One big disaster for Massachusetts health care
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
One major impact of the bill they'll need to contend with is the new administrative barriers, like work requirements, it created for enrollees in MassHealth, the state Medicaid program for low-income residents.
Advertisement
While the vast majority of Medicaid recipients are already working or would qualify for an exemption, states with work requirements typically
State officials should work with community organizations, health care providers, and consumer advocates like Health Care for All on a public education and assistance campaign that informs MassHealth enrollees of the new requirements and helps them fill out paperwork.
Advertisement
The bill will also require states to redetermine enrollees' eligibility for MassHealth twice a year instead of annually.
To satisfy that requirement, the state should also work on establishing automated systems that let information be verified through data-matching, so the state uses information it collects through other state agencies (like unemployment insurance filings) to confirm eligibility for MassHealth. The good news is state officials
While the goal should be keeping people insured, some residents will lose insurance for paperwork reasons, or because they can no longer afford it, or because they lose eligibility. For example, many immigrants who have legal status in the US but not permanent residency (like refugees or asylum seekers) will no longer be eligible for Medicaid or for subsidies from Massachusetts' Health Connector.
It's also still unknown whether Congress will extend
Of course, people without insurance will still get sick, and they are likely to land in hospital emergency rooms.
Massachusetts' Health Safety Net fund, which helps hospitals pay for uncompensated care, is
The financial hits to Medicaid will come from several policy changes included in the bill. The biggest ones are restrictions on the extent to which the state can rely on provider taxes and state-directed payments, which are complicated methods by which the state uses state money (including fees collected from hospitals and providers) to draw federal Medicaid matching money, then distributes that money back to health care providers (hospitals, nursing homes, and community health centers).
Advertisement
There are no easy answers as the Legislature and governor decide how to respond.
Lawmakers will likely face pressure to raise new revenues through taxes or dip into the state's $8.1 billion rainy day fund to avoid major cuts to MassHealth benefits or eligibility. But the magnitude of the cuts will make it impossible for the state to backfill the entire amount.
At the same time, ripples from the Medicaid cuts will affect the entire health care system. The organization
There will likely be targeted areas where the state will want to replace federal with state money — for example, if money is need to avoid the shuttering of essential services, like a rural hospital's emergency room or the sole regional facility for labor and delivery. There may need to be cuts to MassHealth benefits, and enrollees will be forced to pay new federally required copays for many services. Some rates paid to providers may be cut.
Advertisement
Massachusetts also needs to negotiate a new waiver with federal Medicaid officials by the end of 2027, which sets the parameters around how MassHealth is structured and what services the federal government will cover. Massachusetts Congressman Jake Auchincloss suggested, in an interview with the editorial board, that the state could seek to negotiate more state flexibility and autonomy in running its own program — for example, to make enrollment easier, to experiment with pilot programs, do more with alternative payment systems, or get paid for investments that save Medicare money, like community-based care for seniors.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the state convened state policy experts and stakeholders to respond to the crisis. The Healey administration should consider reviving that model today.
In a time of scarcity, it's tempting for each segment of the industry to protect its turf. It would be far better to put state policy makers in a room with representatives of hospitals, community health centers, insurers, nursing homes, drug companies, patient advocates, and other health system stakeholders so they can collaborate and chart a path forward that's in the best interest of the Commonwealth's residents.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
4 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Democracy dies on the shadow docket
The shadow docket is the term I and other legal analysts — most notably Stephen Vladeck, who These issues are usually resolved in an expedited way, usually with minimal filings and no oral arguments. The resulting written orders are often unsigned, if there is any written order at all. Advertisement Contrast that to the merits docket, where issues are decided after the parties brief their arguments, friend-of-the-court briefs are filed, and arguments are set. Then the court issues an opinion that clearly shows how each justice voted. The reason: These opinions create precedent that the court and lower courts must follow, whereas shadow docket rulings are meant to pertain only to the case in which it arises. But that distinction has become blurred, and the result has been astonishing. Consider this week's shadow docket order allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to decimate the Department of Education by firing thousands of its employees. President Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon that limit. Unfortunately, by then, the department will probably already have been destroyed. That reality is one reason Boston-based US District Judge Myong J. Joun We don't know, and that is a major problem with such consequential decisions on the shadow docket. The majority Advertisement 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,' Sotomayor wrote in her 19-page dissent. In it, she called the majority's ruling 'indefensible.' She's right, because this is 'It's really not acceptable that this Court is allowing Trump to dismantle the federal government without even a hint of legal reason or explanation,' UCLA law professor Blake Emerson 'The Court's Republican majority gave the thumbs up to mass firings, without any explanation whatsoever,' I previously Advertisement I can only guess that that is the point. This is an excerpt from , a newsletter about the Supreme Court from columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
