Posts

Safety-Net Hospitals Gird for Loss of Medicaid DSH Money

Safety-net hospitals and others will lose a significant portion of their Medicaid disproportionate share (Medicaid DSH) payments on November 22 unless Congress delays implementation of the cut in those payments that was mandated by the Affordable Care Act.

And hospitals that receive these payments are now preparing for the worst.

The Medicaid DSH cut was included in the 2010 health care reform law in anticipation of a great reduction in the number of uninsured people leaving hospitals providing much less uncompensated care and therefore not in need of as much DSH money.  The law’s reach has not proven to be as great as anticipated, however, and two developments since the law’s passage have put a damper on the expected rise in the number of insured Americans:  a court decision that made it optional for states to expand their Medicaid program and the repeal of the requirement that everyone purchase health insurance.

Four times Congress has voted to delay the Medicaid DSH cut because so many people remained uninsured.  Now, however, the most recent delay in implementation of the cut, via a provision in the continuing resolution currently funding the federal government, expires on November 21, and hospitals – many of them already with razor-thin margins – are preparing for the worst:  a major reduction of their federal Medicaid DSH money.

NASH has asked Congress to delay the implementation of Medicaid DSH cuts on numerous occasions, citing their potential impact on the ability of private-safety-net hospitals to serve their communities.  NASH most recently made this request in September, urging members of Congress to support the continuing bipartisan effort to delay the cut.

Learn more about the prospect of a major Medicaid DSH cut later this month, how it might affect safety-net hospitals – including the kinds of private safety-net hospitals represented by NASH – and what some hospitals are doing to prepare for the possibility in the Stateline article “Rural and Safety Net Hospitals Prepare for Cut in Federal Support.”

CMS Adopts Methodology for Medicaid DSH Cuts

Medicaid DSH money will be allocated among states based on a new methodology under a regulation adopted this week by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

But it is not clear when that new methodology may actually be used.

Cuts in Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (Medicaid DSH) allotments to states were mandated by the Affordable Care Act based on the expectation that the law would greatly reduced the number of uninsured Americans.  While this has been the case, the decline in the number of uninsured has not been as great as expected.  For this reason, Congress has on several occasions delayed the required Medicaid DSH cut.

That cut is now scheduled to take effect next week, on October 1, but a continuing resolution to fund the federal government, passed last week by the House and now under consideration by the Senate, would delay that cut again – at least until November 22.

Private safety-net hospitals view Medicaid DSH as an essential tool in their effort to serve the uninsured and underinsured residents of the low-income communities in which they are located and strongly oppose any reductions in Medicaid DSH allocations to the states.  See a recent NASH policy statement on Medicaid DSH here.

Learn more about the new regulation governing the future allotments of Medicaid DSH money to the states and the prospects for Medicaid DSH allocation cuts being made anytime soon in the Healthcare Dive article “CMS finalizes Medicaid DSH cuts, but Congress could still delay” and see the regulation itself here.

Millions Eligible for Health Insurance Remain Uninsured

More than 15 million Americans who are currently entitled to free or subsidized health insurance are currently uninsured.

Among them are 11 million who are eligible for Medicaid but have not applied for benefits and 4.2 million who could afford insurance with the help of federal premium subsidies and either have decided not to take advantage of those subsidies or are unaware of the availability of such subsidies.

In addition, another two million people would be eligible for Medicaid if their states expanded their Medicaid program as authorized by the Affordable Care Act.

In light of such figures, it is not entirely surprising that the uninsured rate, according to the census bureau, rose last year for the first time since implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  That uninsured rate, 15 percent at the time the law was adopted in 2010, fell to 7.9 percent in 2017 but rose to 8.5 percent in 2018.  The uninsured rate has especially risen among Hispanics and the foreign born.

Another possible reason for the rise in the number of uninsured Americans:  the federal government has greatly reduced its outreach effort to inform people about the various options they have for obtaining insurance.

Learn more about who is uninsured and why the uninsured rate has risen in the Washington Post story “Millions of Americans aren’t getting health insurance, even though they’re eligible for free or affordable plans.”

