Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reimbursement Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee reviews provider rate requests, hears VNA and designated‑agency increases
Summary
The Vermont House Health Care Committee discussed Visiting Nurse Association and Vermont Care Partners requests for 3.5% rate increases, debated how Medicare adjustments affect Medicaid conversion factors, and pressed administration staff to verify federal matches and methodology for converting percentage increases into Medicaid dollar impacts.
The Vermont House Health Care Committee spent much of its session reviewing provider reimbursement requests, focusing on a Visiting Nurse Association (VNA) proposal and a separate request from Vermont Care Partners.
Speaker 1 introduced the VNA request for a 3.5% increase, saying the change "would add 28,000 to the base, bringing them up to 70% of Medicare." Committee members repeatedly emphasized that the figures provided were advocate estimates and asked administration staff to verify how much of any increase would be general fund versus federal match.
Committee members pressed for clarity on which provider lines would see the largest dollar impacts. "Psych is really, really expensive and hard to get people here for, so we need to pay premium salaries," Speaker 1 said while noting specialty and behavioral health lines drive larger dollar changes. Speaker 5 explained methodological differences, cautioning that "Medicare pays on an episodic basis whereas Medicaid pays on a per visit basis," so a flat percent increase produces uneven effects across billing codes.
On the Vermont Care Partners request — described by Speaker 1 as a 3.5% increase for designated agency mental‑health services (including SSAs) with a gross listed at $5.8 million — committee members asked how much would be borne by state general fund versus federal dollars. Administration staff said the committee would need to verify match rates; Speaker 2 advised that last year’s increases and the request mix across AHS programs can change the total cost if the committee broadens or narrows the entities it intends to cover.
Eric Covey, introduced later in the meeting, summarized that while a 3.5% flat increase "gets most rates to approximate, like, at least that benchmark of 70% of Medicare," some high‑tech and pediatric specialty lines remain far below corresponding Medicare benchmarks and would require larger, policy‑level fixes.
The committee did not take a formal vote on specific rate figures. Members asked staff (Nolan and administration) to return verified match calculations and code‑by‑code impacts before the committee finalizes rankings of budget priorities.
