President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill — recently enacted by Congress and signed into law — made sweeping changes to Medicaid, the government program that provides health insurance to low-income adults and children. These changes will affect not only the estimated 184,000 people on Medicaid in New Hampshire, but also every resident who accesses health care in the state. What are those changes and what will they mean for you? Here to discuss that is Matthew S. Houde, system vice president of government relations at Dartmouth Health.
By Rosemary Ford and Caitlin Agnew
This article has been edited for length and clarity.
Judi Currie:
First, let’s talk about what Medicaid is. Who’s on it and why?
Matthew S. Houde:
Medicaid is a health insurance program that is essentially a partnership between the federal government and state governments, and it's administered by the states. It covers approximately 72 million Americans, as you said, about 185,000 in New Hampshire. It does cover categories of people — so children, pregnant women, those with disabilities, as well as people based on income level, pursuant to the Affordable Care Act expansion provision which New Hampshire adopted as well. I'd also say, though, that it serves, or has served, as a vehicle to ensure coverage for most of the vulnerable population. So it's a really important health insurance program.
Judi Currie:
The new law charges premiums for those making more than 100% of the federal poverty line, and families making 225% of the federal poverty line. Those monthly premiums for an individual vary from $60 to $100, and $190 to $270 for families. It also raises prescription drug prices. What do you feel the impact will be?
Michael S. Houde:
I'm going to step back just a little bit. It's a major tax bill that has sweeping implications for health care, right? So I'd put the continuation of those tax cuts, plus increases in defense spending and increases in border security, cost a lot. In order to find the savings to implement the continuation of the tax cuts from the first Trump administration, Congress had to find significant dollars in terms of savings. So the place that they looked at was the Medicaid program. They're actually estimating up to a trillion dollars in savings from the Medicaid program over the next 10 years, which would be roughly a 10% cut.
In terms of what it does, I'd put the implications into two buckets. It has beneficiary implications. You talked about the premium contribution or co-pay requirements. It also has new eligibility sequencing, so someone would have to prove their eligibility twice a year now, instead of once a year, if you're in the expansion population. It also has work-in-community-engagement requirements. So those are some of the beneficiary implications or changes in terms of financing.
The financing bucket — I'd say there are pretty significant implications there as well. One is that it limits the amount that states can charge provider taxes in order to generate revenue for the Medicaid program. New Hampshire has a Medicaid enhancement tax to help fund its Medicaid program, and that tax is a 5.4% charge tax on net patient service revenue assessed on all hospitals. The state then takes that money, shows it to the federal government, and the federal government then matches those dollars, which helps further fund the Medicaid program. So there's that front-end limitation that's going to take the provider tax down to 3.5% over time.
On the back end, it also limits the amount of the federal contribution in a way that I won't get into, other than saying state directed payments are going to be reduced, as well from what's an average commercial rate to an average Medicare rate. So there will be less dollars coming from the federal government to support the state's Medicaid program.
I guess the final piece that I put in that payment bucket would be the limitation on the amount of time that you can look back after someone qualifies for Medicaid. It's 90 days today, and in the future, it'll be either 30 days for some populations and 60 days for other populations. So that you will have potentially been providing care for people who have been sick — they get eligible, qualified for Medicaid, but you can't get reimbursed for the cost of that care. So those are kind of the big buckets that I put it in.
Judi Currie:
Let's focus on that 90-day look-back — that just means that the service that you've rendered is not eligible for reimbursement or they have sort of a lag till they can resume care?
Matthew S. Houde:
When I refer to that, I refer to the time period from which a provider will receive reimbursement. So you can look back to say, today again — 90 days you've been providing care, or you provided care 90 days ago. Then someone gets eligible for Medicaid, and you get reimbursed. You could submit for reimbursement for that coverage, so that will change to a shorter window of time once someone becomes eligible.
Judi Currie:
You mentioned the expanded Medicaid pool. My understanding is that a lot of the benefit was going to be helping people dealing with substance use disorders. That kind of ties into the two questions of whether you know whether they'll be able to afford the premiums or meet the work requirement. Can you look at that expanded pool? Does it feel like this? This new bill is just going to sort of decimate that or wipe it out?
Matthew S. Houde:
Well, I'm really concerned about the implications for coverage for beneficiaries. We know that Medicaid, including Medicaid expansion, provides really lifesaving care for people — substance use disorder treatment, mental health treatment, primary preventative care, in addition to emergency care. So the implications of individuals — up to a third of New Hampshire’s expansion population that would be affected. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation's estimates on looking at the state's prior attempt to do work requirements, those people wouldn't have access to those coverages.
Judi Currie:
What does that mean — not just reimbursement for the providers who would be providing that care, but for those people who need that care and would try to seek that care? Do they then delay? Do they then decide that they're not going to seek the care because they know they don't have insurance anymore or they can't afford it? And what are the implications of that?
