As Congress continues to negotiate the budget reconciliation package, support to protect federal funding for Medicaid continues to grow. Earlier this month, 12 Republican members of the House of the Representatives sent a
letter to Republican leadership saying that they will not support a final budget reconciliation package that includes any reductions to Medicaid, while governors of both parties have publicly called for keeping Medicaid funding intact.
Medicaid helps cover long term care for older adults and people with disabilities. For nursing homes, Medicaid is the primary source of coverage for nearly
two-thirds of residents, making it vital to ensuring our most vulnerable have continued access to high quality care.
Any reduction to Medicaid, including
provider taxes that help states finance their Medicaid programs, would directly impact nursing home residents across the country. Most nursing homes are already struggling to stay afloat because Medicaid is underfunded, so further reductions could mean more nursing home closures, impacting seniors, caregivers, and communities.
As lawmakers seek to identify specific government savings and address Medicaid program integrity, governors, experts, and health care leaders are making it clear that provider taxes should remain. They have been a legitimate tool for decades to help bridge Medicaid’s shortfall, have reasonable restrictions, and are reviewed by federal policymakers to ensure they meet requirements. More importantly, they help protect access to care for our nation’s most vulnerable.
“In my view, the provider taxes are a good thing. By partially funding the state Medicaid program with an assessment on hospitals, we can avoid tax increases on our citizens. That’s a conservative cornerstone, and I am proud to defend it.”
“A cut is a cut as a cut, right? Ultimately, any federal reduction in Medicaid support to a state trickles down to the patient because the state has to decide what they’re going to do with their resources. If they have less resources, that usually results in some reduction in services or coverage.”
“The statute is very clear, that the state has many mechanisms they can use to finance their share of the Medicaid program. Among them are appropriate tax situations, ways that they can set up provider taxes to pay for their benefits. I don't think from my perspective that it's a hundred percent fair to say that because provider taxes are allowed in the system that it's money laundering or that it's resulting in services that shouldn't otherwise be provided.”
“Reducing or eliminating the flexibility to use provider taxes would result in devastating financial losses for states, deep damage to state health care infrastructure, and most importantly, harmful impacts on access to health care for children, families, seniors, and people with disabilities.”
“Any suggestion that provider taxes are anything but longstanding, legally vetted, state and federally approved tax arrangements, is dishonest and a distraction from what these proposals truly are — a way to cut the Medicaid program.”
Ryan Cross, vice president of government affairs at Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System:
“If you end provider taxes, you’re going to shift that burden to the state, either harming Medicaid patients and healthcare-provider reimbursement, or leading to higher state and local taxes.”