This article, which appeared in California Healthline, is about AB 900, the most recent of three bills to get out of legislative Health Committees and on to Appropriations.
\nMay 02, 2013 – Capitol Desk
\nCommittee Votes To Repeal Medi-Cal Cut
\nby David Gorn
\nAssembly member Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville) got a grand total of seven seconds to speak at Tuesday’s Assembly Committee on Health hearing before he was interrupted.
\n“AB 900 eliminates the 10% Medi-Cal reimbursement rate cuts for all Medi-Cal providers \u2026 ” Alejo started to say.
\n“Move the bill,” said committee member Roger Hern\u00e1ndez (D-West Covina). And before Alejo could speak again: “Second!” said Assembly member V. Manuel P\u00e9rez (D-Coachella).
\nThat set the tone at Tuesday’s hearing, which saw a unanimous, bipartisan approval of Alejo’s bill.
\nAB 900 would reverse the Medi-Cal provider rate cuts imposed in 2011. Cuts have not been implemented, pending a federal court decision in a lawsuit challenging them. Because of the delay in implementation, providers in California face the prospect of retroactively paying back two years’ worth of 10% reductions.
\nIf the cuts are approved in federal court, the retroactive clawback would amount to 5% a year over four years, making the Medi-Cal provider rates dip by 15% for four years.
\nThat’s just too much, said Carolyn Ginno, associate director for the Center for Government Relations at the California Medical Association.
\n“California’s physicians have hit a breaking point,” Ginno said. “These cuts are it.”
\nRepublicans on the health committee also were in strong support of the bill.
\n“Medi-Cal providers means physicians, obviously,” said Assembly member Brian Maienschein (R-Rancho Bernardo), “but also dentists, pharmacists, nursing homes, ambulances.”
\nWith provider reimbursement rates for California’s Medicaid program ranked near the bottom of the nation — even before the 10% rate cut entering the equation — it doesn’t make good policy sense to drive those rates even lower, Maienschein said. The cuts would mean fewer providers willing to see Medi-Cal patients at a time when Medi-Cal expansion and health care reform are about to hit, Maienschein said.
\n“Medi-Cal providers are hurting in our state and we’re facing a huge reduction in their numbers at a time when we need more,” Maienschein said.
\nAssembly member Dan Logue (R-Loma Rica) asked to be a co-author of the bill. “This is going to bring confidence to the rural areas,” Logue said.
\nAssembly member Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) welcomed support from across the aisle.
\n“I’m thrilled to hear the bipartisan support to reconstitute the fiscal integrity of the Medi-Cal system,” Mitchell said.
\nA similar bill, SB 640 by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Long Beach), recently passed the Senate Committee on Health — also on a unanimous, bipartisan vote. Both bills head to appropriations committees in their respective houses.
\nAfter AB 900 passed committee on a 17-0 vote, bill author Alejo was sheepishly delighted.
\n“I don’t think that’s ever happened to me,” he said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This article, which appeared in California Healthline, is about AB 900, the most recent of three bills to get out of legislative Health Committees and on to Appropriations. May 02, 2013 – Capitol Desk Committee Votes To Repeal Medi-Cal Cut by David Gorn Assembly member Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville) got a grand total of seven seconds […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ephc.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ephc.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ephc.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ephc.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ephc.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=121"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ephc.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ephc.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ephc.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ephc.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}