Medicaid: Improving Transparency and Accountability of Supplemental Payments and State Financing Methods
Released: 2015-11-03T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Medicaid is an open-ended entitlement; states are generally obligated to pay for covered services provided to eligible individuals, and the federal government is obligated to pay its share of a state’s expenditures under a federally approved state Medicaid plan. The federal share of each state’s Medicaid expenditures is based on a statutory formula known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP). Some states design their Medicaid programs to have local governments contribute to the programs’ costs, for example, through intergovernmental transfers of funds from government-owned or -operated providers to the state Medicaid program. States may, subject to certain requirements, also receive funds to finance Medicaid payments from health care providers, for example, through provider taxes—taxes levied on providers such as hospitals or nursing facilities. Under federal law, provider taxes must be broad-based, must be uniformly imposed, and must not hold providers harmless; that is, they must not provide a direct or indirect guarantee that providers will receive all or a portion of tax payments back. Taxes that are at or below 6 percent of the individual provider’s net patient service revenues are considered not to have provided an indirect guarantee that providers will receive their tax payments back.

In addition to flexibility in determining sources of funds they use to finance their nonfederal share, states have flexibility, within broad federal requirements, in designing and operating their Medicaid programs, including determining which services to cover and setting payment rates for providers. In general, federal law provides for federal matching funds for state Medicaid payments for covered services provided to eligible beneficiaries up to a ceiling or limit, often called the upper payment limit (UPL). The UPL is based on what Medicare would pay for the same services. States often make two general types of Medicaid supplemental payments:

First, under federal Medicaid law, states are required to make disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments to certain hospitals. These payments are designed to help offset these hospitals’ uncompensated care costs for serving Medicaid and uninsured low- income patients. States’ Medicaid payment rates are not required to cover the full costs of providing care to Medicaid beneficiaries, and many providers also provide care to low-income patients without any insurance or ability to pay. Under federal law, DSH payments are capped at a facility-specific level and state level.

Second, many states also make another type of Medicaid supplemental payment, referred to here as non-DSH supplemental payments, to hospitals and other providers who, for example, serve high-cost Medicaid beneficiaries. Unlike DSH payments, non-DSH supplemental payments are not required under federal law, do not have a specified statutory or regulatory purpose, and are not subject to firm dollar limits at the facility or state level. Unlike regular Medicaid payments, which are paid on the basis of covered Medicaid services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries through an automated claims process, non-DSH supplemental payments are not necessarily made on the basis of claims for specific services to particular patients and can amount to tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to a single provider, annually. States can generally make non-DSH payments up to the UPL. Typically, state Medicaid payment rates are lower than what the Medicare program would pay, and so many states make supplemental payments under the UPL. Non-DSH supplemental payments, like regular Medicaid payments, must be consistent with Medicaid payment principles. Under federal law, to receive federal matching funds, payments generally must (1) be made for covered Medicaid items and services, (2) be consistent with economy, efficiency, and quality of care, and (3) not exceed the UPL. Supplemental payments may also be made under Medicaid demonstrations, but may not be subject to these requirements, depending on the terms of the demonstration.

Historically, DSH payments exceeded Medicaid non-DSH payments. In recent years the opposite has occurred, and non-DSH payments have exceeded DSH payments. In fiscal year 2011, Medicaid non-DSH payments totaled nearly $26 billion compared to over $17 billion for DSH payments.

Complete and Reliable Data on Non-DSH Supplemental Payments are Lacking, Hindering Transparency and Oversight

For about two decades, we have raised concerns about supplemental payments and the adequacy of federal oversight. We have designated Medicaid a high-risk program due in part to these concerns. For example, in a February 2004 report, we found that over the years some states had made relatively large non-DSH supplemental payments to relatively small numbers of government-owned providers, and that these providers were then sometimes required to return these payments to the states, resulting in an inappropriate increase in federal matching funds. We also found that some states had used widely varying and inaccurate methods for estimating their non-DSH payment amounts, which may inflate the amount of non-DSH supplemental payments. CMS is responsible for ensuring that state Medicaid payments are consistent with federal requirements, including that payments are consistent with economy and efficiency and are for Medicaid-covered services. To do so, it is important for CMS to have relevant, reliable, and timely information for management decision making and external reporting purposes.

In recent years, our work examining these payments has identified several instances of payments that further raise concerns about whether Medicaid payments that greatly exceeded costs are economical and efficient. For example, as reported in November 2012, we found that 39 states had made non-DSH supplemental payments to 505 hospitals that, along with their regular Medicaid payments, exceeded those hospitals’ total costs of providing Medicaid care by $2.7 billion. In some cases, payments greatly exceeded costs; for example, one hospital received almost $320 million in non-DSH payments and $331 million in regular Medicaid payments, which exceeded the $410 million in costs reported for the hospital for providing Medicaid services by about $241 million.

