Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medicaid Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DSS warns Medicaid and SNAP rule changes could raise workload and county fiscal exposure
Summary
Staff told the Rutherford County DSS board that proposed Medicaid recertification and SNAP reimbursement changes could increase caseworker workload and expose the county to repayment risk because of federal/state 'error-rate' rules; staff said additional hires or process changes may be required.
Agency staff reported that recent and proposed state changes affecting Medicaid and SNAP will likely increase administrative workloads and could create fiscal liability for the county.
Agency official explained that managed-care companies have taken on Medicaid transportation billing and scheduling, which eases some administrative tasks, but that proposed policy changes would increase recertification frequency for adults (from annually to every six months) and impose or expand work requirements for certain beneficiaries. The official said those changes could add thousands of additional monthly recertifications: “If it’s just the Medicaid expansion population, it would be an extra 5,166 recertifications per month,” the official said, and warned that if the new rules apply to all adults the number could be substantially higher.
Staff also reviewed SNAP administrative-reimbursement changes in the pending legislation, saying federal reimbursement for county administrative work could drop from 50% to 25% in some lines, and that a state 'error-rate' repayment schedule could make counties liable for a percentage of allotments if error rates exceed thresholds. The official said Rutherford County’s recent federal error-rate audits showed rates near or above the thresholds cited in state guidance in prior years and that a sustained high error rate could require the county to repay material sums to the state.
Board members pressed for concrete local impacts and asked for numbers to convert policy proposals into staffing needs and budget scenarios. Staff agreed to run estimates showing staff-hour impacts for recertifications and to compare local error-rate history with the proposed thresholds so the board can consider mitigation steps or budget requests.
No formal action was taken at the meeting; the board requested that staff analyze workload and fiscal exposure and present options at a future meeting.
