Louisville Medicine Volume 66, Issue 7 | Page 35

OPINION DOCTORS' Lounge tions strongly opposed the tax. Institutional providers, however, could pass on the ex- penses to insurers and policy payers. They also received more of the reimbursement dollars, with important net gains, especially in areas with high percentage of Medicaid recipients. Thus, hospitals lobbied in favor of these taxes in a majority of states. In Ken- tucky and other high-Medicaid population states, this revenue source became essential for the survival of small rural hospitals and the patients they served. Consequently, these differing positions caused provider taxes for traditional Med- icaid to evolve along two broad lines, indi- vidual and institutional. Five of the partici- pating 49 states (Ky., Fla., Minn., N.M., and W.Va.) initially taxed individual physicians, and the tax was opposed by their physi- cian organizations, including the Kentucky Medical Association. These organizations pointed out the strong disincentives for new physicians to establish practices in their states, especially in medically underserved regions. Also, skepticism arose when the revenue was diverted from health care sup- port. In Kentucky, funds were diverted to non-medical state construction projects, and in Minnesota, general budget short- falls were covered. Eventually, the physician provider tax was rescinded in all five states, and not adopted in the others. In contrast, all 49 participating states enacted taxes on institutional providers, with revenues large- ly coming from hospitals, nursing homes, managed care organizations and interme- diate care facilities for the developmentally disabled, in varying ratios. These institu- tions are the largest recipients of enhanced reimbursements from traditional Medicaid, and they are largely able to pass on the costs. Expanded Medicaid Under the Afford- able Care Act and Funding Options Being Considered Traditional Medicaid serves the most poor, and is focused on women, children and the disabled. The Affordable Care Act created an expansion of Medicaid to cover persons making up to 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. This includes many of the working poor, who are employed part- time or whose employers offer no health insurance. Accepting states (about one half) also took on responsibility for progressively funding up to about 10 percent of cost in order to continue receiving the 90 percent Federal funding. In Kentucky, this will re- quire about $300 million annually. Although these costs are more than fully recovered in the general economy, the annual budgets still must generate this revenue. Nationwide, multiple funding solutions are emerging. Unlike the provider tax of traditional Medicaid, revenue for Medic- aid expansion can come from any source. This could include provider taxes within, or beyond the previous 19 categories. As of 2017, eight states (Ark., Ariz., Colo., Ill., Ind., La., N.H., and Ohio) reported plans to use provider taxes for funding expand- ed Medicaid, but none to date have placed those taxes on physician services. In Mon- tana, a proposal to fund expanded Medicaid from increased tobacco taxes (Proposition I-185) will be on the ballot this fall. It is sup- ported by the Montana Medical Association, Montana Hospital Association, American Cancer Society, and University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research. Indiana funded Expanded Medicaid by a combination of increased tobacco taxes and increased hospital provider taxes. In a September 2016 editorial, the Lexington Herald Leader suggested that Kentucky do the same. Other states will surely create ad- ditional options. Lessons from Past Experience Analysis of past experience is instructive for addressing upcoming challenges. Several points emerge: 1. The State component of Expanded Medicaid should be funded, in order to keep the 9:1 federal match. If lost, substantial closure risk falls first on small rural hospitals, with harsh con- sequences on their employees, the phy- sicians on their staffs, and the patients they serve. Subsequently, the harm will quickly spread to safety-net hospitals and the entire population. 2. The broadest support base is best, as articulated by the 1990s provider tax litigation decisions. All citizens benefit, and all should contribute to funding these benefits. This can be by realloca- tion of general funds, by broadly based taxation, or by fees passed on broadly and equitably, such as through insur- ance premiums. 3. Funding options for Expanded Medic- aid need not necessarily be kept within the healthcare economy, nor confined to the 19 previously defined categories of providers. Legislative process strat- egy will influence this consideration. 4. Consideration should be given to tax- ation of health-harmful behavior, such as smoking and e-cigarette use. Raising cigarette taxes to the national average of $1.72 per pack would nearly cover the needed funding. This route appeals to physicians, but strong opposition should be expected, and options pre- pared. 5. Physicians should be knowledgeable of the enormous costs of leaving citizens uninsured, and be able to so inform their legislators. In a full fiscal analysis, the savings returned from Expanded Medicaid can be shown to more than justify and recover initial budget costs. Considerations must include hospital closings, enormous costs of missed preventative screening, consequenc- es of poorly managed chronic condi- tions and emergency room overuse. The human toll of mortality, morbidity, family stress and grief is even more compelling. 6. A provider tax on physicians is un- wise. Physicians already pay a hidden tax in accepting the sub-par Medicaid payments. The Kentucky Medical As- sociation (KMA) opposes physician taxation, and physicians should sup- port KMA legislative lobbying efforts. KMA lobbying is informed, skillful, and member-directed through the House of Delegates. Dr. Tobin is a professor at the University of Louisville School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstruc- tive Surgery. He practices with UofL Physi- cians-Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. DECEMBER 2018 33