Free State Politics    Maryland's online progressive community
Welcome! Log in or register to comment on the blog posts you see here, or even write your own blog post!
Find out how to use this site, and join the conversation today!

High Cost States: The Coming Children's Health Battleground

by: Melissa

Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:35 PM EDT


( - promoted by Isaac Smith)

According to the New York Times, Dennis G. Smith, the director of the federal Center for Medicaid and State Operations, released a letter at 7:30 PM this past Friday to state health officials.

The letter imposes conditions on states seeking to cover kids with family incomes above 200 percent of the federal poverty line under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) (for more information on SCHIP, see my earlier post).

The conditions are designed to keep high-cost states, like MD, from enrolling kids without private coverage. Essentially to limit the costs of the program to the proposal advanced by Bush, the proposal that the CBO said would lower the number of enrollees by 2012.

Oh, and I’ve included Dennis Smith’s contact information at the end of this entry. If you’re outraged by the end, please take advantage and let him know that the CMS ought not regulate SCHIP in a way that harms poor kids.

Melissa :: High Cost States: The Coming Children's Health Battleground

The conditions:

  • First, states seeking to enroll kids with family incomes above 250 percent of the FPL must prove that they’ve enrolled at least 95 percent of the children in the state with family incomes below 200 percent of the FPL.
  • Second, state SCHIP plans should charge co-payments or premiums that approximate the cost of private coverage.
  • Third, the state must show that the number of children in the target population insured through private employers has not decreased by more than two percentage points over the prior five-year period.
  • And fourth, the state must establish a minimum of a one-year period of uninsurance for individuals before they receive public coverage if they want to make eligible kids with family incomes 250 percent of the FPL or higher.

    On the first, no state has 95 percent of eligible kids enrolled. I believe Vermont has 90 or 92 percent and is the highest in the nation.

    In Maryland, enrollment targets were not met because “[d]ue to fiscal constraints state centralized outreach activities requiring expenditure of funds did not occur in FY2006. The Department continued to provide program brochures and application forms on request, to maintain current program information, including application forms in English and Spanish, on the Department website, and to speak to various groups about the program. Local health departments maintained existing grassroots relationship with community partners, such as local area schools.”

    So, no outreach beyond speaking invitations and the web. I don’t have stats on hand, but I’m guessing that poor, near-poor, and working poor families aren’t spending a lot of time cruising the net. Many don’t have service, many don’t have time, there are language barriers. Of the 622,710 people who speak something other than English in MD, 230,830 speak Spanish. The other biggies are French (40k+), Korean (30k+), Chinese (30k+), Tagalog (18k+) and “African Languages” (36k+).

    That and Maryland felt the burden of the citizenship requirements imposed by the Deficit Reduction Act: “The implementation of the new regulations regarding Citizenship/Identity. Maryland [has] a mail-in application program. This new federal requirement will require all MCHP customers to make a visit to the local Department of Social Services or local health departments to hand deliver their Citizenship/Identity documents. Local health departments are not set up for this type of interviewing process and customer direct contact. Space is limited in most all local health departments. Staffing is an issue with the level funding for the past three years for our Local Health Departments. The hiring freeze for permanent state employees continued throughout FY 2006 and 2007.” (This information is from the MD FY2006 Annual Enrollment Report to the CMS. It is available here after unzipping the file).

    Think about it: If you were an undocumented parent, would you want to produce citizenship documents for your kid – even if s/he had them – in front of government employee?

    On the second, MD already charges families about 2 percent of their income in co-insurance ($44 p/month above 200 of the FPL, $55 p/month 250-300 of the FPL).

    On the third, MD already says that any person who voluntary drops employer-sponsored coverage within 6 months of application will be denied SCHIP coverage. The exceptions to rule include: involuntary job loss or loss of coverage; job change; moving out of employer-sponsored coverage area; and expiration of COBRA benefits.

    On the fourth, MD already has a 6 month waiting period. This is done to prevent “crowd out.” Crowd out is simply a way to say that some families with access to private insurance will elect to drop that coverage to get government-sponsored coverage because it cheaper. To me, crowd out screams that there is a problem with the health care market. To others it says “over reliance on government.”

    Why do I mention all of this? To illustrate that states, even high cost states with existing expansion programs (sometimes called Section 1115 waivers) ARE ALREADY MAKING THESE EFFORTS. The letter acts like high-costs aren’t trying to control costs, aren’t interested in cost-sharing, aren’t making every effort to enroll eligible kids. Essentially, it supposes that high-cost states are just content to throw money at a problem and call it a day.

    The White House is mad that the CBO said their proposal would lower the number of enrollees (see pp 22-23). And so this letter is nothing more than an “!@%(*& YOU” to Congress for passing bills (HR 3162 and HR 976) that would expand the program to kids with higher family incomes.

