We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expands eligibility to the
Medicaid program by requiring participating states, by 2014, to
cover nearly all people under age 65 with household incomes at or
below 133% below the federal poverty level. Medicaid is jointly
funded by federal and state funds and the ACA requires the federal
government to cover 100% of this expansion from 2014 through 2016,
with gradual reductions beginning in 2017 until it reaches 90%
funding in 2020 and continuing thereafter. Because federal funds
are necessary for states to provide Medicaid, the states are
arguing this expansion is "coercion" meaning they are
being forced to provide Medicare coverage even though technically
Medicaid is a voluntary program to the states.
If the Medicaid expansion is struck down, millions of low income
patients who would be qualified under the expanded eligibility
provisions will lose access to health coverage. Kaiser Family
Foundation estimates that as a result of the ACA changes Medicaid
enrollment is projected to increase by 15.9 million by 2019. These
individuals likely would not be able to afford to purchase health
insurance coverage in the Exchanges (were the Court to uphold those
provisions of the law) or on the individual market.
If these individuals lack health insurance coverage they are
less likely to see a health care provider until their condition
worsen to the point where they need emergency care. This could
result in not only an increase in overall health care costs, but
would mean providers likely would not be compensated for the care
they provide; a situation exacerbated by the payment reductions to
hospitals and other providers called for under the ACA. Moreover,
the ACA increased Medicaid reimbursement rates (which are
historically low in most areas of the country) to Medicare
reimbursement levels in order to encourage more providers to treat
Medicaid patients to the benefit of both existing and newly
eligible beneficiaries. Were the Court to strike these provisions,
many of the individuals currently in the Medicaid program will
likely continue to face challenges in finding providers who will
treat them.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
After a four-week retrial, a federal jury concluded on May 8, 2013 that Tuomey Healthcare System (Tuomey) violated both the Stark Law and the False Claims Act (FCA).
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced revisions to its State Operations Manual that change the complaint survey investigation process and typical timeline for resolution.
On May 21, 2013, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released details regarding a $400,000 settlement with Idaho State University for alleged violations of the HIPAA Security Rule.
On April 5, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service officially issued proposed regulations addressing the requirement under Section 501(r)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that tax-exempt hospitals conduct community health needs assessments.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments last month in the matter of Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a curious case that does not bode well for America’s biotechnology industry and could overturn 30 years of U.S. patent policy.
Earlier this month, the Lobbying and Advocacy Group’s Medicare Reimbursement and Health Policy Director, Anna Schwamlein Howard, partnered with Drinker Biddle attorneys Jeremy Shapiro-Barr and Douglas Swill on a client alert.
Recap Of Fenwick's 2013 Digital Health Investor Summit (Video Content)
