7 days ago
One big disaster for Massachusetts health care
Get The Gavel
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
