Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medicaid Long Term Care topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate finance panel allows previously appropriated Medicaid funds to carry forward to stabilize nursing‑home rates
Summary
After questioning from senators and testimony from DHHS officials, the committee approved an amendment to let a $2.25 million general‑fund appropriation (plus federal match) be carried forward to support Medicaid long‑term care rate‑setting in a later cycle, following debate about underspent funds and recent rate reductions affecting facilities.
The Senate Finance Committee voted to advance a change allowing $2,250,000 in general funds (plus the federal match) previously appropriated for Medicaid long‑term care to be carried forward and applied in a later rate‑setting cycle to help stabilize nursing‑home per‑diem rates.
Senator Lang (S2) pressed department officials on why nursing‑home rates fell despite the prior appropriation, asking, “How do we have any guarantee that if we do this and we give you the ability to move the 2.25 that you didn't spend to keep it flat like we asked you to, you're actually gonna use that money to keep it flat.” Nathan White, chief financial officer at the Department of Health and Human Services (S4), explained that the $2.25 million was placed into a larger $300‑million pool after a contract came in under budget and that the amendment would permit those dollars to be carried forward and applied to the next cycle of rate setting.
Henry Littman, the state's Medicaid director (S6), told the committee the department adjusted aggregate rates with a roughly $10.6 million adjustment in a prior cycle and that the exact funds discussed were not directly spent but were equivalent to amounts used from overall forecasts: “These specific exact funds were not used, but an equivalent amount was used from what we had forecasted earlier as needing to cover the regular rate.” Committee members repeatedly sought clarity about underspent figures; White said the immediate payout figure being examined was about $3.6 million on the relevant class line, and that with the general‑fund transfer plus federal match the total impact cited in the committee’s overview equated to roughly the 2.63% budget variance discussed.
Opponents of a new additional appropriation argued the money was already available and should be prevented from lapsing rather than doubling down with a new appropriation. One member said an additional $2.5 million would be inappropriate because “we've already allocated the money. They haven't spent it.” Proponents countered that the carry‑forward authority would let the department use funds to reduce negative rate impacts in the next rate‑setting cycle.
The committee considered two competing amendments. The motion to adopt amendment 18‑98s (which would have created an additional appropriation) failed in committee; a subsequent motion to adopt amendment 18‑93s (to permit the existing $2.25 million and federal match to be non‑lapsing and applied later) carried. The bill moved forward "as amended." The committee discussion emphasized that the rate‑setting process uses many utilization and acuity assumptions and that any additional dollars would adjust the department’s projections for the next cycle.
The committee did not record a detailed roll‑call tally in the transcript for every vote; outcomes were announced by the chair and recorded in committee minutes. The next procedural step is floor consideration of the bill as amended.
Ending: The committee advanced House Bill 155 as amended; the bill will proceed to the next stage of floor consideration with the committee's amendment permitting the carry‑forward of the specified funds.
