Free Daily Headlines :

  • COVID-19
  • Money
  • Election 2020
  • Politics
  • Education
  • Health
  • Justice
  • More
    • Environment
    • Economic Development
    • Gaming
    • Investigations
    • Social Services
    • TRANSPORTATION
  • Opinion
    • CT Viewpoints
    • CT Artpoints
DONATE
Reflecting Connecticut’s Reality.
    COVID-19
    Money
    Election 2020
    Politics
    Education
    Health
    Justice
    More
    Environment
    Economic Development
    Gaming
    Investigations
    Social Services
    TRANSPORTATION
    Opinion
    CT Viewpoints
    CT Artpoints

LET�S GET SOCIAL

Show your love for great stories and out standing journalism

Controversial ‘provider tax’ being scrutinized in debt talks

  • by Deirdre Shesgreen
  • July 14, 2011
  • View as "Clean Read" "Exit Clean Read"

WASHINGTON–One of the most contentious elements of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s recently-passed budget was a new tax on Connecticut hospitals, which won legislative approval despite fierce opposition from the industry. Now, policymakers in Washington may restrict the ability of states to enact such taxes–and they could even force Connecticut to scale back or eventually repeal its new levy.

So-called “provider taxes” are one item under discussion in the increasingly-fraught debt negotiations between the White House and congressional Republicans.

Critics say that states use provider taxes as a “gimmick” to raise revenue for their share of Medicaid spending–and to generate increased federal matching funds in the process. And they say it’s time to stop states from “gaming” the system by imposing taxes aimed mainly at snagging more federal dollars.

States say the provider taxes are a legitimate way to raise desperately needed revenue to helps pay for the exploding costs of Medicaid, a joint state-federal health insurance program for the poor. Medicaid is often one of the top three ticket items in state budgets, and the program’s rolls have swelled with the recession.

As President Barack Obama and House and Senate leaders look for ways to trim federal spending, provider taxes have become a target. The shape of any final budget-and-debt agreement–if there even is one–is still murky at best. But the scope of state provider taxes could still be an issue even if a broader debt deal falls apart.

The way it works is this: States impose a levy on hospitals, nursing homes, or other health care providers, and then they devote that funding stream to Medicaid payments that flow back to those providers.

As long as the taxes are broad based and meet other federal requirements, states can claim federal matching funds when they dole the money back out to providers as Medicaid payments.

In Connecticut, the state legislature approved a two-tiered tax on hospitals, with a rate of 5.5 percent for inpatient services and 3.8 percent for outpatient services. In all, that will raise nearly $350 million a year in revenue. The state will redistribute more than that, almost $400 million, back to the hospitals to pay the cost of caring for Medicaid patients. In the process, Connecticut’s new tax will generate as much as $150 million in federal matching funds.

“It improves the fairness of our system of paying for health care for poor people,” said Ben Barnes, Malloy’s secretary of the Office of Policy and Management. “And it makes health care for poor people more affordable to states.” Barnes conceded that provider taxes are also, as he put it, as “a grant maximization strategy.” But, he added, “it’s not a like a trick or an illegal strategy.”

To be sure, this practice has long been sanctioned by Congress and the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Current federal law allows states to impose a tax of up to 5.5 percent on providers that serve Medicaid patients. And currently, 46 states, plus the District of Columbia, have such provider taxes on their books.

Connecticut already had a 5.5 percent provider tax on nursing homes. Barnes noted that the one just enacted on hospitals was “quite painful” to get passed because of resistance from the industry. Hospitals opposed the tax because some will lose significant revenue in the redistribution process, and the tax was coupled with an $83 million cut to hospitals for the uncompensated care they provide to the uninsured.

In Washington, the budget-and-debt talks are all about pain. The idea of nixing provider taxes to save federal money first popped up in the final report issued by President Obama’s fiscal commission.

The commission labeled these taxes a “gimmick” used to generate federal funds. And others have said they essentially allow a state to circumvent its share of Medicaid costs by borrowing money from providers. “Many states finance a portion of their Medicaid spending by imposing taxes on the very same health care providers who are paid by the Medicaid program, increasing payments to those providers by the same amount and then using that additional ‘spending’ to increase their federal match,” the fiscal commission said in its final report. “We recommend restricting and eventually eliminating this practice.”

