

“There is the potential to draw down new dollars that we up until now we have not been leveraging. It is a bigger pie,” said Brian Tabor, vice president of government relations for the Indiana Hospital Association. IBJ first reported about the fee on April 11.

The new plan could also generate new revenue for the state, since the law directs 28.5 percent of the federal revenue generated under the program to the Indiana Medicaid program. That looks like it could boost state revenues by roughly $50 million a year, according to estimates by the Indiana Legislative Services Agency and the Indiana Hospital Association.

Thirty-four states already have hospital assessment fees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. And Indiana has a similar assessment fee for nursing homes.

The particulars of the hospital fee must now be worked out by a committee and submitted for approval to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS. Its work could change the estimate of $100 million a year for hospitals, Tabor said.

The four-member committee has a deadline of Oct. 1 to submit a plan to CMS. If approved, it would affect Medicaid services retroactively to July 1, 2011.

The committee will be led by Michael Gargano, the secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, which administrates the Indiana Medicaid program. The other three members will be appointed by Gov. Mitch Daniels, with two of the seats based on suggestions by the Indiana Hospital Association.

Indiana Medicaid currently pays very low rates to health care providers for serving Medicaid patients. But it tries to boost payments to hospitals through a complex mechanism known as intergovernmental transfers. Counties operating hospitals can transfer money to the state, which uses it to boost payments to hospitals, thereby drawing down more revenue from the federal government, which then flows back to the county-run hospitals.

But that system of supplemental payments, known as Upper Payment Limit, only applies to Medicaid patients that pay hospitals on a fee-for-service basis. Those patients accounted for about 65 percent of the $922 million Indiana Medicaid paid to hospitals last year.

The remaining 35 percent of the dollars were spent through Medicaid managed care plans, such as Hoosier Healthwise, and were not eligible for the UPL supplementary payments.

So by replacing the UPL supplementary payment system with the new hospital assessment fee, hospitals would be able to get higher payments for all Medicaid patients, whether under a fee-for-service program or under a managed care program.

The fee revenue and additional federal reimbursement—estimated to be $600 million per year—would also be used to make disproportionate share payments to hospitals seeing large numbers of indigent patients. In 2009, such payments topped $143 million.

Tabor said the assessment fee committee will have to come up with a new plan on how to distribute money, exactly how to calculate the fee, and other details.

He said the new plan should help Indiana when the Medicaid program expands as stipulated by the federal health reform law of 2010, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

By 2020, Indiana officials expect nearly 500,000 additional Hoosiers to enroll in Medicaid, because people with higher incomes will be eligible for benefits.

Hospitals stand to benefit if they receive higher payments on all those patients—even if they have to pay a fee in order to make it happen.

“I think what we need to do now, with the expansion of Medicaid, is obtain better reimbursement,” Tabor said.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • surprise?!
    not really, the best/ only way to nake the entire 'system' fair and equitable for patients and providers is to enact Medicare-for-All which would eliminate this problem altogether...it's what other 'civilized countries do (of course their govts are not held hostage by the corporate state!)

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

ADVERTISEMENT