ICE Accessing Medicaid Data Raises Privacy, Health Concerns
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will begin giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) access to personal Medicaid records, a decision that has ignited outrage from experts who warn that the move is illegal. Why It Matters The decision to allow ICE access to Medicaid data marks a significant shift in how health information is used in immigration enforcement. It's the latest development in the Trump administration's hard-line immigration agenda and has sparked concerns among experts about its potential to violate medical privacy laws and deter vulnerable populations from seeking care. The agreement is the latest in a series of actions that have aligned the Health Department with the Trump administration's immigration enforcement efforts. On July 10, the department expanded its interpretation of a law that restricts most immigrants from accessing federal public benefits. Federal agents standing outside an immigration court at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building in New York on July 17. Federal agents standing outside an immigration court at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building in New York on July 17. Yuki Iwamura/AP What To Know The Trump administration's policy change allows ICE to use data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS)—including medical diagnoses, treatment history, home addresses and ethnicity—to locate and detain undocumented immigrants. Critics say the unprecedented use of sensitive health records for immigration enforcement marks a dangerous breach of both legal precedent and ethical norms. In response, the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network (CPEHN), a medical justice coalition, called the action cruel. Kiran Savage-Sangwan, CPEHN's executive director, said the policy could have devastating ripple effects on public health. "Health advocates are shocked and outraged by this deeply cruel and blatantly illegal action that threatens health care for millions," Savage-Sangwan said in a statement shared with Newsweek. "The Trump Administration aims to weaponize records of patients who accessed treatment for cancer, heart attacks, or their children's broken arms to not only accelerate its mass deportation agenda, but to further spread fear in communities already terrorized by ICE," she said. "For generations, federal law has guaranteed emergency medical care to anyone in need because as a nation we believe deeply that saving lives transcends politics," she added. The agreement, first reported on Thursday by the Associated Press, was signed on Monday. "ICE will use the CMS data to allow ICE to receive identity and location information on aliens identified by ICE," the agreement said, according to AP. "President Trump consistently promised to protect Medicaid for eligible beneficiaries," Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said. "To keep that promise after Joe Biden flooded our country with tens of millions of illegal aliens, CMS and DHS are exploring an initiative to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits that are meant for law-abiding Americans," she continued. Medicaid, the public health insurance program for low-income individuals, is funded jointly by states and the federal government. While undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid under federal law, 14 states and the District of Columbia offer coverage to eligible children regardless of immigration status. Seven of those states, along with D.C., also extend coverage to adults. Federal law has long protected access to emergency medical care regardless of immigration status. Advocates argue that the new agreement undermines decades of precedent and threatens to erode public trust in health institutions—not only among undocumented individuals but across all communities. "If upheld, Trump's policy to use sensitive medical data, which includes data on the types of health care services individuals receive, along with home addresses and ethnicities, for enforcement represents an irreparable turning point, forcing immigrant families to endure immense suffering or risk having their families torn apart," Savage-Sangwan said. "What's more, it marks a significant breach of trust for all Americans who have confidence in the privacy of our medical data," she continued. An HHS spokesperson told Newsweek: "CMS is aggressively cracking down on states that may be misusing federal Medicaid funds to subsidize care for illegal immigrants. This oversight effort—supported by lawful interagency data sharing with DHS—is focused on identifying waste, fraud, and systemic abuse." What People Are Saying CPEHN Executive Director Kiran Savage-Sangwan said in a statement: "We call on the courts to act swiftly to stop this unprecedented and dangerous violation of law." An HHS spokesperson told Newsweek: "With respect to the recent data sharing between CMS and DHS, HHS acted entirely within its legal authority—and in full compliance with all applicable laws—to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them."
