IBJNews

Fee could feed $100M to hospitals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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. In my opinion the estridge companies are crooks. They filed bankruptcy on their 'track housing' side of the business two weeks before they closed on one of my clients' homes. When my client first interviewed Estridge as a builder 6 months before, they specifically ASKED about the solvency of their business, knowing that some builders were struggling. Estridge truly misrepresented their financial situation at that time. I suppose I am more unhappy with the whole system than I am with the builder because what the heck==you can file bankruptcy on 'track homes' but still keep building and make money off of 'custom built' homes??? How ridiculous! They are all homes. How can a company be allowed to bilk thousands of dollars from their subcontractors but still be allowed to build houses?? they should have been made to pay back all their unpaid contractors before being allowed to profit from building any more houses! This alone makes them and the system crooks in my eyes. I would never build an estridge home and I would not recommend for my clients either. If they were truly 'bankrupt' how could they afford to keep building homes anyway??? The whole system needs fixed.

  2. I live a couple blocks east of the Angie's campus and my house is assessed for ~$160,000. If I could get that amount, let alone $384,000 (a 140% bonus), I'd sell in a minute. Either Angie's stockholders just got fleeced, or Angie's is getting about a 58% discount on their property taxes, if these properties are actually worth what they paid Mr. Oesterle for them. Which do you think is the case?

  3. Perhaps the IMA board is really to blame! They agreed to hire Charles. They can't seemingly find donors among themselves, or bring in new blood that will support the museums operating budget with an expanded museum and money to provide curators with something to do (ie buy art). The headlines of disarray at the museum and mass firings are hurting the reputation of the museum for some time to come. If people on the board had misgivings, perhaps they shpuld have more forcefully opposed efforts that they have seemingly been unable to fund, like expansion and the costs it has created!

  4. See, I told u Indyman and Dipsicle....this 8 days is overkill. It's barely worth a weekend....great job Tony George! Your dream has been fulfilled....he fans want the I r l back. Thats how good it was.....and that sucked.

  5. I have been in training for a short time now but right off I can see that safety and quality are the number one issues, my experience as of late has been a positive one, the employees along with Jeff the plant manager and the operation supervisor as well as the engineers are a highly motivated group of people, what an asset for the area to have and for company's in need of a quality metal products.

ADVERTISEMENT