 

ACA’s Medicaid Pay Bump Helped But Benefits Now Lost, Study Says

Health status and access to care improved for Medicaid patients when the Affordable Care Act mandated a temporary rate increase for physicians serving newly insured patients covered through that law’s Medicaid expansion.

But when the mandate for increased physician payments ended and state Medicaid programs reverted to their previous, lower payments, many of those benefits were lost.

Or so reports a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

According to the study, even a $10 rate increase improved access to care enough to reduce by 13 percent Medicaid recipients’ complaints about not being about to find a doctor.  Utilization also increased.  The temporary Medicaid pay increase has even been credited with improving school attendance and reducing chronic absenteeism.

Despite the benefits of the temporary increase in Medicaid payments to physicians, most states returned to lower payments when the mandated ended, most of the gains resulting from the better pay for treating Medicaid patients disappeared, and the disparities between privately insured individuals and Medicaid patients returned to their pre-Affordable Care Act levels.

Researchers estimate that increasing Medicaid payments to physicians by an average of $26 a visit would eliminate disparities in access to care.

These findings are especially relevant to private safety-net hospitals because the communities they serve have so many more Medicaid patients than the typical American community.

Learn more from the National Bureau of Economic Resarch study “The Impacts of Physician Payments on Patient Access, Use, and Health” and from the Healthcare Dive report “Even $10 increase in Medicaid payments helps erase disparities in care access, study says.”

NASH Comments on Proposed Medicare Regulation (Part 2 of 3)

The National Alliance of Safety-Net Hospitals has submitted formal comments to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in response to the latter’s proposed hospital payment plan for FY 2020.

Responding to the proposed inpatient prospective payment system published by CMS in April, NASH primarily addressed a CMS proposal to change how it calculates Medicare disproportionate share (Medicare DSH) uncompensated care payments and proposed changes in the Medicare area wage index system.

Yesterday, the NASH blog presented the alliance’s written comments about proposed changes in Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments.  Today, it presents a detailed alternative proposal to CMS’s April 2019 recommendation for calculating those payments.  On Thursday the blog presents NASH’s response to proposed changes in the Medicare area wage index system.  The complete NASH response to the proposed CMS regulation can be found here.

Calculation of Medicare DSH Uncompensated Care Payments for FY 2020

Factor 3 represents a hospital’s share (as estimated by the Secretary) of the total uncompensated care provided by all hospitals eligible to receive DSH payments.  CMS has, in recent years, calculated UCC DSH payments using an average of three factor 3 calculations subject to a budget neutrality adjustment that modifies the average factor 3 for each hospital to spend the appropriate amount of money (i.e., factor 1 times factor 2) for the fiscal year.

For the reasons stated in the accompanying comment letter, NASH recommends that for FY 2020, CMS implement year one of a three-year transition to using a three-year average of audited post-transmittal 11 data.  The schedule for this transition would be as follows:

  • Year one (FY 2020) would consist of a blend of 2/3 of a hospital’s 2019 UCC DSH payment with 1/3 of the hospital’s UCC DSH payment based on unaudited 2017 S-10 data. During FY 2020, CMS could engage in audits of the 2017 data.
  • Year two (FY 2021) would consist of a blend of 1/3 of a hospital’s 2019 UCC DSH payment with 2/3 of the hospital’s UCC DSH payment based on the average factor 3 derived from the hospital’s audited 2017 data and unaudited 2018 data. During FY 2021, CMS could engage in audits of the 2018 data.
  • Year three (FY 2022) would consist of an equally weighted blend of the hospital’s audited 2017 and 2018 data and unaudited 2019 data.

Each year thereafter, CMS could continue to engage in audits while rolling forward the three-year average, adding a new year of data to the calculation and dropping the oldest year of data.  The result balances timeliness and accuracy while also maintaining year-over-year stability.

Specifically, for FY 2020, a hospital’s final factor 3 would be calculated by:

  • Calculating for each hospital a preliminary 2017 factor 3 by dividing the hospital’s reported line 30 uncompensated care (subject to any adjustments or trims) by the total reported line 30 uncompensated care (subject to any adjustments or trims) reported by all hospitals expected to receive DSH in FY 2020 on their 2017 cost reports.
  • Calculating for each hospital a blended FY 2020 factor 3 by summing the hospital’s preliminary 2017 factor 3 plus its FY 2019 final factor 3 plus its FY 2019 final factor 3 and dividing by 3 if the hospital received a payment in 2019 and 1 if the hospital received no payment in 2019.
  • Deriving a standardization factor by calculating the average factor 3 for all hospitals projected to receive DSH and dividing the result by 1.0.
  • Calculating each hospital’s final FY 2020 factor 3 by multiplying its blended FY 2020 factor 3 by the standardization factor.

