Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Care Provider Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee examines provider taxes, hospital reimbursements and potential budget consequences
Summary
Committee members pressed Medicaid and fiscal staff on how provider taxes are collected and used, how provider taxes "gross up" federal match, and the fiscal implications of reducing or eliminating taxes paid by hospitals and other providers.
Committee members spent a significant portion of the Jan. 15 House Health Care briefing asking how provider taxes operate and what budgetary effects would follow if those taxes were reduced or eliminated.
Nolan Langewell and Ashley Berliner explained that provider taxes are general fund revenue sources that the state uses, in part, to draw additional federal Medicaid dollars. Langewell described a simplified illustration: removing $100 million in provider tax revenue would create a general-fund shortfall and, taking the federal match into account, could translate to a much larger reduction in Medicaid purchasing power. "If we were to eliminate a $100,000,000 in provider tax, we would have to cut $243,000,000 out of the Medicaid budget," a witness said in the briefing, explaining the gross-up effect of federal matching funds.
Numbers provided in the briefing and follow-up remarks include:
- Hospital provider tax: FY24 actual $192,000,000; FY25 estimate $209,000,000; FY26 estimate $220,000,000 (figures provided by fiscal staff in the briefing).
- Gross-up example: staff used a representative gross-up factor so that $209 million in provider tax could "gross up" to roughly $460 million of Medicaid funding when federal match is included (the briefing used a simplified mix of match rates and noted the exact gross-up depends on program-specific FMAPs and service mixes).
- Historical reference: a 2020 expenditure analysis cited in the briefing reported Medicaid-paid hospital spending of about $340,000,000 for that year; witnesses emphasized that data is outdated and that current numbers would be larger.
Other points discussed:
- Who pays provider taxes: Hospitals, nursing homes and certain other institutional providers historically participated; home health was included in earlier provider tax schemes but was later removed. Emergency medical services (EMS) provider tax revenue was described as much smaller (roughly $1 million annually) and not all providers uniformly support provider taxes.
- Provider perspective and politics: Committee members noted hospitals have raised concerns about provider taxes given tight margins and asked whether the state could reduce the tax; witnesses said lawmakers would face trade-offs — reducing the tax would lower general-fund revenue and either require cuts elsewhere or increased revenue to preserve Medicaid spending.
- Reporting and transparency: Members requested more detailed claims and reimbursement data (for hospitals and EMS) to better assess the relationship between tax contributions and Medicaid reimbursements.
No formal action was taken; the discussion was advisory and informational. Committee members asked staff for additional data on claims, non-transport EMS reimbursements and the history of specific provider taxes.
