Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medicaid Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts Medicaid supplemental after extended floor debate on provider cuts
Summary
The House approved House Bill 11 55, a supplemental appropriation to Health Care Policy & Financing that includes provider rate reductions and benefit adjustments; the measure drew extended debate from providers, rural delegates and members concerned about access and budgets before passing 40–23 with two excused.
The Colorado House on Feb. 11 approved House Bill 11 55, a supplemental appropriation for the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing that includes targeted provider rate reductions and other changes intended to reduce Medicaid spending growth. The bill passed on third reading with a recorded tally of 40 aye, 23 no and 2 excused.
Representative Bradley, speaking as a provider and parent of a child with disabilities, urged colleagues to oppose cuts that she said would worsen access in rural areas and harm patients who depend on home and specialized care. "We have rural health deserts," Bradley said, arguing that small providers and caregivers could lose capacity if reimbursement rates fall. She urged members to "think about your vote on this" and to consider the consequences for maternal health, mental health and services for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Other members, including Representative DeGraff and Representative Luck, framed the vote in fiscal terms, describing a structural deficit, the impact of federal changes (referred to on the floor as "HR 1"), and the need to balance the budget. Representative Sirota and other majority supporters said the supplemental is designed to minimize harm while bringing costs in line with national trends, citing a $222 million Medicaid forecast increase that required adjustments. Sirota said the package preserves core services while imposing targeted reforms to curb unsustainable growth.
Debate on the floor covered the mix of options available to the Legislature—changing eligibility, reducing payments, or cutting benefits—and included personal testimony from providers and members representing rural districts. Several speakers urged caution and said they would vote no because they fear loss of services; others said failing to act risks larger fiscal consequences that would also damage health care access.
The bill passed after the extended debate. Members stated the long bill and additional budget work will return to the floor in coming weeks to further address structural fiscal questions.