Puerto Rico hospitals, Indian Health Service and Tribal hospitals would continue receive a factor 3 based on low-income insured days from FY 2013.

For 2021, each hospital’s factor three would be based on the three-year average of its 2019 final factor 3, its 2017 factor 3 and its 2018 factor 3.

*          *          *

Tomorrow, see NASH’s comments on CMS’s proposal for changes in the Medicare geographic wage classification system.

See NASH’s entire response to the proposed Medicare regulation here.

NASH Comments on Proposed Medicare Regulation (Part 1 of 3)

The National Alliance of Safety-Net Hospitals has submitted formal comments to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in response to the latter’s proposed hospital payment plan for FY 2020.

Responding to the proposed inpatient prospective payment system published by CMS in April, NASH primarily addressed a CMS proposal to change how it calculates Medicare disproportionate share (Medicare DSH) uncompensated care payments and proposed changes in the Medicare area wage index system.

In this first of three parts, the NASH blog presents the alliance’s written comments about proposed changes in Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments. Tomorrow the blog presents a more detailed look at NASH’s alternative proposal for calculating Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments. On Thursday the blog presents NASH’s response to proposed changes in the Medicare area wage index system. The complete NASH response to the proposed CMS regulation can be found here.

The Calculation of Medicare DSH Uncompensated Care Payments

The Present Challenge

When the Affordable Care Act divided Medicare DSH payments into two components, one of which was a Medicare DSH uncompensated care payment that was to be based entirely on how much uncompensated care hospitals provide, it created a major challenge for policy-makers: how to determine how much uncompensated care hospitals provide. Lacking a clear, credible source of uncompensated care data to use for this purpose, CMS for three years – from 2014 through 2016 – used a proxy for hospital uncompensated care based on two low-income variables: eligible hospitals’ Medicaid patients and their SSI patients.

In 2017, CMS announced that it would move away from this proxy and begin a three-year transition into a different source of data for hospital uncompensated care: line 30 of the S-10 worksheet of the Medicare cost report, where hospitals report their uncompensated care. At that time CMS also announced that it would begin calculating hospitals’ Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments based on three years worth of data. The purpose of using three years of data was to reduce undue fluctuations in hospitals’ Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments from one year to the next.

For years, NASH (previously the National Association of Urban Hospitals) and others have urged CMS to prepare for future use of S-10 data for this purpose in two ways:

  • By improving the instructions for completing the form, which have widely been viewed as confusing and have led to hospitals reporting their uncompensated care in many different ways – including ways it is virtually inconceivable that CMS ever intended. Representatives of NASH met with CMS officials on several occasions in recent years to share examples of hospitals reporting uncompensated care data that totally lacked credibility and to discuss specific aspects of the S-10’s instructions that give rise to inconsistent and inaccurate data reporting.
  • By auditing hospitals’ reported S-10 data to ensure that they are reporting this data accurately and in compliance with the S-10’s instructions. NASH has been urging CMS to audit S-10 data for nine years – ever since passage of the Affordable Care Act created the new Medicare DSH uncompensated care payment and it appeared inevitable that the S-10 would eventually be used in the calculation of that payment. Auditing is necessary because NASH’s reviews of the uncompensated care data hospitals reported on their S-10 in recent years revealed that some hospitals are reporting enormous amounts of uncompensated care that simply cannot be believed in the context of their size, their operating expenses, and their other patient revenue. NASH has shared these reviews with CMS officials on a number of occasions. If left unaddressed, this inaccurate reporting would greatly skew the distribution of the limited pool of Medicare DSH uncompensated care money, inappropriately rewarding some hospitals for their inaccurate data and unfairly penalizing others.

