Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Maternal Health Home Births topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to expand Medicaid coverage and reimbursement for home births in Greater Minnesota
Summary
Senate File 1113 would codify medical assistance coverage for home birth services and allow providers to bill for facility‑like fees to improve reimbursement for midwives serving Medicaid clients; the bill was laid over for possible inclusion after testimony describing access gaps and current low Medicaid rates.
Senate File 1113, introduced by Senator McQuade, would codify Medicaid (medical assistance) coverage for home birth services and increase compensation for licensed home birth providers so they can serve more Medicaid clients, proponents told the committee.
Rosa Ostreic, who identified herself as a midwife in Ely and president of the Minnesota Coalition of Certified Professional Midwives, said hospital labor and delivery closures have left many Greater Minnesota communities without nearby delivery services. ‘‘In my area alone ... delivery units have all closed,’’ she said, and described calls from pregnant people who gave birth in their cars while trying to reach distant providers. Ostreic told senators that midwives are paid about $1,380 by Medicaid for full perinatal care, whereas private‑pay clients typically pay around $7,000, and she urged higher reimbursement and the ability to bill a portion of a facility fee to stay in business.
Sasha Barrief, a licensed midwife and board‑certified lactation consultant, said she lost a birth center job because of low investment in maternity care and described the economics of current Medicaid fees: ‘‘We cannot afford to survive off the global fee of $1,300 ... the midwife with $800 per client ... translates to approximately $11.43 to $13.33 per hour based off the conservatively average 60 to 70 hours that are spent providing care to each client.’’
Supporters said higher reimbursement for out‑of‑hospital providers could be cost‑effective, reduce pressure on distant hospitals, and expand options for rural families. Senator Avery said the proposal was a logical investment that could save money compared with higher hospital costs.
Committee action: Senate File 1113 as amended was laid over for possible inclusion; no final committee vote to pass the bill was recorded at this hearing.
Next steps: sponsors said funding will be considered as the session’s budget process unfolds.
