1st; One agreement replies Comment for this discussion
The Medicaid program is jointly funded through the U.S. federal and state government which creates both opportunities and challenges for increasing access to care and quality of care for those in need. According to one article Links to an external site., federal funding sources for the Medicaid program include Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments, Federal Medical Assistance percentages (FMAP), and Enhanced Federal Medical Assistance percentages (eFMAP). Due to low Medicaid reimbursement rates, hospitals that service more uninsured and/or Medicaid patients are disadvantaged over those that serve mostly individuals with private insurance plans; therefore, the federal governments provides DSH funding to be spready across eligible hospitals. FMAP, on the other hand, supplements state health funding by matching it. For example, the federal government will fund the state $1 for every $1 the state spends on their Medicaid program. Additionally, some states receive a higher matching based on their income average in comparison to the national income average. This ensures fairness across states and prevents those with lower socioeconomic status (SES) from receiving lower reimbursement when they likely have a higher need. eFMAP increases the percentage matched for specific services (i.e. breast/cervical cancer treatments, family planning, home health, preventative services). State funding, according to another source Links to an external site., mostly comes from the State General Fund. On one hand, FMAP incentivizes states to increase Medicaid spending by matching them. While federal funds require that certain stipulations be met, there is some flexibility in how the states spend federal funds and even more flexibility in how their use their own funds. Bottom line, the more they invest, the more they receive. However, that does not always translate to better care (i.e. program allocation, cost containment, management of funds, etc. all play a part in access and quality of care). Interestingly, this model is considered countercyclical Links to an external site. which means that when the economy is struggling and unemployment rates are high, state revenues and spending declines, causing federal spending to decline, when the need is actually increasing. On the flip side, when the economy is doing well, unemployment declines (as does the need for services) while state revenues and spending is actually going up. Joint funding can also create challenges, leaving the Medicaid program vulnerable to political shifts and retrenchment. State politics influence the amount of Medicaid funding and which programs receive it. For example, democratic states may be more apt to support increased funding for the Medicaid program than republican states. Additionally, political views can affect the support of certain public health programs that are more controversial (ex. abortions, HIV/aids, obesity etc.). Policy also directly affects the Medicaid program, as demonstrated in how states were given the option of participating in the Medicaid expansion efforts under the ACA and some chose not to. I think that in times of economic stability where funding is at is highest, states have the most opportunity to drive public health initiatives and focus on preventative care, increased access to care, and quality of care. By offering better care we can improve overall health while reducing future needs and costs associated with poor health. It is also clear that neither the state or federal government can afford these costs alone; therefore, perhaps the two can partner to refine regulatory requirements that drive up costs as they may no longer be necessary and/or support our current healthcare objectives.
2nd; One agreement replies Comment for this discussion
I want to start out with discussing all the positive sides to Medicaid. With ACA starting in 2010 across every U.S. state, it has brought immense benefits to those living in poverty (individuals/families), disabilities, refugees and immigrants. Truly helping those who are the most vulnerable in society to receive access to healthcare. Medicaid has brought the out of pocket cost to the individual way down for really all medical needs. I am a huge supporter of Medicaid for healthcare but also for waivers. I mentioned this in my last discussion post, but I was a social worker in healthcare for 5 years (inpatient and outpatient in both rural and urban settings in MN). I have helped people apply for various waivers like CADI (disabilities), chemical dependency (rule 25), elderly waivers, and so on. Again, these waivers are what help the most vulnerable people in our society.
Now onto the negatives. When it comes to the financial side, the healthcare organization view is they are not huge fans of Medicaid. Why? Because less money compared to private insurance. Same thing for every other organization/agency like long-term care, physical rehab centers, chemical dependency treatment, etc. These agencies will take someone who has private insurance over someone who has Medicaid first. This is terribly sad and when I start thinking about this topic more emotionally rather than objectively.
Medicaid Expansion was optional for states as of 2014, most of the 50 states did expand but left about 14 states who chose not to expand. The expansions purpose was to extend accessibility to even more people who have low-income. But each state got to make their own rules which is exactly where some modifications should be made. First modification I would improve is “who is applicable to apply for Medicaid?” Some states, only adults with at least 1 child can apply (including adults who are pregnant and/or have a disability). If you are a single adult with no children and no disability you are not applicable. I would modify this to any adult (with or without children) are able to apply if they meet the income guidelines. Another modification I would make is the income guidelines, make it a bit more streamlined in each state. I understand incomes in general varies depending on the state BUT when people are poor… they are poor no matter what the “federal poverty line” is in their state. The federal poverty line does not explain true poverty.
Wrapping up everything I said above, when pushing these modifications with what is politically feasible, it’s much easier said than done. I personally would focus on the elderly population. When I was working inpatient med/surg, I honestly thought the nursing home and homecare systems was going to break at any moment and with Covid-19 it has broken even more with less elderly workers and more elderly needing care. Nursing homes are a money driven industry. Lawmakers and politicians seem to care (I think) about the elderly (and youth) the most. Funding Medicaid more in each state would assist elderly waivers so more elderly can receive the care they need and nursing homes can still profit from the care they are providing. Vulnerable Adult reports are high, but unfortunately counties will not do much unless there is a direct threat like abuse or having rats in your home. I won’t get into that side of things as social services are another underfunded sector of U.S. society. Would love to hear other’s thoughts! Thanks for reading!