Now, NASH is concerned that while work on both of these tasks is under way, that work remains incomplete at this time. CMS has made progress in improving the S-10’s instructions, as can be seen by what NASH believes are improvements in the quality of the data hospitals are reporting. Despite this, further improvements may still be needed. The auditing is not nearly as far along: as described below, the very limited auditing that has been undertaken so far has been troubled and insufficient.

CMS Proposes Using Flawed Data for FY 2020

In its proposed FY 2020 Medicare inpatient prospective payment system regulation, CMS calls for using uncompensated care data from hospitals’ FY 2015 S-10 forms when calculating FY 2020 Medicare DSH uncompensated care and also asks interested parties to share their view on the possibility of using FY 2017 S-10 data instead of the 2015 data. NASH believes that neither FY 2015 data nor FY 2017 data is suitable for this purpose.

NASH opposes the use of hospitals’ FY 2015 data as the single source of data in the calculation of FY 2020 Medicare DSH uncompensated care reports because while this was the first such uncompensated care data CMS audited, that auditing so far has been not sufficient to give hospitals – and taxpayers – confidence that federal Medicare DSH uncompensated care funds will find their way to the hospitals providing the greatest verified amount of uncompensated care. Among the problems that arose during the first round of auditing were inadequate time frames for hospitals to submit data to auditors; rushed auditing; the use of different auditing methodologies in different parts of the country, between the different Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs), and even within individual MAC regions; and the lack of comprehensive auditing, with only about 20 percent of affected hospitals actually audited. In its proposed FY 2020 Medicare inpatient prospective payment system regulation, CMS revealed that “approximately 10 percent of audited hospitals have more than a $20 million difference between their audited FY 2015 data and their unaudited FY 2016 data.” CMS also observed that some hospitals have suggested that had the S-10 instructions developed for FY 2017 – instructions that clearly represented an improvement over past instructions – been in place when they completed their FY 2015 S-10 reports, those 2015 reports would have had fewer errors and been more accurate. Together, these problems lead NASH to oppose the use of S-10 data from hospitals’ FY 2015 Medicare cost reports in calculating hospitals’ FY 2020 Medicare DSH payments, even when that data has been audited, because auditing was only undertaken for a relatively small proportion of hospitals.

NASH also opposes CMS’s suggested alternative to using FY 2015: using FY 2017 data as the single source of data in the calculation of Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments. That data remains entirely unaudited, and while the instructions that guided hospitals during completion of their S-10 forms for FY 2017 are generally thought to be clearer and better than those used in FY 2015, there is, at least at this time, little reason to believe this unaudited data as a whole is any more accurate and any more credible than FY 2015 data. Upon reviewing this data, NASH found evidence of some improved data but also numerous examples of reported uncompensated care data that simply lack credibility – generally, hospitals reporting so much uncompensated care that it seems inconceivable that their doors could remain open. In addition, while hospitals that did undergo auditing of their FY 2015 data undoubtedly learned lessons that will improve their ability to complete future S-10 reports, 80 percent of DSH-eligible hospitals have not yet undergone those audits and therefore are not better prepared to complete future S-10s worksheets.

One Year of Data is Insufficient

The proposed FY 2020 regulation also calls for another change: calculating FY 2020 payments based on one year of data instead of three, as has been the case in recent years. NASH opposes this shift in approach. With so little auditing completed and the auditing that has been done of questionable value, NASH opposes any methodology for calculating hospitals’ Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments that relies on data from just a single year. In addition to the problems specific to 2015 and 2017 data, outlined above, NASH objects to using data from just one year because the possibility of aberrant data from any one year skewing the distribution of Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments is too great.

CMS is on record expressing this same view, writing in the final FY 2017 regulation that

…because the data used to make uncompensated care payment determinations are not subject to reconciliation after the end of the fiscal year, we believe that it would be appropriate to expand the time period for the data used to calculate Factor 3 from one cost reporting period to three cost reporting periods. We stated that using data from more than one cost reporting period would mitigate undue fluctuations in the amount of uncompensated care payments to hospitals from year to year and smooth over anomalies between cost reporting periods.

Also,

We stated that we believe that computing Factor 3 using data from three cost reporting periods would best stabilize hospitals’ uncompensated care payments while maintaining the recency of the data used in the Factor 3 calculation. We indicated that we believe using data from two cost reporting periods would not be as stable while using data from more than three cost reporting periods could result in using overly dated information.