    If you want to let Dennis know: write him at

    Dennis Smith
    7500 Security Blvd.
    Baltimore, MD 21244-1850
    Dennis.Smith@cms.hhs.gov

  • Tags: , (All Tags)
    Print Friendly View Send As Email
    Insanity (3.00 / 1)
    What authority does Mr. Smith have to regulate state operations, and can anything be done by state legislators, congresscritters, and senators to resist these regulations? 


    Re: Insanity (3.33 / 3)
    Smith, as a representative of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, has the authority to issue regulations on the program. SCHIP is not an entitlement program so making regulatory changes is easier.

    Yes, Congress could resist these new regulations. They could explicitly reject them in passing the SCHIP reauthorization (the bills currently pending; the program's authorization expires Sept. 30). Or they could explicitly reject them in an extension of the existing program (if the bills don't make it out of conf by 9/30).

    States can't do much. They can spend their state dollars are they see fit to greater and lesser degrees (I'm not sure how much day-to-day oversight there is). But the feds control the federal dollars and states will have to account for their usage at least annually.


    [ Parent ]
    Insanity Indeed (1.00 / 2)
    Insanity that Congress ever passed legislation expanding SCHIP.

    From Heritage's report, 5 of the 14 shortfall states are providing insurance to not only children but also "over parents, pregnant women, or childless adults." Plus, "According to the General Accountability Office, 'Adults accounted for an average of 55% of enrollees in the shortfall states' in FY 2005."

    And that's just the tip of the iceberg. How about the fact that the expansions have been based around increases in tobacco taxes. It's absolutely absurd. Funding a program of increasing demand with a falling revenue source would be negligent at best and intentionally detrimental at worst (but hey, I'm not complaining, I hate the government, I'd just rather not have $10 in tax on a cigar). And if you're skeptical as to my claims on the folly of funding it with tobacco tax increases, others have argued it better than I, http://friendsofatr....

    Since it looks like the disaster of SCHIP expansion is inevitable, at least someone is trying to limit the damage.

    Here's the Heritage report I referenced:
    http://www.heritage....

    "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -Ayn Rand


    Yes, there have been many disasters in our time (0.00 / 0)
    When historians look back upon this era, and its many disasters -- the South Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina -- surely making more children eligible for health insurance will outrank them all.

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Insanity Indeed (4.00 / 2)
    Waterman, Congress didn't pass a program to expand SCHIP. The expansions you reference -- to parents, to childless adults, and to pregnant women -- are part of something called Section 1115 waivers. State may apply to spend their SCHIP allotment on these populations after applying for a waiver from CMS. So, if the administration thinks that states ought not be covering these populations, they ought not have allowed CMS to cover these populations.

    Oh, and pregnant women aren't really covered. The regulation that CMS issued changed the definition of "child" in the regulation to include "unborn child."

    I too am concerned about a declining source of revenue. In an earlier post I argued that both Congress and the WH need to get serious about funding for this program.

    As for Heritage, I would add that they have an ax to grind (though, don't we all?). Although their stuff is better than, say, CWfA, it is clearly biased.

    Expanding SCHIP to include parents wasn't just a D idea either -- Gov. Tommy Thompson was an early adopter (the first 4 states with waivers were RI, NJ, MN, WI). Those states, and others, have acted out of strategic concern. Some studies, including those by First Focus, the Georgetown Center on Children and Families, KFF (also with an ax to grind, but from the other side), and others have shown that when parents are covered, kids get medical care more often, are more likely to have preventive care, etc.

    Really, I think a good deal of my argument boils down to this: if we don't cover kids now they are more likely to suffer the ill effects of health insecurity. Kids who don't see docs regularly are more likely to have tooth decay, more likely to eat a poor diet, more likely to have delayed immunizations that delays school enrollment, etc. I find it all too ironic that in America we won't cover the diabetic so s/he can receive (much cheaper) monitoring and preventive care but as soon as that person's kidney's fail, they become Medicare eligible.

    And for the Ayn Rand quote: It is a philosophical difference. I'm more with Lincoln on this: "On the side of the Union it is a struggle for maintaining in the world that form and substance of government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men; to lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life. Yielding to partial and temporary departures, from necessity, this is the leading object of the Government for whose existence we contend."


    [ Parent ]
    Re: Re: Insanity Indeed (1.50 / 2)
    On the legislation, that was my bad, I was referring to the bills that are being debated currently, not passed yet.

    I recognize it's not only D's who are pushing this either, and with my philosophical views I find it equally reprehensible, regardless of party.

    For me, it boils down primarily to the Ayn Rand quote. No one has the right to force another to pay for their needs or desires, and as such government programs like SCHIP shouldn't be there and taxes should be commensurately lower.

