Introduction
Medicaid State-Directed Payments: The U.S. healthcare system continues to struggle with providing equitable access to care. Medicaid patients, in particular, face significant barriers, including fewer primary care and subspecialty options compared to those with Medicare or private insurance. Additionally, they endure longer wait times. Since Medicaid relies on both state and federal funding, increasing reimbursement rates remains a contentious issue—especially in states like Texas, where political resistance to direct Medicaid expansion is strong. Federal mandates requiring higher Medicaid reimbursement would impose a financial strain on state budgets. However, hospital systems have already found a workaround, securing additional federal Medicaid funds without increasing state expenditures. In Texas alone, these “off-budget” payments account for nearly a quarter of Medicaid spending. While new regulations aim to restrict these practices by 2028, this model presents an opportunity to address long-standing disparities in primary care funding.
Medicaid’s Unanticipated Expansion
Medicaid was originally designed as a limited program, yet today, it covers one in five Americans. To regulate funding, Congress restricted states from using provider taxes to finance Medicaid expenditures. These regulations, last updated in 1991, now require revision.
Medicaid State-Directed Payments: Recent policy analyses have highlighted an unconventional but legal funding mechanism. Critics refer to it as “legalized money laundering,” though this term oversimplifies a complex system. The process involves hospitals reimbursing states for their share of Medicaid expenditures while benefiting from increased federal Medicaid payments. Through state-directed payments, hospitals receive higher reimbursements, profit from the arrangement, and leave the federal government responsible for the cost. Despite recent CMS efforts to curb these strategies, federal payments remain capped at 6% of total hospital revenue or at the average commercial reimbursement rate. Additionally, recipients must demonstrate how these funds improve care access and quality.
Unfortunately, this funding model disproportionately benefits hospital-based care while disadvantaging primary care providers. Medicaid incentivizes inpatient treatment, such as heart attack-related hospitalizations (reimbursed at approximately $18,300), over preventive measures like prescribing lisinopril for hypertension (compensated at $60 per visit and $0.15 per pill). Adjusting Medicaid policies to better support primary care could significantly improve patient outcomes and reduce long-term healthcare costs.
Current Challenges in Medicaid Reimbursement
Despite CMS efforts to refine oversight of state-directed payments, a fundamental issue persists: Medicaid reimburses primary care at only 67% of the Medicare rate. While outpatient providers can legally participate in provider tax arrangements similar to hospitals, practical limitations prevent them from doing so.
Provider taxes used to finance Medicaid must meet three key criteria:
- Broad-Based Taxation – The tax must apply uniformly across all practices of a given type (e.g., all hospitals or all primary care clinics).
- Uniform or Redistributive Structure – The tax must be evenly applied or structured to provide greater returns to providers serving more Medicaid patients.
- Hold-Harmless Provision – Participants cannot receive earnings exceeding 6% of total practice revenue unless 75% of taxed entities remain below a 75% return on their contributions.
These rules create a significant barrier for primary care participation. Unlike hospitals, not all primary care practices serve Medicaid patients. Those that do would benefit from additional reimbursement, but a broad-based tax would financially burden clinics that serve little or no Medicaid patients. As a result, such tax arrangements have never gained legislative approval.
A Targeted Policy Solution
To address these disparities, Congress should amend the broad-based tax requirement for provider participation. Primary care practices should have the ability to opt in or out of Medicaid-directed funding programs, ensuring that only willing participants contribute to and benefit from increased reimbursement rates.
Key Policy Changes:
- Opt-In Model: Primary care practices should be able to invest up to 6% of their revenue into higher Medicaid reimbursement, with profits tied to the state’s Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP). In a state with an FMAP of 60%, practices generating over 10% of their revenue from Medicaid patients would profit, incentivizing participation.
- Higher Hold-Harmless Cap: To align Medicaid payments with Medicare rates, the current 6% reimbursement cap should be increased to 30% specifically for primary care providers.
- Separate State-Directed Payment Programs: Primary care reimbursement models should remain distinct from hospital-directed payment programs to ensure fair allocation of Medicaid funds.
Benefits and Considerations
Advantages of Higher Medicaid Reimbursement for Primary Care:
- Improved Access: More private practices would accept Medicaid patients, reducing appointment wait times and increasing healthcare availability.
- Enhanced Safety-Net Clinic Sustainability: Clinics serving high Medicaid populations would gain financial stability, allowing for expansion and better staffing.
- Stronger Primary Care Workforce: Better pay could encourage more physicians to specialize in primary care, addressing provider shortages.
Potential Trade-Offs:
- Increased Medicaid Expenditures: While costs would rise, growth would be controlled by reimbursement caps and average commercial rate limits.
- Regulatory Complexity: Implementing a separate Medicaid payment model for primary care would require administrative adjustments at both state and federal levels.
Conclusion
Medicaid’s rapid expansion has outgrown its original design, necessitating policy updates. Federal funding mechanisms have already shifted toward covering inpatient costs, reinforcing disparities between hospital-based and primary care services. By allowing primary care practices to opt into Medicaid-directed funding, raising hold-harmless caps, and establishing a separate payment structure, Congress can create a more equitable system. These reforms would expand access to essential services, reduce preventable hospitalizations, and promote a healthier population.
Physicians must advocate for systemic improvements in hospital operations. Stay informed and empower yourself with resources from StanfordPhysicianAdvocate.org, where expert insights help navigate healthcare challenges and protect physician interests.