Providers Rally Over Medi-Cal Cuts
A decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold retroactive payment reductions to the Medi-Cal program has roused providers facing steep funding cuts.
The reductions are retroactive to June 2011, and include an overall 10% reduction of payments to clinics, laboratories, pharmacists and optometrists. However, it also includes a 27% reduction in payments to skilled nursing facilities situated within hospitals.
A lower district court had originally struck the cuts down, but a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit reversed that ruling late last year. A second hearing involving the entire court upheld the prior decision to keep the cuts intact.
The court's decision sparked a rally of unionized healthcare providers in Sacramento on Tuesday that was joined by several lawmakers. Organized by a coalition known as “We Care For California,” the group's leader urged the Legislature repeal the cuts, although that would require a two-thirds vote to override any potential veto by Gov. Jerry Brown. He has included the cuts in his most recent May revised budget and has not indicated any plans to back away from the reductions.
An opinion poll released last week by Care for California indicated that 62% of more than 1,000 likely 2014 voters oppose the Medi-Cal cuts.
“No hospital-based skilled-nursing facility can sustain a 27% payment cut and continue to operate as usual,” said C. Duane Dauner, president of the California Hospital Association. “Hospitals will close and highly skilled workers will lose their jobs. It is not unreasonable to suggest that these cuts are a form of patient dumping: the services patients need will disappear, leaving taxpayers to fund more expensive and less efficient alternatives.”
Speaking at a press conference late last week, Deborah Stebbins, chief executive officer of Alameda Hospital in the East Bay, indicated its skilled nursing facility may close.
“Unless these cuts are reversed, we will have to re-evaluate whether we will be able to continue providing these important care services,” Stebbins said. “This is a heart-wrenching decision that will impact current and future patients and their families with potentially devastating impacts on our
community.”
The CHA has said it is reviewing the possibility of further judicial action, which would include an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the Supreme Court rarely grants hearings on request, should it do so the provider community can ask for the cuts to be stayed until it hears the case and issues a ruling.