2 hours ago
Georgia shows rough road ahead for states as Medicaid work requirements loom
This is a KFF Health News story. Every time Ashton Alexander sees an ad for Georgia Pathways to Coverage, it feels like a "kick in the face." Alexander tried signing up for Pathways, the state's limited Medicaid expansion, multiple times and got denied each time, he said, even though he met the qualifying terms because he's a full-time student. Georgia is one of 10 states that haven't expanded Medicaid health coverage to a broader pool of low-income adults. Instead, it offers coverage to those who can prove they're working or completing 80 hours a month of other qualifying activities, like going to school or volunteering. And it is the only state currently doing so. "Why is this marketing out here?" said the 20-year-old, who lives in Conyers, east of Atlanta. "It's truly not accessible." Each denial used the same boilerplate language, Alexander said, and his calls to caseworkers were not returned. State offices couldn't connect him with caseworkers assigned to him from the same state agency. And when he requested contact information for a supervisor to appeal his denial, he said, the number rang to a fax machine. "It's impenetrable," Alexander said. "I've literally tried everything, and there's no way." Millions of Americans trying to access Medicaid benefits could soon find themselves navigating similar byzantine state systems and work rules. Legislation signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4 allocates $200 million to help states that expanded Medicaid create systems by the end of next year to verify whether some enrollees are meeting the requirements. Conservative lawmakers have long argued that public benefits should go only to those actively working to get off of government assistance. But the nation's only Medicaid work requirement program shows they can be costly for states to run, frustrating for enrollees to navigate, and disruptive to other public benefit systems. Georgia's budget for marketing is nearly as much as it has spent on health benefits. Meanwhile, most enrollees under age 65 are already working or have a barrier that prevents them from doing so. What Georgia shows is "just how costly setting up these administrative systems of red tape can be," said Joan Alker, executive director of Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families. Over the past two years, KFF Health News has documented the issues riddling Georgia's Pathways program, launched in July 2023. More than 100,000 Georgians have applied to the program through March. Just over 8,000 were enrolled at the end of June, though about 300,000 would be eligible if the state fully expanded Medicaid under the terms of the Affordable Care Act. The program has cost more than $100 million, with only $26 million spent on health benefits and more than $20 million allocated to marketing contracts, according to a KFF Health News analysis of state reports. "That was truly a pretty shocking waste of taxpayer dollars," Alker said. The Government Accountability Office is investigating the costs of the program after a group of Democratic senators -- including both members of the Georgia delegation -- asked the government watchdog to look into the program. Findings are expected this fall. A state report to the federal government from March said Georgia couldn't effectively determine if applicants meet the qualifying activities criteria. The report also said the state hadn't suspended anyone for failing to work, a key philosophical pillar of the program. Meanwhile, as of March, more than 5,000 people were waiting to have their eligibility verified for Pathways. The Pathways program has strained Georgia's eligibility system for other public benefits, such as food stamps and cash assistance. In April, the state applied to the federal government to renew Pathways. In its application, officials scaled back key elements, such as the requirement that enrollees document work every month. Critics of the program also say the red tape doesn't help enrollees find jobs. "Georgia's experience shows that administrative complexity is the primary outcome, not job readiness," said Natalie Crawford, executive director of Georgia First, which advocates for fiscal responsibility and access to affordable health care. Despite the struggles, Garrison Douglas, a spokesperson for Georgia's Republican governor, Brian Kemp, defended the program. "Georgia Pathways is doing what it was designed to do: provide free healthcare coverage to low-income, able-bodied Georgians who are willing to engage in one of our many qualifying activities," he said in an emailed statement. New federal requirements in the tax and spending legislation mean that the 40 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that expanded Medicaid will need to prepare technology to process the documentation some Medicaid recipients will now have to regularly file. The federal law includes exemptions for people with disabilities, in addiction treatment, or caring for kids under 14, among others. The Trump administration said other states won't face a bumpy rollout like Georgia's. "We are fully confident that technology already exists that could enable all parties involved to implement work and community engagement requirements," said Mehmet Oz, head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in an emailed statement. In a written public comment on Georgia's application to extend the program, Yvonne Taylor of Austell detailed the difficulties she faced trying to enroll. She said she tried to sign up several times but that her application was not accepted. "Not once, not twice, but three times. With no response from customer service," she wrote in February. "So now I am without coverage." Victoria Helmly of Marietta wrote in a January comment that she and her family members take care of their dad, but the state law doesn't exempt caregivers of older adults. "Georgia should recognize their sacrifices by supporting them with health insurance," she wrote. "Let's simplify this system and in the end, save money and lives."