functional health patterns
October 1, 2022i want a reflection of three pages and the 4th page should have all the references of APA”What have I learned in this unit?” “Why is this important?”, “What does this new knowledge mean to me?”, “How
October 1, 20221st; One agreement replies Comment for this discussion
The Medicaid program is jointly funded through the U.S. federal and state government which creates both opportunities and challenges for increasing access to care and quality of care for those in need. According to one article Links to an external site., federal funding sources for the Medicaid program include Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments, Federal Medical Assistance percentages (FMAP), and Enhanced Federal Medical Assistance percentages (eFMAP). Due to low Medicaid reimbursement rates, hospitals that service more uninsured and/or Medicaid patients are disadvantaged over those that serve mostly individuals with private insurance plans; therefore, the federal governments provides DSH funding to be spready across eligible hospitals. FMAP, on the other hand, supplements state health funding by matching it. For example, the federal government will fund the state $1 for every $1 the state spends on their Medicaid program. Additionally, some states receive a higher matching based on their income average in comparison to the national income average. This ensures fairness across states and prevents those with lower socioeconomic status (SES) from receiving lower reimbursement when they likely have a higher need. eFMAP increases the percentage matched for specific services (i.e. breast/cervical cancer treatments, family planning, home health, preventative services). State funding, according to another source Links to an external site., mostly comes from the State General Fund. On one hand, FMAP incentivizes states to increase Medicaid spending by matching them. While federal funds require that certain stipulations be met, there is some flexibility in how the states spend federal funds and even more flexibility in how their use their own funds. Bottom line, the more they invest, the more they receive. However, that does not always translate to better care (i.e. program allocation, cost containment, management of funds, etc. all play a part in access and quality of care). Interestingly, this model is considered countercyclical Links to an external site. which means that when the economy is struggling and unemployment rates are high, state revenues and spending declines, causing federal spending to decline, when the need is actually increasing. On the flip side, when the economy is doing well, unemployment declines (as does the need for services) while state revenues and spending is actually going up. Joint funding can also create challenges, leaving the Medicaid program vulnerable to political shifts and retrenchment. State politics influence the amount of Medicaid funding and which programs receive it. For example, democratic states may be more apt to support increased funding for the Medicaid program than republican states. Additionally, political views can affect the support of certain public health programs that are more controversial (ex. abortions, HIV/aids, obesity etc.). Policy also directly affects the Medicaid program, as demonstrated in how states were given the option of participating in the Medicaid expansion efforts under the ACA and some chose not to. I think that in times of economic stability where funding is at is highest, states have the most opportunity to drive public health initiatives and focus on preventative care, increased access to care, and quality of care. By offering better care we can improve overall health while reducing future needs and costs associated with poor health. It is also clear that neither the state or federal government can afford these costs alone; therefore, perhaps the two can partner to refine regulatory requirements that drive up costs as they may no longer be necessary and/or support our current healthcare objectives.
2nd; One agreement replies Comment for this discussion
I want to start out with discussing all the positive sides to Medicaid. With ACA starting in 2010 across every U.S. state, it has brought immense benefits to those living in poverty (individuals/families), disabilities, refugees and immigrants. Truly helping those who are the most vulnerable in society to receive access to healthcare. Medicaid has brought the out of pocket cost to the individual way down for really all medical needs. I am a huge supporter of Medicaid for healthcare but also for waivers. I mentioned this in my last discussion post, but I was a social worker in healthcare for 5 years (inpatient and outpatient in both rural and urban settings in MN). I have helped people apply for various waivers like CADI (disabilities), chemical dependency (rule 25), elderly waivers, and so on. Again, these waivers are what help the most vulnerable people in our society.
Now onto the negatives. When it comes to the financial side, the healthcare organization view is they are not huge fans of Medicaid. Why? Because less money compared to private insurance. Same thing for every other organization/agency like long-term care, physical rehab centers, chemical dependency treatment, etc. These agencies will take someone who has private insurance over someone who has Medicaid first. This is terribly sad and when I start thinking about this topic more emotionally rather than objectively.
Medicaid Expansion was optional for states as of 2014, most of the 50 states did expand but left about 14 states who chose not to expand. The expansions purpose was to extend accessibility to even more people who have low-income. But each state got to make their own rules which is exactly where some modifications should be made. First modification I would improve is “who is applicable to apply for Medicaid?” Some states, only adults with at least 1 child can apply (including adults who are pregnant and/or have a disability). If you are a single adult with no children and no disability you are not applicable. I would modify this to any adult (with or without children) are able to apply if they meet the income guidelines. Another modification I would make is the income guidelines, make it a bit more streamlined in each state. I understand incomes in general varies depending on the state BUT when people are poor… they are poor no matter what the “federal poverty line” is in their state. The federal poverty line does not explain true poverty.
Wrapping up everything I said above, when pushing these modifications with what is politically feasible, it’s much easier said than done. I personally would focus on the elderly population. When I was working inpatient med/surg, I honestly thought the nursing home and homecare systems was going to break at any moment and with Covid-19 it has broken even more with less elderly workers and more elderly needing care. Nursing homes are a money driven industry. Lawmakers and politicians seem to care (I think) about the elderly (and youth) the most. Funding Medicaid more in each state would assist elderly waivers so more elderly can receive the care they need and nursing homes can still profit from the care they are providing. Vulnerable Adult reports are high, but unfortunately counties will not do much unless there is a direct threat like abuse or having rats in your home. I won’t get into that side of things as social services are another underfunded sector of U.S. society. Would love to hear other’s thoughts! Thanks for reading!
admin
Related posts
Week 4 Law
Read more
Discussion 6
Read more
WEEK 6
Read more