As we reported in April 2015, our more recent analysis of average daily payment amounts—which reflect both regular payments and non-DSH supplemental payments—identified hospitals for which Medicaid payments received exceeded their Medicaid costs, and we also found a few cases where states made payments to local government hospitals that exceeded the hospitals’ total operating costs. CMS’s oversight mechanisms had not identified large overpayments to two hospitals in one state that resulted from non-DSH supplemental payments until we identified them. CMS began reviewing the appropriateness of the two hospitals’ payments during the course of our review. As we concluded in our 2012 and 2015 reports, although Medicaid payments are not required to be limited to a provider’s costs of delivering Medicaid services, payments that greatly exceed these costs raise questions, including whether they are consistent with economy and efficiency, whether they contribute to beneficiaries’ access to quality care, and the extent to which they are ultimately used for Medicaid purposes. However, CMS lacks data at the federal level on non-DSH supplemental payments, and the payments are not subject to audit.

Based on our findings, we have identified opportunities to improve the oversight, transparency, and accountability of non-DSH supplemental payments to providers, in particular through improved reporting, auditing, and guidance. Since 2010, states have been required by federal law to submit annual facility-specific reports and annual independent certified audits on DSH payments. In connection with the independent audit requirement, standard methods were established for calculating DSH payment amounts. However, similar requirements for reporting, annual independent audits, and guidance on acceptable methods for calculating non-DSH supplemental payments are not in place for non-DSH payments. As we reported in November 2012, we found that the newly implemented annual reporting and audits for DSH payments improved CMS oversight—and we concluded that better reporting and audits of non-DSH supplemental payments could improve CMS’s oversight of these payments as well.

As our work has shown, states’ non-DSH supplemental payments can be complex and challenging to assess. Hospital-specific information can be helpful to CMS and others for understanding, at the provider level, the relationship of supplemental payments to both regular Medicaid payments and Medicaid costs. For example, reporting of non-DSH payments that states make to individual hospitals and other providers relative to the providers’ Medicaid costs could improve the transparency of these payments. In addition, audits could improve accountability by providing information on how these payments are calculated and the extent to which payments to individual providers are consistent with the Medicaid payment principles of economy and efficiency. Absent complete and reliable provider-specific data on the non-DSH supplemental payments individual providers receive, CMS may not identify potentially excessive payments to providers, and the federal government could be paying states hundreds of millions—or billions—of dollars more than what is appropriate.

CMS has taken some steps to improve oversight of these payments, but has not established facility-specific reporting requirements, required annual independent audits of states’ non-DSH payments, or specified uniform methods for calculating non-DSH supplemental payment amounts. Steps CMS has taken include issuing a state Medicaid Director letter in 2013 to obtain more information on non-DSH supplemental payments and awarding a contract in May 2014 to review Medicaid supplemental payment information, the outcomes of which were not yet known as of July 2015. CMS said in 2012 that legislation was necessary for them to implement reporting and auditing requirements for DSH payments, and that legislation would be needed for the agency to implement similar requirements for non-DSH supplemental payments. Consequently, we have suggested that Congress consider requiring CMS to take steps to improve the transparency and accountability of non-DSH supplemental payments, including requirements similar to those in place for DSH.

States are Increasingly Relying on Providers and Local Governments to Finance Medicaid, and Data Needed for Oversight is Lacking

Our work has found that states are increasingly relying on providers and local governments to finance Medicaid, and has also pointed to the need for better data and improved oversight to ensure that Medicaid payments are financed consistent with federal requirements, to understand financing trends, and to ensure federal matching funds are used efficiently. Further, our work has shown that state flexibility to seek contributions from local governments or impose taxes on health care providers to finance Medicaid may create incentives for states to overpay providers in order to reduce states’ financial obligations. Such financing arrangements can have the effect of shifting costs of Medicaid from states to the federal government. Benefits to providers, which may be financing a large share of any new payments, and to the beneficiaries whom they may serve, may be less apparent. CMS is responsible for ensuring that state Medicaid payments made under financing arrangements are consistent with Medicaid payment principles, including that they are economical and efficient, and that the federal government and states share in the financing of the Medicaid program as established by law. To oversee the Medicaid program, it is important for CMS to have accurate and complete information on the amount of funds supplied by health care providers and local governments to states to finance the nonfederal share of Medicaid.

As we reported in July 2014, our survey of all state Medicaid programs found that states are increasingly relying on providers and local governments to help fund Medicaid. For example, in state fiscal year 2012, funds from providers and local governments accounted for 26 percent (or over $46 billion) of the approximately $180 billion in the total nonfederal share of Medicaid payments that year—an increase from 21 percent ($31 billion) in state fiscal year 2008. (See fig. 1.) These sources were used to fund Medicaid supplemental payments—both DSH and non-DSH—to a greater extent than other types of payments, and we found this reliance was growing. For Medicaid DSH and non-DSH supplemental payments, the percentage of the nonfederal share financed with funds from providers and local governments increased from 57 percent (or $8.1 billion) in state fiscal year 2008 to 70 percent (or $13.6 billion) in state fiscal year 2012. Several states relied on health care providers and local governments for the entire nonfederal share of supplemental payments in 2012.