Until now, CMS had insisted on basing these payments on three years of data even after it shifted from basing payments on the low-income proxy to uncompensated care data as reported on the S-10. Now, however, it proposes changing its approach and basing the payments’ calculation on just a single year of data, leaving hospitals potentially vulnerable to precipitous declines in their Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments because of either one unusual year of their own activity or questionable reporting by other hospitals.

Accuracy in S-10 reporting is so important because Medicare DSH payments are made out of a single pool of federal funds, with hospitals drawing from that pool based on the amount of uncompensated care they provide in comparison to other DSH-eligible hospitals. As a result, every hospital’s reporting affects how much Medicare DSH uncompensated care money every other DSH-eligible hospital receives. Whether the result of misinterpreting the S-10’s instructions, placing the wrong data on the wrong line on the form, an accounting or mathematical error, or an attempt to maximize their potential Medicare DSH uncompensated care revenue, some hospitals could unfairly receive a windfall of Medicare DSH uncompensated care money – and they would do so at the expense of other hospitals, including those that reported their data exactly as CMS intended. Conversely, the same reporting mistakes could result in aberrant data in which some hospitals’ uncompensated care is under-reported, resulting in such hospitals not receiving the Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments to which they should reasonably be entitled.

An Alternative Approach: NASH’s Proposal

NASH proposes an alternative to CMS’s plan for calculating hospitals’ FY 2020 Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments: a three-year proposal that would cover FY 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2022. At the heart of this proposal is NASH’s belief – a belief CMS in the past made very clear that it shares – that these payments should be made based on more than one year of hospitals’ S-10 data. Using more than one year of data would help smooth the overall data and ensure that no single year’s aberrant data, whether the result of reporting error or just an unusual year in the life of a hospital, inappropriately skews calculations in ways that unfairly benefit or harm any hospitals or has wide-ranging effects that can be felt throughout the universe of the approximately 2,430 hospitals that will be eligible for Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments in FY 2020.

NASH has concluded that the more recent the data is, the more likely it will be reliable – or at least closer to reliable – for three reasons: first, CMS has improved the S-10’s instructions since 2015, suggesting that data reported after 2015 should be more reliable than it was that year or prior to that year; second, future auditing should uncover flaws in hospitals’ data reporting practices that hospitals will correct in the future, leading to more accurate reporting as time passes; and third, improved auditing will enable CMS to adjust hospitals’ reported uncompensated care totals, which also should make future data more accurate.

With this in mind – using more recent data, including audited data, and the value of using data from more than one year – NASH suggests that instead of adopting its proposed methodology, CMS instead use the following methodology for calculating Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments over the next three years:

For FY 2020 (year one of three):

Calculate Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments based on a blend that consists two-thirds of the Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments hospitals receive in FY 2019 and one-third on hospitals’ calculated share of the overall Medicare DSH uncompensated care pool for FY 2017.

For FY 2021 (year two of three):

Calculate Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments based on a blend that consists one-third of the Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments hospitals receive in FY 2019 and two-thirds on the average of hospitals’ calculated share of the overall Medicare DSH uncompensated care pool for FY 2017 and FY 2018.

For FY 2022 (year three of three):

Calculate Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments based on the average of hospitals’ calculated share of the overall Medicare DSH uncompensated care pool for FY 2017, FY 2018, and FY 2019.

By using this approach, CMS would reduce the importance of unreliable 2015 data in the calculation of Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments and instead use the most credible data available at the time of the calculation for each of the three years. Most important, adopting NASH’s alternative proposal would buy CMS time: time to improve its auditing, time to do more auditing, time to engage in additional provider education to ensure that hospitals understand how to comply with Medicare’s uncompensated care data reporting requirements, and time to refine the S-10’s instructions still further if the outcome of future auditing suggests that improvements are still needed. NASH’s proposed alternative also would eliminate the need for any auditing of hospitals’ FY 2016 S-10 data, which is not needed to implement this alternative approach. NASH’s proposed approach also takes advantage of the two major advances CMS has implemented in recent years: better S-10 instructions and a commitment to auditing. Together, these steps can help ensure that future uncompensated care data reporting is more accurate and can constitute an appropriate foundation for the calculation of Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments during the next three years and do so without the volatility inherent in potentially significant swings in hospitals’ annual Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments – swings that CMS made a point of expressing its concern about in the past. Until then, NASH believes our alternative approach to that calculation for the next three years would produce more appropriate payments to hospitals

*       *       *

See NASH’s entire response to the proposed Medicare regulation here.

