Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Provider Rates Common Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Joint Budget Committee weighs community provider rate common policy, accepts governor's no-request stance
Summary
JBC staff presented the community provider rate common policy landscape, showing that a 1% increase would cost roughly $40 million general fund (driven largely by Health Care Policy and Financing). The committee accepted the governor’s lack of a request for a common policy increase but left open revisiting the policy later.
Joint Budget Committee staff told lawmakers a 1% increase in the community provider rate common policy would cost roughly $40,000,000 general fund; a 1% decrease would lower state costs by roughly $33,500,000, with differences tied to items excluded from the rate base.
Justin Braque, JBC staff, explained the difference between the increase and decrease estimates: the inclusion or exclusion of a large Community First Choice base (about $650 million) and other HCBS/HCPF- specific exclusions. Braque said the health care base — primarily the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing — represents the majority of the common-policy base.
Staff briefed the committee on history and rationale for the common policy, adopted about 26 years ago to simplify rate adjustments by applying a single percentage to a defined base rather than a more complicated multi-factor calculation. Braque showed that many targeted provider rates have diverged from the common policy over the past decade, in part because some service areas received targeted adjustments while others did not. That divergence has contributed to pressure on some specific provider rates.
Committee members asked detailed questions about the fund splits, whether non‑HCBS providers are treated differently, and how vehicle replacement of rates interacts with block grants and county administration. Senators and representatives also probed why increases in the common policy have grown in cost over time and whether targeted rate adjustments or a different model would better address mismatched provider bases.
Decision: After discussion the committee agreed to accept the governor’s “no request” as the starting point for the common policy — i.e., no across-the-board provider rate increase in the supplemental. Members emphasized that this decision does not foreclose revisiting provider rates later in figure setting or in the long bill; staff noted the JBC can return to this item and that the committee still has options for targeted adjustments. The committee recorded consensus rather than a roll-call vote.