Our reports have illustrated how this increased reliance on non-state sources of funds can shift costs from states to the federal government, changing the nature of the federal-state partnership. For example, in our July 2014 report, our analysis of arrangements involving financing of the nonfederal share of Medicaid payments with funds from provider taxes or local governments in three selected states illustrated how Medicaid costs can be shifted from the state to the federal government and, to a lesser extent, to health care providers and local governments. The use of funds from providers and local governments is, as previously described, allowable under federal rules, but it can also have implications for federal costs. By increasing providers’ Medicaid payments, and requiring providers receiving the payments to supply all or most of the nonfederal share, we found that states claimed an increase in federal matching funds without a commensurate increase in state general funds. For example, in our 2014 report, we found that in one state a $220 million payment increase for nursing facilities in 2012 (which was funded by a tax on nursing facilities) resulted in an estimated $110 million increase in federal matching funds; no increase in state general funds; and a net payment increase to the facilities, after paying the taxes, of $105 million. (See fig. 2.)

As we found in our 2014 report, due to data limitations, CMS is not well- positioned to either identify states’ Medicaid financing sources or assess their impact. Apart from data on provider taxes, CMS generally does not require (or otherwise collect) information from states on the funds they use to finance Medicaid, nor ensure that the data that it does collect are accurate and complete. The lack of transparency in states’ sources of funds and financing arrangements hinders CMS’s and federal policymakers’ efforts to oversee Medicaid. Further, it is difficult to determine whether a state’s increased reliance on funds from providers and local governments primarily serves to (1) provide fiscal relief to the state by increasing federal funding, or (2) increase payments to providers that in turn help improve beneficiary access.

CMS has recognized the need for better data from states on how they finance their share of Medicaid and has taken steps to collect some data, but additional steps are needed. We recommended in July 2014 that CMS take steps to ensure that states report accurate and complete information on all sources of funds used to finance the nonfederal share of Medicaid, and offered suggestions for doing so. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) did not concur with our recommendation, stating that its current efforts were adequate; however, HHS acknowledged that additional data were needed to ensure that states comply with federal requirements regarding how much local governments may contribute to the nonfederal share, and stated that it would examine efforts to improve data collection for oversight. As of June 2015, HHS reported that its position continued to be that no further action is needed. Given states’ increased reliance on non-state sources to fund the nonfederal share of Medicaid, which can result in costs shifting to the federal government, we continue to believe that improved data are needed to improve transparency and oversight, such as to understand how increased federal costs may affect beneficiaries and the providers who serve them.

In conclusion, the flexibility states have in how they pay providers and finance the nonfederal share has enabled states to make excessive payments to certain providers and allowed states to shift costs to the federal government. While Congress and CMS have taken important steps to improve the integrity of the Medicaid program through improved oversight of some Medicaid supplemental payments and financing arrangements, Congress and CMS need better information and more tools to understand who receives non-DSH supplemental payments and in what amounts, to ensure they are economical and efficient as required by law, and to determine the extent to which they are ultimately used for Medicaid purposes.

Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Green, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you might have at this time.

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please contact Katherine M. Iritani at (202) 512-7114. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Tim Bushfield, Assistant Director; Robin Burke; Sandra George; Jessica Morris; Laurie Pachter; Said Sariolghalam; and Emily Wilson.

Appendix I: GAO’s Matters for Congressional Consideration and Agency Recommendations

The following table lists matters for congressional consideration regarding actions to improve the transparency of and accountability for the Medicaid non-disproportionate share hospital (DSH) supplemental payments states make to providers. It also includes recommendations we have made to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding actions to improve data and oversight of the sources of funds states use to finance the nonfederal share of Medicaid.

Related GAO Products

Medicaid: Key Issues Facing the Program. GAO-15-677. Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2015. 2015 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits. GAO-15-404SP. Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2015.

Medicaid: CMS Oversight of Provider Payments Is Hampered by Limited Data and Unclear Policy. GAO-15-322. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 2015.

Medicaid Financing: Questionnaire Data on States’ Methods for Financing Medicaid Payments from 2008 through 2012. GAO-15-227SP. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2015, an e-supplement to GAO-14-627.

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-15-290. Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2015.

Medicaid Financing: States’ Increased Reliance on Funds from Health Care Providers and Local Governments Warrants Improved CMS Data Collection. GAO-14-627. Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2014.

Medicaid: Completed and Preliminary Work Indicate that Transparency around State Financing Methods and Payments to Providers Is Still Needed for Oversight. GAO-14-817T. Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2014. 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits. GAO-13-279SP. Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2013.

Medicaid: More Transparency of and Accountability for Supplemental Payments Are Needed. GAO-13-48. Washington, D.C.: November 26, 2012.

Medicaid: States Reported Billions More in Supplemental Payments in Recent Years. GAO-12-694. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2012.

Medicaid: Ongoing Federal Oversight of Payments to Offset Uncompensated Hospital Care Costs is Warranted. GAO-10-69. Washington, D.C.: November 20, 2009.

Medicaid: CMS Needs More Information on the Billions of Dollars Spent on Supplemental Payments. GAO-08-614. Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2008.

Medicaid Financing: Federal Oversight Initiative Is Consistent with Medicaid Payment Principles but Needs Greater Transparency. GAO-07- 214. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2007.

Medicaid: Improved Federal Oversight of State Financing Schemes Is Needed. GAO-04-228. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2004.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.