Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Provider Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee trims some provider‑rate items, questions ACC incentive cuts and primary‑care supports
Summary
The JBC debated department proposals to reverse a 1.6% rate increase, reduce ACC incentive payments and delay primary‑care stabilization payments, approving some staff recommendations but asking for more department detail on impacts to RAEs, PCMPs and ACC savings.
The panel opened a multi‑hour review of provider‑rate change proposals from the Department of Health Care Policy and Finance. GBC staff summarized the package and repeatedly cautioned that reducing performance‑based incentives could erode the savings the Accountable Care Collaborative (ACC) has delivered.
Kurtz told members the department proposed a 25% reduction in certain ACC incentive payments as part of a broader 1.6% provider‑rate rollback tied to an executive order. "The department's proposal to reduce those incentive payments seems to me like it would reduce the incentive for those providers to implement these innovations that save us money," Kurtz said. Committee members pressed for clearer analysis of how much of the requested reduction would be borne by RAEs (regional accountable entities) versus primary care medical providers (PCMPs) and whether the behavioral health incentive reductions were disproportionately larger.
On stabilization payments intended to support struggling clinics, the department proposed delaying payments that were scheduled to begin January 1 until July, which would create one‑time fiscal relief. Staff recommended not starting the new stabilization payments; the committee approved that staff recommendation. On the 1.6% executive‑order reversal to provider rates (S6.11), committee members requested department follow‑up on whether federal approvals and Medical Services Board actions are needed; the committee adopted staff recommendation to accept the department request while inviting the department back to clarify implementation pathways.
Members repeatedly asked the department to document (1) the ACC savings they assume would persist if incentives were reduced, (2) the split of incentive dollars passing through to PCMPs versus those retained by RAEs, and (3) whether reductions would create duplicative cuts for primary‑care providers who also would face other rate adjustments. Staff agreed to seek clarifying responses from the department and to bring the data to a comeback.