The commission’s recommendation is now one item on the table in the debt negotiations, as Obama and congressional leaders seek to craft a deal that will reduce federal spending in exchange for an increasing in the nation’s borrowing capacity. Nixing these taxes could save the Medicaid program $5 billion in 2015 and $44 billion through 2020, according to the fiscal commission’s estimates.

It’s unclear how far negotiators have proposed to go on these taxes-whether they would trim provider taxes or kill them outright. But in his 2012 budget proposal, Obama called for the former-phasing down provider taxes over three years, starting in 2015, to 3.5 percent in 2017-rather than eliminating them entirely.

Critics don’t dispute the argument that eliminating these taxes would save Medicaid money. But they say it would do so at a huge cost to states and Medicaid patients.

Judith Solomon, vice president for health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning research group, says cutting provider taxes will reduce federal Medicaid costs because states like Connecticut won’t be able to find a replacement revenue stream for Medicaid. States will then cut Medicaid services and that will lower the federal matching contributions from Washington.

Stephen Frayne, a lobbyist for the Connecticut Hospital Association, is no fan of the tax. But he said he’s not itching for it to be repealed either. “We’ve had that discussion, and it is what it is.”

Frayne expressed more concern about how it would impact the state’s finances. “The state would lose $150 million in new federal matching dollars,” he noted. “And I would suspect that they would try to look for ways to recover that.”

Indeed, Barnes said that if Connecticut was forced to eliminate or scale back the tax, “there are a couple different ways we could deal with it, but all of them would be calamitous to the state.” The state can’t afford to lose the revenue stream, hospitals can’t afford to pay the tax without the redistribution mechanism, and Medicaid patients are “not in a position to absorb” any kind of hit either.

So would Malloy and other governors around the country revolt against such a proposal? “Yes,”
Barnes said.

Sign up for CT Mirror's free daily news summary.

Free to Read. Not Free to Produce.

The Connecticut Mirror is a nonprofit newsroom. 90% of our revenue comes from people like you. If you value our reporting please consider making a donation. You'll enjoy reading CT Mirror even more knowing you helped make it happen.

YES, I'LL DONATE TODAY

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Deirdre Shesgreen

SEE WHAT READERS SAID

RELATED STORIES
Lamont sets the stage for a debate on marijuana taxation by mid-2022
by Keith M. Phaneuf

The governor's draft bill proposes taxing marijuana and erasing convictions for possession that occurred prior to Oct. 1, 2015.

In the grip of a pandemic: What would Dr. King say?
by Suzanne Lagarde MD

No one can dispute that we are in the midst of a history making week —the inauguration of a new President and the departure of a President under the cloud of accusations that he incited an insurrection against American democracy. However, the coming week will prove to be a week like no other in American history for more reasons than what is happening in our country’s capital.

Connecticut’s broad access to internet making at-home work more doable
by Timothy Wilkerson

When it comes to ranking public access to broadband networks, Connecticut has been consistently among the top five U.S. states for over a decade. In 2020, Connecticut topped two lists including best broadband access by BroadbandNow and WalletHub recognized the state as No. 1 in internet access to households as part of their Best States for Working from Home report.

The elephant in the Metro-North station
by David Moyer

All over the world, businesses are discussing their revised needs for space as a result of the pandemic. White-collar professionals who have successfully adapted to working from home will have, when they do go to their companies’ offices, fewer of them, with less square footage. Exactly how much is still a matter of debate since the post-pandemic habits of and requirements for in-person face time are still in flux. One thing’s for certain. It isn’t going to increase.

Separating myth and reality in aid in dying
by Lisa Blumberg

The virus is surging and the death rate is increasing as the already overburdened health system is in crisis. Yet, there is talk of the legislature again considering a bill to permit doctors to provide lethal prescriptions to terminally ill adults requesting them. This is despite the fact that such bills have stalled in committee five times in the past and due to the pandemic, the legislature may meet virtually for much of the upcoming session. Proponents will be talking about choice and compassion. Let’s separate rhetoric from reality.

