Posts

Supreme Court Paves Way for Public Charge Regulation

The revised public charge regulation that will make it more difficult for some immigrants to come to the U.S. will be implemented after the Supreme Court lifted preliminary injunctions issued by lower courts that delayed the regulation’s implementation.

Under revisions of the public charge regulation introduced last year, individuals seeking entry into the U.S. and green cards who do not appear to be financially independent or have employment commitments can be denied entry if they will be dependent on means-tested public aid programs such as Medicaid or food stamps or even if they, or members of their family, appear likely to become dependent on such aid in the near future.

A number of judges throughout the country blocked the administration’s implementation of revisions of the public charge rule.  The Supreme Court’s action only lifts those injunction; it does not address the constitutionality of the regulation, leaving that matter to continue to be addressed by lower courts for now.

The challenge posed to health care providers by the updated public charge regulation is as much a matter of perception as reality:  individuals already legally in the U.S. who are not subject to the regulation have withdrawn from Medicaid out of fear of deportation while others who also are in the country legally and qualify for Medicaid are choosing not to apply for benefits for the same reason.  This, in turn, may leave some providers with more uncompensated care instead of Medicaid reimbursement for the care they provide to some of their patients.

The National Alliance of Safety-Net Hospitals has conveyed its opposition to the public charge regulation to both Congress and the administration.  In a message to Congress, NASH wrote that “The new public charge regulation threatens the health of families and communities and threatens the ability of private safety-net hospitals to serve those families and those communities.”  In response to the proposed changes in the regulation, NASH wrote in a formal comment letter on behalf of private safety-net hospitals that it

…believes the proposed regulation could have a chilling effect on the willingness of many legal citizens and legal non-citizens to seek out government health care programs for which they legally qualify. This could lead to millions of low-income legal citizens and legal non-citizens choosing not to seek the care to which they are entitled by law and ignoring serious illnesses and injuries until they become a crisis. When such individuals have no choice but to turn to hospital emergency departments in search of care – something hospital emergency departments are required by law to provide regardless of a patient’s ability to pay – this could overwhelm those facilities and would do so to the detriment of other patients while also producing a surge of uncompensated care, especially for private safety-net hospitals. That, in turn, could jeopardize the jobs of thousands who work in those hospitals and the economies of the communities in which those hospitals are located. It could also jeopardize access to care for residents of these same communities – including ordinary people who receive their health care coverage from private insurers and Medicare.

See NASH’s entire comment letter here.

Learn more about the Supreme Court’s decision and how it affects implementation of the public charge regulation in the New York Times article “Supreme Court Allows Trump’s Wealth Test for Green Cards.”

 

NASH Unveils 2020 Advocacy Agenda

The National Alliance of Safety-Net Hospitals has published its 2020 advocacy agenda.

To advance the interests of private safety-net hospitals, in the coming year NASH will:

  • Continue to address the major policy challenges of 2019 that had not been resolved as that year ended:  an extended delay of Medicaid disproportionate share (Medicaid DSH) cuts, surprise medical bills, and prescription drug prices.
  • Respond to administration-driven policies such as the calculation of Medicare disproportionate share (Medicare DSH) payments, reduced payments for prescription drugs under the 340B prescription drug discount program, and efforts to reduce Medicaid eligibility and benefits and to limit the means through which states may finance their share of Medicaid payments.
  • Respond to expected judicial decisions addressing the extension of site-neutral Medicare outpatient payments to additional outpatient settings and the implementation of a new public charge regulation.

For a more detailed look at NASH’s advocacy plans for the coming year, see its complete 2020 advocacy agenda.

NASH Seeks Medicaid Exemption From New Public Charge Regulation

Congress should exempt Medicaid enrollment from the criteria in a new federal regulation that defines “public charge” or even overturn that regulation entirely, the National Alliance of Safety-Net Hospitals has declared in a new position statement.

The new statement, developed to coincide with NASH Advocacy Day in Washington, D.C. last week, notes that the fear of being designated a public charge will discourage many immigrants, including those to whom the new regulation does not even apply, from obtaining the medical care they need.  As a result, as many as 13 million legal immigrants are expected to disenroll from Medicaid out of fear of being labeled a public charge or choose not to enroll in the program even though they are entitled to Medicaid benefits.  Those found to be public charges risk losing green card status or even deportation.

Such individuals, NASH believes, will inevitably turn to private safety-net hospitals and others for care when they are sick or injured, placing great financial stress on these hospitals and potentially jeopardizing their ability to serve their communities.  For this reason, NASH has urged Congress to remove Medicaid participation from the criteria defining a public charge or to overturn the new regulation completely.

Learn more in the new NASH position paper “Challenges Posed by the New Public Charge Regulation.”

 

New Public Charge Rule Could Affect Immigrants, Providers

Legal immigrants may become reluctant to seek government-sponsored health care and providers may find themselves delivering more uncompensated care in the wake of the adoption of a new federal “public charge” regulation that seeks to define more narrowly the kinds of individuals who should be granted entry to the U.S. in the future.

The new Department of Homeland Security regulation, while focused on applicants for entry into the U.S., could have the unintended effect of discouraging legal immigrants from enrolling in Medicaid, CHIP, and other government programs and even lead them to disenroll from such programs out of a mistaken concern that participating in such programs could jeopardize their status as legal immigrants.  The Kaiser Family Foundation, in fact, estimates that two to three million people will leave Medicaid and CHIP because of the new regulation.

More than a quarter of a million interested parties responded to the proposed regulation, which was published last October, and since its release last week a wide variety of groups, ranging from the American Hospital Association and America’s Essential Hospitals to the American Council of Pediatrics, have noted the new regulation’s potential impact with alarm.  Hospitals, in particular, are concerned that if people disenroll from Medicaid and CHIP, they will end up providing more uncompensated care to patients who previously had health insurance through those two public programs.

This could be especially challenging for private safety-net hospitals because many are located in communities with large numbers of low-income legal immigrants.

Learn more about the new public charge regulation and health care providers’ reaction to it in the Fierce Healthcare article “Healthcare industry groups warn final ‘public charge’ rule could impact immigrant health, drive up costs.”

“Public Charge” Proposal Raises Potential Issues for Safety-Net Hospitals

A proposal by the Department of Homeland Security could make it more difficult for some immigrants to stay in the U.S. permanently by scrutinizing more closely whether they might become a “public charge” if they remain in the country and rejecting those who appear likely to do so.

By “public charge” the draft Homeland Security regulation refers to people who might depend or come to depend heavily on government assistance if they remain in the country.

If implemented, such a regulation might discourage immigrants from enrolling in government health care programs, which could endanger their health and make it more difficult for urban safety-net hospitals to serve their communities, many of which have large numbers of immigrants.  The regulation also might encourage some people to drop out of government programs that provide services they need.

NASH is concerned about the potential impact of this regulation on private safety-net hospitals and intends to submit formal comments about the proposal.  Comments are due by mid-December.

To learn more about the proposed regulation, see this Washington Post article or go here to see proposed regulation itself.