Matthew S. Houde:
I think it exacerbates problems, health problems, for people I trust. We're going to talk about this shortly, but there are also significant implications in terms of when people delay care, the condition can become significantly more acute. People still need care, and they will come to the emergency department or be brought to the emergency department to seek care. And what happens is that's probably the worst place to seek care because it's the most expensive and it's also considerably backlogged. There are access issues with respect to that care. So I hope that answers your question.
Judi Currie:
We also often hear about people not being able to find care because organizations don't want to take on new Medicaid patients, and I think from the perspective of the hospital, they often don't have a choice in that. Are there differences between how the large southern New Hampshire hospital chains or connected affiliates are going to be impacted versus the rural hospitals up north?
Matthew S. Houde:
I think there are significant concerns for rural providers. For Dartmouth Health, the proportion of patients that we serve that are Medicaid beneficiaries, is roughly 15% of the patients that we serve — that's a combination of New Hampshire and Vermont. Obviously, the medical center is located on the border of New Hampshire and Vermont, but I think about some of the further geographically located member hospitals and health care providers. Do they have a mix? What's their mix of patient population?
I talked about the stressors with respect to access. I'll just elaborate a little bit on that. Today, hospitals are roughly at 90% capacity. Dartmouth Health, or Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center here in Lebanon — we’re over capacity. What does that mean? It means that we have patients who are waiting in hospital beds. They no longer need the acute care that we provide, but there's not an available post-discharge facility, long-term care unit that either has the capacity to take them, or if they're not Medicaid-eligible upon discharge, the willingness to take them take them because they can't survive based upon no reimbursement. So those people who no longer need to be in our beds really are taking up a considerable number of beds so when that accident happens on I-91 or I-89, do we have the ability to take that patient or do we have to send to a much further place — Albany, Austin, wherever?
So yes, I have genuine concern for what's going to happen in rural facilities. I think about the contraction of service lines. We know that there are maternity care deserts in the northern parts of New Hampshire and certainly parts of the northern New England region. That's only going to be exacerbated by the implications and the rollout of the bill, in my opinion.
Judi Currie:
There’s another part of this — the Rural Health Transformation Program. Can you tell us how that will affect New Hampshire?
Matthew S. Houde:
As part of the act, there was $50 billion allocated to help anticipate the challenges to the rural health care system. They wanted the Congress to allocate some dollars to alleviate those concerns. Let's compare, however, $1 trillion over 10 years to $50 billion over five — just doing the math, the numbers available for those dollars aren't going to cover the holes that are created.
I'll use the New Hampshire example. The way that I understand that that provision works is 50% of those dollars go to the states equally. So say New Hampshire gets, per year, 1/50 of $5 billion because the second component of the relief is determined at the discretion of the administrator of CMS with a rural lens. So it's not a full $10 billion per year. It's $5 billion per year divided by 50. It's like $100 million per year. If the spend for New Hampshire Medicaid is over 10 years — call it $30 billion, so $3 billion a year. The two don't meet — the size of the bucket of the rural relief program just won't be able to plug the holes that are created by the shortfall that the underlying act creates. Do I think it will sustain some of the rural programs that we just talked about being in jeopardy? I hope so. Do I think it will do so completely? I'm skeptical.
Judi Currie:
What can you tell us about how you're preparing to have to take on this additional role or responsibility?
Matthew S. Houde:
You had suggested this earlier about hospitals not having a choice in terms of their federal laws that require, for example, when people show up in emergency departments — that you provide care regardless of care regardless of coverage. But we also are a nonprofit health care system whose mission is to provide, among other things, health care to people. We're not going to stop providing that health care, and we're going to help our communities and our region figure out how to navigate that space. It's going to be challenging, and more challenging to do so with fewer resources.
When I think about this, I think of New Hampshire Medicaid. The state didn't reduce Medicaid reimbursement by 3% right? That proposal in the state House was rejected by the Senate and was accepted at the end of the day as flat rates — but it's flat rates. So it's not like costs aren’t increasing. Reimbursement is flat on the state level, and it's going to be shrinking and reducing on the federal level. So that just creates huge tensions and challenges to continue to meet the needs of the communities that we serve, including serving as a resource for the northern part of the state, and we have clinics in the southern part of the state, so to maintain the services that we do will be challenging. You're not going to expand them to meet rising access, because you're just not going to have that ability.
I think about programs that our obstetrics unit has implemented, for example, with federal grant support to equip EMT providers to know what what they need to know in order to deliver babies in the North Country, if they show up in an emergency department. It's going to be more and more important for us to work with the state and any of the federal resources that we might get through this rural fund as part of the bill to make sure that we just continue to provide resources for people, so that if people have to travel, at least they're stable locally before they travel. Can keep care local by using telehealth to connect with providers in the North Country and elsewhere? All of those are going to be really important things for us to consider as we pivot to addressing the new reality under the Medicaid program that this bill has instituted.
Judi Currie:
Matthew S. Houde, system vice president of government relations at Dartmouth Health — thank you for joining us.