    I very much appreciate the intelligence of the discussion. It seems that all too often, at the first sight of anti-government views or Ayn Rand people immediately go off the deep end in responding.

    "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -Ayn Rand


    [ Parent ]
    Re: Regulation (4.00 / 1)
    Oh, and the regulation on "unborn children" is here: http://www.healthlaw...

    [ Parent ]
    Don't Feed the Trolls (0.00 / 0)
    and in my opinion, talking up Ayn Rand and the Heritage Foundation are completely out of line on a progressive website.  If you want to complain about SCHIP in Maryland, I encourage you to visit any of the numerous conservative blogs that exist for that purpose.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Don't Feed The Trolls (0.00 / 0)
    While I can see your point, of what value is it to preach to the choir? Do we not all benefit from a discussion of ideas? And this ought be particularly true for progressives who speak so highly of both their open-mindedness and how it differentiates them from their opponents.

    And for what it's worth, I hardly consider myself to be trolling. I have done nothing but offer calm, reasoned points in debate over issues. I have not engaged in a single ad hominem attack, I have not claimed all liberals are idiotic or evil, all I have done is had a divergent opinion and voiced it where I could trust others to disagree with me and debate the issues.

    "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -Ayn Rand


    [ Parent ]
    I have to agree (0.00 / 0)
    Trolls are people who derail conversations, not people who offer different points of view. That doesn't mean you won't be subject to mockery and ridicule, however (see above).

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

    [ Parent ]
    MD Blogroll
    Left
    Air It Out With George
    The Bag of Health and Politics
    Blog Arundel
    Bruce Godfrey
    Capital Punishment
    Duck Around
    Granola Park
    Jousting for Justice
    Just Up the Pike
    Kujanblog
    Left-Hand View
    Legum's New Line
    Lost on the Shore
    Newsrack
    Maryland on My Mind
    Maryland Politics Watch
    The Modern Day Prophet
    Native Son
    Nealzonwheelz
    OnBackground
    Right
    Brian Griffiths
    Darkness Rising
    Delmarva Dealings
    Going to the Mat
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Maryland Politics Today
    Monoblogue
    Red Maryland
    Salisbury News
    Other
    Bay Daily
    B'More Green
    CCAN Blog
    Crossing Georgia
    The Glover Report
    Inside Charm City
    Inside Ed
    Jay Hancock
    Maryland Law
    Maryland Moment
    Maryland Politics (Sun)
    Maryland Politics Blog
    On the Record
    Random Rodricks
    Voiceline

    Friends & Neighbors
    Left Blogistan
    Blogs United
    Daily Kos
    MyDD
    Open Left
    Talking Points Memo
    TAPPED
    Progressive Orgs.
    Center for American Progress
    Color of Change
    Media Matters for America
    MoveOn.org
    People for the American Way
    Progressive States Network
    Regional Blogs
    Blue Virginia
    Delaware Liberal
    DCist
    2 Political Junkies (PA)
    West Virginia Blue

    MD News and Media
    Print Media
    Annapolis Capital
    Baltimore Business Journal
    Baltimore Examiner
    Baltimore Sun
    Baltimore City Paper
    Baltimore Jewish Times
    Bay Weekly
    Carroll County Times
    Cumberland Times News
    Easton Star Democrat
    Frederick News-Post
    Hagerstown Herald-Mail
    Maryland Daily Record
    Maryland Gazette
    Mt. Airy Messenger
    Oakland Republican
    Salisbury Daily Times
    The Sentinel
    Washington City Paper
    Washington Post
    Washington Times
    Radio
    WAMU
    WBAL Radio
    WYPR
    Television
    Maryland Public Television
    WBAL TV
    WBFF
    WHAG
    WJLA
    WJZ
    WMAR
    WMDT
    WRC
    WUSA
    Internet
    Baltimore Chronicle
    BMoreNews.com
    Frederick County Tentacle
    Maryland Commons

    MD Organizations
    CASA de Maryland
    Chesapeake Bay Foundation
    Chesapeake Climate Action Network
    Common Cause Maryland
    Democracy for Maryland
    Environment Maryland
    Equality Maryland
    Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute
    Maryland CASE
    Maryland Democratic Party
    Maryland Health Care for All
    Maryland League of Conservation Voters
    Maryland Municipal League
    Maryland PIRG
    NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland
    1000 Friends of Maryland
    Progressive Maryland
    Young Democrats of Maryland

    Menu

    Make a New Account

    Username:

    Password:



    Forget your username or password?


    About
    General
    Welcome
    Rules of the Road
    Legal Stuff
    Maryland Government
    General Assembly
    Governor's Office
    Judiciary
    Tools for Politics
    BillHop
    OpenCongress
    Find Your Elected Officials

    50 State BlogWire


    Search




    Advanced Search


    Powered by: SoapBlox