New York state may cap Medicaid costs at $15.1 billion

Related Topics

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo presents his 2011-12 budget proposal in Albany, New York February 1, 2011. REUTERS/Hans Pennink

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo presents his 2011-12 budget proposal in Albany, New York February 1, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Hans Pennink

NEW YORK | Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:23pm EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York state would cap its share of Medicaid at about $15.1 billion a year, slice costs with a 2 percent across-the-board reduction and shift all of the 4.7 million recipients to managed care over three years under a plan unveiled on Thursday.

Governor Andrew Cuomo appointed a commission to determine how to cut the state's Medicaid program -- one of the nation's most generous -- by $2.85 billion.

The recession decimated New York state's economy. The Medicaid reduction was one of the ways Cuomo proposed to close a nearly $11 billion deficit in the new budget that starts April 1.

Critics faulted Cuomo, a Democrat, for not specifying how he would cut Medicaid when he unveiled his $132.9 billion budget plan in January. His commission beat its March 1 deadline by about a week.

"We just filled in the blanks; now we need the legislature to do their job," Cuomo said. He will send the Senate and the Assembly the commission's recommendations as part of the 30-day amendments governors submit after issuing their budget plans.

Commission member Ken Raske, the president of the Greater New York Hospital Association, told reporters in Albany, the state capitol, that this would be the first hard Medicaid cap enacted by a state.

New York spends $52.8 billion a year on Medicaid, the health plan for the poor, disabled and elderly, when all federal, state and local funds are counted.

"This is a loaded weapon," said Raske, referring to the cap. Hospitals, nursing homes, clinics and other health care providers would see their reimbursements cut if they start to exceed the cap, he said.

Commission members said the plan aims to equalize reimbursement rates for treating patients in hospitals or clinics.

Cuomo's commission included George Gresham, the president of 1199SEIU, one of the unions that ran blistering ads attacking previous governors' attempts to throttle the ever-rising costs of Medicaid.

Gresham said he backed the plan. "We're not only going to have a more efficient system, we're going to have better outcomes; for us in the health care field that's what really matters," Gresham said.

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
lootera wrote:
To all Governors and Congress,
If you could do something like what Cuomo is doing then you don’t need to lay off hard working and low paid workers to balance the budget. OK, Governors and Congress you want know where to save money? Here is the secret. Look for immigrants coming from all over the globe as dependent on their adult children (doctors, engineers and executives with six figures)and then later they throw sand in the eyes of social security office and become dependent on State for their medical needs because now they falsely declare that they are poor with no source of income and they have no assets(by the way, they have millions of dollars in fixed assets in their home country)declare they are living

Feb 25, 2011 4:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ROWnine wrote:
There is no free lunch! There are laws and regulations that require providers to grant care. So when someone gets care that Medicaid isn’t going to cover or fully does anyone doubt that the costs involved are going to be transferred to the insured. Two of the reasons insurance keeps going up and some care due the insured is being denied is (1.)to cover these costs and (2)to support a bonus programs aimed at cutting waste and abuse that sometimes go awry. If there is going to be a cap it has to be tied to a reasonable index related to relevant common expenses or someone else just gets stuck with the bill. But we know budget makers will cringe at this lack of control. If not we need laws that say “no coverage no treatment” and in NY with its densely populated cities and lots of folks likely to not have been screened out at Immigrant Visa time this will never ever happen. The only other way is more laws and regulations preventing how much a Hospital or care center can chare over the actual cost of an band aid or aspirin. But that would be like telling a lawyer he can’t charge client overcharge “A” so he can take care of client “B” Pro Bono so he can get a tax break on the Pro Bono services. Hard Cap, you bet if your telling the insured they are going to be biting more bullets.

Feb 26, 2011 9:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jrj90620 wrote:
Sometimes govt actually does something that makes sense.Continuing to throw more money at all the greedy hospitals,doctors and everyone else at the healthcare trough is driving our country bankrupt.My experience of hospitals charging $3K-$5K per hour for minor procedures leads me to think we can’t continue on this track.Imagine a auto dealership charging you $2,000 for an oil/filter change.This is the exact equivalent of what hospitals are doing today and for some reason,so many believe what they do is worth unlimited amounts.It’s not true.Most of what doctors,hospitals and other providers do could be learned by anyone in a few days/weeks.Rarely is healthcare procedures provided that requires years to learn.If you undergo a heart transplant and it requires knowledge and 10 doctors then thousands of Dollars charged makes sense.Otherwise,in over 99% of the time, they are ripping us off.

Feb 28, 2011 12:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.