Congress is about to make a bad decision on Medicaid that will
affect taxpayers and families alike. The Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS), which is responsible for administering the
Medicaid program, has issued seven rules designed to curb certain
Medicaid fraud and abuses. Congress is poised to block these rules
and thus allow abusive, fraudulent, and wasteful activities to
continue.
The proposed CMS rules largely focus on technical issues of
Medicaid administration, but they have broader policy implications.
They would close the loopholes involved with intergovernmental
transfers; end Medicaid payments for graduate medical education;
limit provider taxes; and clarify Medicaid's reimbursement policy
for school-based administrative and transportation services,
rehabilitation services, outpatient hospital services, and targeted
case management.[1]
The CMS regulations have provoked opposition from a number of
state officials and allied special interests who have been using
the Medicaid program to transfer costs from their state agencies to
federal taxpayers in order to fund non-medical activities and
balance the state budgets. Under pressure from state officials to
allow the status quo to continue without interruption,
Congress is considering legislation (H.R. 5613) that would
prohibit these rules from going into effect until June of 2009,
when the next presidential administration takes control of the
program.
Of particular importance to American families is a rule that
would remove Medicaid funding for activities at school health
clinics. Some schools use Medicaid's seemingly bottomless budget to
build and operate elaborate health clinics. Medicaid nonetheless
gets billed for their seed money and overhead, and for
administrative or other activities that are not related to direct
medical care. These activities include "family planning" education
and referrals, substance-abuse treatment referrals, and arranging
for children's' psychiatric evaluations and treatment.
No Parental Consent Medicaid funded
school-based clinics should be worrisome to parents. Today,
Medicaid rules prohibit schools from including parents in medical
decisions regarding their own children if they are on Medicaid,
even sensitive decisions regarding family planning or psychiatric
counseling and drugs, unless the child consents. Parents
thus have serious reason for concern whenever Medicaid dollars flow
directly into the schools. Since many of the school-based clinics
depend on this funding practice for their day-to-day operations,
the new CMS regulation would have the effect of reducing the number
of such clinics and directing the children back to their family
pediatricians. Congress should allow the regulations to go into
effect, so as to keep Medicaid focused on providing access to
medically necessary services for the poor families it is designed
to help.
Medicaid and School Based Clinics
One of the proposed regulations, CMS 2287-F, would alter how
Medicaid reimburses schools, school-based health clinics, and their
subcontractors.[2] The regulation has two parts. The first
part would prohibit schools from charging Medicaid for travel to
and from school unless for a medical reason. Remarkably, some
school districts bill Medicaid for their school busing, even when
the children bused are healthy and receive no Medicaid services.
State officials and school administrators often argue that, because
they are transporting a child eligible for Medicaid-funded health
care to a location that provides Medicaid-funded health care, that
alone qualifies the transportation as a Medicaid expense. Congress,
nonetheless, seems prepared to tolerate this abuse.
The second part of the this CMS regulation would prohibit
schools and third-party clinics from billing Medicaid for the
administrative overhead and the general infrastructure of
school-based health clinics-expenses such as staff training,
educating students about services provided, and referrals to
doctors, psychiatrists, or other third-party health care providers.
