December 22, 2009
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9005, we have
reviewed the proposed initiative (A.G. File No. 09‑0081) relating to the
imposition and collection of taxes, fees, or assessments on community
hospitals.
Background
Medi-Cal: California's Medicaid Program
Medi-Cal Funding and Administration.
The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) administers
the federal Medicaid Program. In California, this federal program is
administered by the state Department of Health Care Services as the
California Medical Assistance Program and is known more commonly as Medi-Cal.
This program provides health care benefits to low-income persons
(primarily families with children and the aged, blind, or disabled) who
meet certain eligibility requirements.
The costs of the Medicaid program are generally
shared between states and the federal government based on a set formula.
(In some cases, the state's share may be provided by local governments.)
The share paid by the federal government is known as the federal medical
assistance percentage, or FMAP. In general, the FMAP for Medi-Cal has
been set at 50 percent. However, a 2009 federal law, the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, temporarily increased the FMAP for Medi-Cal
to about 62 percent through December 31, 2010, after which time the
federal and state shares will revert to a 50‑50 split absent any further
changes in federal law.
Medi-Cal Hospital Funding. About
400 California hospitals receive some of their funding through Medi-Cal,
with the level and type of support they receive generally depending on
whether they are operated by public agencies (such as counties) or
private firms. The Medi-Cal Program currently spends more than
$9 billion for hospital inpatient and outpatient services. Private and
certain public hospitals (also known as district hospitals) receive Medi-Cal
funding primarily through support from the state General Fund and
matching federal funds. Certain other public hospitals participating in
Medi-Cal, however, do not rely as heavily on state General Fund support.
These hospitals certify that they have spent money on services provided
to Medi-Cal and uninsured patients, and then are reimbursed by the
federal government for part of their costs, generally at the state's
FMAP rate.
Charges on Medicaid Providers
Provider Charges Are Used to Leverage
Federal Medicaid Funds. Federal Medicaid law permits states to
levy various types of charges—including taxes, fees, or assessments—on
Medicaid providers. A number of different types of providers can be
subject to these charges, including hospitals that provide inpatient and
outpatient services. A number of states impose such charges and use the
proceeds to draw down additional federal funds that are used for (1)
support of their Medicaid programs and (2) to offset some state costs.
In order to leverage these federal funds, these charges must meet
certain requirements and be approved by the federal CMS. Currently, 43
states, including California, impose these types of charges on their
Medicaid providers.
Recent State Legislation Imposes a Fee on
Hospitals. Recent state legislation, Chapter 627,
Statutes of 2009 (AB 1383, Jones), imposes a fee on certain hospitals
based on a period ending December 31, 2010 to provide
additional funding to hospitals and support children's health coverage.
The fee, which is estimated to generate as much as $2 billion annually
in revenues and potentially draw down more than $2 billion annually in
additional federal funding, would not go into effect unless it was
approved by CMS. Under the terms of
the legislation, the authority to collect the fee would expire January
1, 2013, unless extended in a future law enacted by the Legislature and
Governor.
The legislation creates a new special fund,
called the Hospital Quality Assurance Revenue Fund, into which all
proceeds of the fee must be deposited. The monies in the new fund would
generally be used to provide additional funding for hospitals and
reimburse administrative costs of the program. The legislation also
earmarks $80 million dollars each quarter to pay for health coverage for
children.
Children's Health Care Coverage in California
Children from low-income families in California
can receive health care coverage from a variety of state and local
programs. Medi-Cal is the largest single provider of children's health
care coverage and is estimated to cover about 30 percent of California's
children. Other state programs, such as the Healthy Families Program and
California Children's Services, also provide health care coverage for
eligible children. Children's Health Initiatives and other programs
provide coverage at the local level primarily for children who are not
eligible for state programs. These local programs are funded by local
governments, non-profit foundations, and other funding sources.
Proposal
This measure does not impose any new taxes, fees,
or assessments on hospitals, or extend the existing charges imposed
under Chapter 627. However, it would amend the State Constitution to
prohibit the state from imposing and collecting any such charges on
community hospitals for the purpose of obtaining additional federal
funds unless a series of requirements are met. The measure defines a
community hospital as a general acute care hospital licensed by the
state that is not operated or funded by the federal government. The
specific restrictions that would be placed in the Constitution are
described below.
Federal Funding Related Requirements
The measure prohibits the imposition and
collection of charges by the state on community hospitals for the
purpose of obtaining additional federal funds unless the following
federal matching requirements are met:
-
Required Federal Matching Level.
The measure states that every $45 generated by a tax, fee, or
assessment that would be used to increase Medi-Cal reimbursements to
community hospitals would have to be matched with $55 in federal
funds.
-
Medicaid Payments Generally Limited.
