Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) News Release
"I rise here today because the
Nelson's remarks come just hours after he, Castor and 10 other members of
"This proposal will directly hurt Floridians with disabilities and seniors in nursing homes," the lawmakers wrote. "If approved, this decision could jeopardize the financial security of at least 39,000 of the most vulnerable Floridians and countless providers who treat them."
Under the existing Medicaid framework, Medicaid beneficiaries can get up to three months of retroactive coverage from the date they apply to enroll in the Medicaid program, as long as they were eligible for Medicaid when they received care. In March, the
"It is our duty to ensure eligible individuals have access to care without going into debt to obtain it, which is why retroactive eligibility is so vital," the lawmakers wrote. "This proposal would not only wipe out many families' pocketbooks, but it would also place a financial burden on health care providers, the state and indeed all
The federal lawmakers dismissed the state's claim that the proposal was an attempt to "enhance fiscal predictability" of the state's Medicaid program.
"If the state were serious about securing greater financial security," the lawmakers wrote to CMS, "they should expand Medicaid and accept the
In addition to Nelson and Castor, the letter was signed by Reps.
Here's a link to watch video of Nelson's remarks on the
Below is text of the letter, followed by a transcript of Nelson's speech. A .pdf copy of the lawmakers' letter can be found here https://www.billnelson.senate.gov/sites/default/files/20180510%20Medicaid%20and%20Medicare.pdf.
The Honorable
Administrator
RE: Oppose Florida's 1115 Medicaid Waiver Amendment to Eliminate Retroactive Eligibility Due to Potential Extreme Harm to Older and Disabled Floridians
Dear Administrator Verma,
As members of the Florida Congressional Delegation, we write to urge you to oppose provisions of the
Today, critical protections in Medicaid mean beneficiaries can get up to three months of retroactive coverage from the date they apply to enroll in the program as long as these individuals were eligible for Medicaid when they received care. In March, the state proposed eliminating this policy of retroactive eligibility by amending its ongoing Section 1115 demonstration. If approved, this decision could jeopardize the financial security of at least 39,000 of the most vulnerable Floridians and countless providers who treat them. It will also cut at least
Retroactive eligibility is designed to protect Medicaid beneficiaries--including seniors, pregnant women, individuals with disabilities, and parents--and their families from the steep costs of medical services and long-term care. Importantly, this protection was also designed to minimize uncompensated care costs faced by hospitals and other health care providers who take care of our neighbors and are already challenged by the state's low reimbursement rates. Also important to remember is, even though retroactive, folks who end up covered are unquestionably eligible for Medicaid and this existing policy and time frame protects those who are unaware - through no fault of their own - that they qualify.
Applying for Medicaid coverage can be a complicated and sometimes burdensome process, particularly when an individual or family member is dealing with securing admission to a nursing home, addressing a medical emergency, or seeking care for a worsening illness or injury. Leaving Medicaid-eligible applicants without financial protection simply because they have not enrolled is cruel and in direct conflict with the goals of the Medicaid program. This proposal will directly hurt Floridians with disabilities and seniors in nursing homes. If CMS approves this proposal in its current form, it would likely prevent vulnerable populations, especially seniors in nursing homes, from getting the care they need.
It is our duty to ensure eligible individuals have access to care without going into debt to obtain it, which is why retroactive eligibility is so vital. This proposal would not only wipe out many families' pocketbooks, but it would also place a financial burden on health care providers, the state and indeed all
Instead of building barriers to coverage, we need to focus on getting our uninsured and underinsured neighbors quality and affordable health coverage and reducing uncompensated care costs that hurt health care providers' ability to provide needed care and strain
Thank you for considering our request.
Sincerely,
Remarks on the
Mr. President, I rise here today because the state of
To put that another way, a person who has had health care problems and that is eligible under Medicaid, once they apply, under current law there's a lookback period of three months that those health care expenses that they incurred would be reimbursed to their health care providers -- the doctors, the nurses, whatever the service is -- and paid by Medicaid because they have been deemed to be eligible. Certain people with disabilities and certain people because of their income level and their status. Now, what the state of
Well, the current law is three months, so why should the state of
The state proposed to
And if this is not enough of an outrage that the state of
Well, it's just unacceptable. This provision was designed to protect seniors and veterans and pregnant women and individuals with disabilities and parents and their families with high medical bills and the cost associated with the long-term care. So not only are you jeopardizing hospitals and the doctors and the nurses and all the medical providers of not getting paid, of which they are eligible under current law, you're also putting into financial jeopardy the poor people that are sick that need to be treated, and they don't have the money because of their income level. They don't have the money, and then you start getting all these Dunning statements and saying, we're coming after you financially and we're going to take you into the poorhouse.
And so that's why I joined with my colleague in the House,
And, Mr. President, I ask consent that this be inserted in the record. The presiding officer: Without objection.
The state of
And perhaps what's even more troubling is that the letter accompanying the state of
So now it's not -- not only is the state of
Indeed, members of the
Read this original document at: https://www.billnelson.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/nelson-castor-urge-feds-to-block-state-plan-to-cut-medicaid
Recent Research from University of Southampton Highlight Findings in Health Insurance (Determinants of National Health Insurance enrolment in Ghana…
Brighthouse Life Insurance Co Files SEC Form EFFECT, Notice of Effectiveness: (May. 1, 2018)
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News