Many of these clinics would not be economically viable were they
not able to bill Medicaid for their overhead. Because these
administrative costs are often not tied to any actual medical
services, it is easy to use them to defraud Medicaid. CMS has tried
to address this issue repeatedly since the Clinton
Administration,[3] but the problems have remained, including a
continuation of fraudulent claims. Finally, CMS concluded that the
surest way to reduce the fraud was to accept only those claims
which are submitted by the state Medicaid agency (which does not
have any incentive to defraud itself), and not to accept those
submitted by school employees or contractors. As a result, while
Medicaid would continue to pay for medical care through school
clinics, it would cease to pay for the clinics themselves. CMS
estimates this would save $3.6 billion over five years.[4]
Medicaid Requires Family Planning for Minors (But Not in
Schools)
Administrative expenses at school based clinics, the exact costs
targeted by this proposed rule, are currently used to direct
low-income students to family planning clinics. For instance,
California's manual for school-based clinics instructs school
staffers to bill Medi-Cal, the state Medicaid office, for
"Identifying and referring adolescents who may be in need of
Medi-Cal family planning services," and for "Conducting a family
planning health education outreach program or campaign-if it is
targeted specifically to family planning Medi-Cal services that are
offered to Medi-Cal-eligible individuals."[5]
In general, each state is allowed to decide whether or not to
offer most medical services in its Medicaid plan. The category of
"family planning" is an exception. Since 1972, Medicaid statutes
have mandated that every state provide contraceptives and other
family planning supplies to all "individuals of child-bearing age
(including minors who can be considered to be sexually
active) who are eligible under the State plan and who desire
such services and supplies."[6] As a result, Medicaid is the number one
source of taxpayer funding for contraception and other family
planning supplies and services nationwide. In 2006, Medicaid spent
$1.3 billion on family planning, accounting for 71 percent of all
public funds spent on contraception that year.[7]
Although the law does require that state Medicaid plans cover
family planning services and supplies for those minors who request
them, it does not require several otherwise implied or
assumed services:
- It does not require that family planning be made available in
the schools.
- It does not require the schools to promote family planning
services.
- It does not require that schools provide referrals to family
planning clinics.
- It dies not require that there be a health clinic in the
school.
The proposed rule would not make it illegal for school officials
to provide sex-education classes, or contract with Planned
Parenthood to hold family planning "outreach campaigns," or refer a
minor on Medicaid to a family planning clinic. It would merely
forbid them to bill Medicaid-and the federal taxpayers-for these
programs and expenses. As many of the school-based clinics are not
economically viable without massive Medicaid overbilling, the rule
would reduce the number of clinics and direct children back to
their family pediatricians.
Medicaid Confidentiality Rules Restrict Parents'
Involvement in Children's Health Care
Doctors and school nurses who care for children covered under
Medicaid are not allowed to inform parents about care given to
their child unless the child signs a consent form. According to
federal law, those who provide Medicaid benefits are prohibited
from sharing "confidential" information about the patients,
regardless of the age of the patient.[8] The same policy that
prohibits doctors from releasing the medical records of adults
enrolled in Medicaid also prohibits school nurses from sharing
information about children enrolled in Medicaid with the children's
parents. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Medicaid's
confidentiality rules trump any state or local laws requiring
parental notification or consent for their child's medical care,
including contraception.[9]
The members of the Senate Finance Committee that wrote this
portion of the Social Security Act in 1972 said in their report:[10]
The committee amendment would authorize States to make available
on a voluntary and confidential basis family planning
counseling, services, and supplies, directly and/or on a contract
basis with family planning organizations (such as Planned
Parenthood clinics and Neighborhood Health Centers) throughout the
State, to present, former, or potential recipients including
any eligible medically needy individuals who are of child-bearing
age and who desire such services. The Secretary would be
required to work with the States to assure that particular
effort is made in the provision of family planning services to
minors (and non-minors) who have never had children but who
can be considered to be sexually active. (Emphases added.)
Thus, it is not an accident or oversight on the part of Congress
that the confidentiality rules apply to minors. It is a result of
the expressed intention of Congress that children who have reached
puberty and might be sexually active be able to acquire birth
control without their parents' knowledge. Most parents probably are
unaware of Congress's current policy.
The confidentiality rules are not limited to family planning,
but also apply to any part of the state Medicaid plans, keeping
parents out of the loop when their children receive any care.
Psychiatric care is popular with school-based clinic advocates.
Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-OR), for example, has introduced separate
legislation (H.R. 4230) that would provide federal funds for these
clinics to deliver confidential mental health services. Medicaid
policy already allows a child to receive psychiatric evaluations
and therapy, including prescribed psychiatric drugs, through a
school-based clinic, without parental notice or consent. School
officials in California clinics, for instance, are currently
instructed to refer students to mental health care, and to bill
Medicaid for the administrative expense.[11]
Conclusion
Lawmakers should not block or stall rules that address real
problems in Medicaid. Several of the proposed rules have already
been delayed for over a year. A congressional moratorium would
continue these problems for yet another year without addressing the
substantive issues. The proposed regulations would not only
restrict abuses and fraud regarding Medicaid billing, but would
also remove Medicaid funding for the non-medical expenses of
school-based clinics, reducing the harm to parental rights from
Medicaid's onerous confidentiality rules. Parents should be
concerned whenever any part of the Medicaid system has direct
access to their children. Any entity that receives a single dollar
from Medicaid is prohibited from contacting the parents of a minor
who requests any sponsored care, including such sensitive medical
care as family planning services and supplies.
On the issue of parental notification and consent, Congress
should change sides. It should change Medicaid law to require that
doctors and school nurses seek the explicit prior written informed
consent of a child's parent or legal guardian before providing
contraception or psychiatric care. Until Congress can reform these
anti-family provisions of Medicaid, it should allow the CMS to
refocus the program on its mission of funding medical care for the
poor, and not picking up unnecessary administrative costs,
particularly in schools. The proposed rules will not only reduce
the fraudulent billing of the federal government, but which will
also empower parents to have greater involvement in the lives of
their children.
Daniel Patrick Moloney,
Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst in the Richard and
Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage
Foundation. Heritage Foundation intern Lucas Pillman contributed to
this WebMemo.
[1] For
a helpful summary, see Nina Owcharenko, "The Medicaid Regulations:
Stopping the Abuse of Taxpayers' Dollars," Heritage Foundation
WebMemo No. 1911, May 2, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare
/upload/wm_1911.pdf.
[2]
Final Rule, CMS-2287-F, Fed. Reg. Vol. 72, No. 248, pp.
73635-73651, December 28, 2007; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
CMS-2213-P, Fed. Reg. Vol. 72, No. 188, pp. 55158-55166, September
28, 2007.
[3] See
Sally Richardson, Director, Center for Medicaid & State
Operations, Health Care Financing Administration, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, testimony regarding Medicaid Coverage
of School-Based Services before the Senate Finance Committee, June
17, 1999 at http://hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990617a.html
(May 2, 2008). See also Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,
Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide, May
2003, p. 16, at http://cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidBudgetExpendSystem/
Downloads/Schoolhealthsvcs.pdf (November 20, 2007).
[6]Section 1905(a)(4)(C) of the Social Security
Act. Emphasis added.
[8]
1902(a)(7)(A) and 1902(a)(8) of the Social Security Act; 42 CFR
441.20. See also Abigail English and Carol A. Ford, "The HIPAA
Privacy Rule and Adolescents: Legal Questions and Clinical
Challenges," Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive
Health, Vol. 36, No. 2 (March/April 2004), at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NNR/
is_2_36/ai_n6069101/print (November 27, 2007); and
"Parental Consent and Notice for Contraceptives Threatens Teen
Health and Constitutional Rights," Center for Reproductive Rights
Domestic Fact Sheet No. F008, November 2006, at http://reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_
parentalconsent.html (November 15, 2007).
[9] See
T.H. v. Jones 425 F. Supp. 823 (1975), 425 US 986 (1976).
[10]
Senate Finance Committee, commenting on section 299E of the Senate
bill amending Titles IV A and XIX of the Social Security Act.
S.Rep. No. 92-1230, 92d Cong. (1972) (cited in 425 F. Supp. 878,
note 3).
[11]
California Department of Health Care Services, School-Based
Medi-Cal Administrative Activities Manual, pp. 5-8 to
5-12.