Under the terms of this measure, charges of the type discussed
above only could be imposed by the state on community hospitals for
Medicaid payments for hospital services covered under the program if
they did not exceed the amount for which federal funding is
available. In other words, payments to hospitals from the revenues
of such hospital charges might not be allowed unless they were
drawing down federal matching funds.
-
Hospital Charges Generally Limited.
This measure places limits in state law on the rate of any charges
that could be imposed on community hospitals for the purposes
discussed above. Specifically, under this measure, the rate charged
by the state to community hospitals could not exceed the amount for
which federal funding is available. In other words, the measure
places a ceiling on charges to community hospitals tied to the
amount for which federal funds are available.
How Proceeds and Related Funds Could Be Spent
Funds Available Only for Administration,
Hospitals, and Children's Coverage. The measure specifies how
any proceeds from such charges on community hospitals would be spent.
The proceeds including all interest earned and the amount provided by
the federal government would be placed in a trust fund and be subject to
an annual state audit. The proceeds would have to first be spent on:
-
State administration of such charges on
hospitals.
-
Payments to hospitals licensed to a county,
city and county, or the University of California.
-
Health care
coverage for children in low-income families. At least 10 percent
but no more than 15 percent of the proceeds would have to go for
this purpose.
The remainder of the proceeds, including any
interest earned on the funds as well as additional federal funding
obtained, would be used to provide increased reimbursements to community
hospitals.
Proceeds Exempt from Proposition 98
Calculation. Proposition 98, a constitutional amendment adopted
by voters in 1988 and amended in 1990, establishes a set of formulas
that are used to annually calculate a minimum state funding level for
K-12 education and the California Community Colleges. In many cases,
additional state General Fund revenues result in a higher Proposition 98
requirement. This measure amends the Constitution to specify that the
proceeds of any charges imposed on community hospitals for the purposes
discussed above shall not be considered in calculating the
Proposition 98 funding level required for schools.
Maintenance of Existing Funding for Hospital Services
The measure prohibits the use of any funding from
these types of charges on community hospitals to replace existing funds
for hospital services provided to Medi-Cal patients. The measure defines
existing funding for hospital services as the amount expended from
appropriations by the Legislature for Medi-Cal patients in the fiscal
year in which the charge was enacted or in the preceding fiscal year,
whichever is greater. The measure specifically exempts funds deposited
into the Hospital Quality Assurance Revenue Fund created by Chapter 627,
from being counted as existing funding for hospital services.
Fiscal Effects
This measure could have significant fiscal
effects on the state and local governments, particularly counties.
However, these fiscal effects cannot be estimated at this time because
they largely depend on future federal and state actions. For example, it
is unknown whether the Legislature and Governor will enact any charges
on community hospitals of the type that would be subject to the
restrictions set forth in this measure. It is also unknown whether
federal authorities would approve any such charges enacted for the
purpose of drawing down additional federal funds. We discuss some
specific potential effects of this measure below.
Potential Effect on Implementation of Recently Enacted Hospital Fee
This measure could affect the implementation of
the recently enacted hospital fee under Chapter 627. In order for the
state to collect the proceeds from the fee established by Chapter 627,
the requirements of this measure might have to be met. Some provisions
in this measure could conflict with Chapter 627. For example, it is
possible that the proceeds earmarked for children's coverage could
exceed the amount allowed under this measure, or 15 percent of proceeds.
The federal matching requirements for hospital payments discussed above
may also create a conflict. The exact fiscal effects of these potential
conflicts are unknown and would heavily depend on future actions by the
federal government and the state.
Thus, this measure could affect the ability of
the state to impose and collect revenues related to hospital charges and
additional federal reimbursements. This could have a further impact on
local government finances, particularly counties.
Requirements to Maintain Funding for Hospital Services
As noted earlier, this measure would not allow
the state to use money from charges on community hospitals to offset
reductions in funding for hospital services. If federal authorities
approve the proposed Chapter 627 fee, and it was in effect at the time
this initiative were to pass, these new requirements to maintain funding
levels for hospitals may apply immediately upon the enactment of this
measure. These requirements could also be triggered in the future by the
future enactment of these types of charges on community hospitals.
The requirement to maintain funding for hospital
services could create greater pressures for additional state General
Fund spending than would otherwise occur. The exact fiscal effect of
this provision on the state is unknown and would depend upon a number of
factors, including the future availability of various existing sources
of funding for hospital services.
Summary
In summary, depending on future state and federal
actions, this measure could result in the following major fiscal
impacts:
-
This measure
could affect the ability of the state to impose and collect revenues
related to hospital charges and additional federal reimbursements.
This could have a further impact on local government finances,
particularly counties.
-
In some situations, this measure could result
in greater pressures for additional state spending than would
otherwise occur.
Return to Initiatives and Propositions
Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page