Support Our Work

Show your love for great stories and outstanding journalism.

$
Select One
  • Monthly
  • Yearly
  • Once
Artpoint painter
CT ViewpointsCT Artpoints
Opinion In the grip of a pandemic: What would Dr. King say?
by Suzanne Lagarde MD

No one can dispute that we are in the midst of a history making week —the inauguration of a new President and the departure of a President under the cloud of accusations that he incited an insurrection against American democracy. However, the coming week will prove to be a week like no other in American history for more reasons than what is happening in our country’s capital.

Opinion Connecticut’s broad access to internet making at-home work more doable
by Timothy Wilkerson

When it comes to ranking public access to broadband networks, Connecticut has been consistently among the top five U.S. states for over a decade. In 2020, Connecticut topped two lists including best broadband access by BroadbandNow and WalletHub recognized the state as No. 1 in internet access to households as part of their Best States for Working from Home report.

Opinion The elephant in the Metro-North station
by David Moyer

All over the world, businesses are discussing their revised needs for space as a result of the pandemic. White-collar professionals who have successfully adapted to working from home will have, when they do go to their companies’ offices, fewer of them, with less square footage. Exactly how much is still a matter of debate since the post-pandemic habits of and requirements for in-person face time are still in flux. One thing’s for certain. It isn’t going to increase.

Opinion Separating myth and reality in aid in dying
by Lisa Blumberg

The virus is surging and the death rate is increasing as the already overburdened health system is in crisis. Yet, there is talk of the legislature again considering a bill to permit doctors to provide lethal prescriptions to terminally ill adults requesting them. This is despite the fact that such bills have stalled in committee five times in the past and due to the pandemic, the legislature may meet virtually for much of the upcoming session. Proponents will be talking about choice and compassion. Let’s separate rhetoric from reality.

Artwork Grand guidance
by Anne:Gogh

In a world of systemic oppression aimed towards those of darker skintones – representation matters. We are more than our equity elusive environments, more than numbers in a prison and much more than victims of societal dispositions. This piece depicts a melanated young man draped in a cape ascending high above multiple forms of oppression. […]

Artwork Shea
by Anthony Valentine

Shea is a story about race and social inequalities that plague America. It is a narrative that prompts the question, “Do you know what it’s like to wake up in new skin?”

Artwork The Declaration of Human Rights
by Andres Chaparro

Through my artwork I strive to create an example of ideas that reflect my desire to raise social consciousness, and cultural awareness. Jazz music is the catalyst to all my work, and plays a major influence in each piece of work.”

Artwork ‘A thing of beauty. Destroy it forever’
by Richard DiCarlo | Derby

During times like these it’s often fun to revisit something familiar and approach things with a different slant. I have been taking some Pop culture and Art masterpieces and applying the vintage 1960’s and 70’s classic figures (Fisher Price, little people) to the make an amusing pieces. Here is my homage to Fisher -Price, Yellow […]

Twitter Feed
A Twitter List by CTMirror

Engage

  • Reflections Tickets & Sponsorships
  • Events
  • Donate
  • Newsletter Sign-Up
  • Submit to Viewpoints
  • Submit to ArtPoints
  • Economic Indicator Dashboard
  • Speaking Engagements
  • Commenting Guidelines
  • Legal Notices
  • Contact Us

About

  • About CT Mirror
  • Announcements
  • Board
  • Staff
  • Sponsors and Funders
  • Donors
  • Friends of CT Mirror
  • History
  • Financial
  • Policies
  • Strategic Plan

Opportunity

  • Advertising and Sponsorship
  • Speaking Engagements
  • Use of Photography
  • Work for Us

Go Deeper

  • Steady Habits Podcast
  • Economic Indicator Dashboard
  • Five Things

The Connecticut News Project, Inc. 1049 Asylum Avenue, Hartford, CT 06105. Phone: 860-218-6380

© Copyright 2021, The Connecticut News Project. All Rights Reserved. Website by Web Publisher PRO