Tomorrow:  more details about NASH’s alternative Medicare DSH uncompensated care proposal.

ACA Tied to Reduced Disparities in Cancer Care

Improved access to health insurance has led to reduced racial disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer.

As reported by the Washington Post,

According to researchers involved in the racial-disparity study, before the ACA went into effect, African Americans with advanced cancer were 4.8 percentage points less likely to start treatment for their disease within 30 days of being given a diagnosis.  But today, black adults in states that expanded Medicaid under the law have almost entirely caught up with white patients in getting timely treatment, researchers said.

Another study found that since the reform law’s implementation in Medicaid expansion states, women are being diagnosed and treated earlier for ovarian cancer than they were in the past.

Many of these patients receiving more timely care are served by private safety-net hospitals, which care for more Medicaid patients than most community hospitals.

Researchers also note that disparities, so often viewed from a racial and socio-demographic perspective, are now being seen on a geographic basis depending on whether individual states expanded their Medicaid program.  As one observer explained,

We are moving from black-white disparities to Massachusetts versus Mississippi disparities.

Learn more from the Washington Post article “ACA linked to reduced racial disparities, earlier diagnosis and treatment in cancer care.”

 

Medicaid Expansion Helps Pregnant Women and Their Babies

An intuitive assumption now has evidence to support it:  Medicaid expansion has improved the health of pregnant women and their babies.

According to a new study from the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute’s Center for Children and Families,

…states that expand Medicaid improve the health of women of childbearing age:  increasing access to preventive care, reducing adverse health outcomes before, during and after pregnancies, and reducing maternal mortality rates.

Better health for women of childbearing age also means better health for their infants.  States that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act saw a 50 percent greater reduction in infant mortality than non-expansion states.

Learn more, including specific health benefits enjoyed by pregnant women and their babies, in the Georgetown study “Medicaid Expansion Fills Gaps in Maternal Health Coverage Leading to Healthier Mothers and Babies.”

Uninsured ED and Inpatient Visits Down Since ACA

Uninsured hospital admissions and emergency department visits are down since passage of the Affordable Care Act.

And Medicaid-covered admissions and ER visits are up, according to a new analysis.

The report, published on the JAMA Network Open, found that ER visits by uninsured patients fell from 16 percent to eight percent between 2006 and 2016, with most of this decline after 2014, while uninsured discharges fell from six percent to four percent.

The rate of uninsured ER visits declined, moreover, at a time when overall ER visits continued to rise.

While the Affordable Care Act is likely the cause of most of these changes, other contributing factors include the emergence of urgent care facilities, telemedicine, and free-standing ERs as well as new payment models and rules.

The study’s findings are especially good news for private safety-net hospitals because they care for so many more low-income patients than other hospitals and have benefited from the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of access to insurance, whether through Medicaid expansion or the private health insurance market.

Learn more in the JAMA Network Open article “US Emergency Department Visits and Hospital Discharges Among Uninsured Patients Before and After Implementation of the Affordable Care Act.”

Delay Medicaid DSH Cuts, Pelosi Says

Medicaid DSH cuts should be delayed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told a gathering of hospital officials.

According to Speaker Pelosi,

DSH cuts threaten to erode the health of community hospitals, safety-net hospitals and rural hospitals, [affecting] the health of not only the families that rely on Medicaid, but any person who relies on these hospitals for care.

NASH has long urged Congress to delay or even eliminate Affordable Care Act-mandated cuts of Medicaid disproportionate share payments, doing so twice in the past week: first in a letter to Senate Finance Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) and then in a message to all House members. NASH believes this cut would be especially harmful for the nation’s private safety-net hospitals.

Learn more about Speaker Pelosi’s remarks in the Becker’s Hospital Review article “House speaker urges Congress to ease Medicaid payment cuts to hospitals serving low-income patients.”