If recent history is any guide, the strings attached to federal coronavirus funding should be less of a problem for New York State than Governor Cuomo seems to think.

Almost identical restrictions were placed on the extra Medicaid money sent to states during the Great Recession, and they did not prevent then-Governor Paterson and the Legislature from enacting significant cuts to the Medicaid program.


This is an installment in a special series of #NYCoronavirus blog posts by Empire Center analysts, focused on New York’s state and local policy response to the Coronavirus pandemic.


At issue currently is the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, passed by Congress and signed by the president last week. A key provision temporarily boosts Medicaid funding to states by about 10 percent, which would normally be worth hundreds of millions of dollars per month for New York.

However, Cuomo warned at a press conference on Saturday that the state might not be able to collect that money because of restrictions in the legislation.

We’re also asking our federal congressional delegation to fix a law that was passed on the coronavirus federal aid because of a technical issue the way the bill was written, New York State does not qualify for aid. That’s over $6 billion, that is a lot of money and we need the federal delegation to fix that bill otherwise New York State gets nothing. New York State has more coronavirus cases than any state in the United States of America. That we should not be included in the bill, obviously makes no sense.

The clause he was apparently referring to – Section 6008, paragraph (b) – says a state may not receive the extra funding if it changes Medicaid “eligibility standards, methodologies or procedures” to make them more restrictive than they were on Jan. 1, 2020.

With the state’s Medicaid program facing a $2.5 billion budget shortfall, Cuomo suggested that he has already taken executive actions since January 1 that would disqualify New York. He further warned that the rule would effectively block any of the reforms recommended by his Medicaid Redesign Team, which he said are necessary for the state to complete its overall budget due March 31.

Cuomo has also objected to a second rule that bars states from receiving money if they increase the share of Medicaid expenses paid by local government. This would block Cuomo’s plan to make New York City and the 57 other counties share the cost of higher-than-inflation Medicaid spending increases.

Judging by the precedent set in 2009, Cuomo appears to be exaggerating how tightly his hands are tied.

Both of the rules he is concerned about closely match restrictions included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. With that law in place, then-Governor David Paterson repeatedly proposed – and the Legislature ultimately approved – cost-cutting measures for Medicaid in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. 

According to a press release describing the 2010 plan, the changes included: 

Eliminating inflation-based adjustments to rates and decreasing managed care premiums to encourage efficiencies by providers; heightening anti-fraud and audit efforts; allowing for closer regulatory scrutiny of major proposed premium rate increases for certain health insurance policies; realigning programs to take advantage of cost-savings such as rebates for prescription drugs; requiring exhaustion of Medicare benefits for prescription drugs; and financing a greater share of Medicaid spending through the Health Care Reform Act (HCRA).

New York received $4.5 billion in ARRA funding in federal fiscal year 2009, $5.4 billion in FY 2010 and $3.6 billion in 2011 (an amount that was lower because the aid increase expired on December 31, 2010).

New York’s experience under that law suggests that the language about “eligibility standards, methodologies or procedures” was interpreted to cover eligibility restrictions only. Under this interpretation, states could not, for example, lower the income cut-off for Medicaid enrollment or impose work requirements, but they would be free to change other aspects of Medicaid, such as benefit design and reimbursement rates.

Under that interpretation, some of the Medicaid Redesign Team’s proposals would be temporarily prohibited during the emergency period, while others could move forward.

Here’s the relevant language from the 2020 legislation:

A State described in subsection (a) may not receive the increase described in such subsection in the Federal medical assistance percentage for such State, with respect to a quarter, if — (1) eligibility standards, methodologies, or procedures under the State plan of such State under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) (including any waiver under such title or section 1115 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1315)) are more restrictive during such quarter than the eligibility standards, methodologies, or procedures, respectively, under such plan (or waiver) as in effect on January 1, 2020.

And here is the comparable section from the 2009 legislation: 

A State is not eligible for an increase in its FMAP under subsection (a), (b), or (c), or an increase in a cap amount under subsection (d), if eligibility tandards, methodologies, or procedures under its State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (including any waiver under such title or under section 1115 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1315)) are more restrictive than the eligibility standards, methodologies, or procedures, respectively, under such plan (or waiver) as in effect on July 1, 2008.


 
                        
                    

About the Author

Bill Hammond

As the Empire Center’s senior fellow for health policy, Bill Hammond tracks fast-moving developments in New York’s massive health care industry, with a focus on how decisions made in Albany and Washington affect the well-being of patients, providers, taxpayers and the state’s economy.

Read more by Bill Hammond

You may also like

Budget’s Historic Spending Hike Shown in Financial Plan Update

Amidst spiking inflation, a market downturn and recession fears, state spending will soar to new heights under the April budget deal, as per (Plan) that the Governor’s budget office quietly i Read More

Minimum wage for home care aides is likely to mean bigger raises for downstate than upstate

The newly enacted wage hike for home care aides is likely to increase workers' pay more than three times as much in the New York City area as in other parts of the state, according to a review of labor data. Read More

Pandemic deaths in New York nursing homes show no correlation with staffing levels

Nursing home staffing levels remained an unreliable indicator of Covid-19 risk for residents through the second year of the pandemic. Read More

The flawed arguments behind ‘Fair Pay for Home Care’

As they contemplate a major increase in Medicaid spending on home care for the elderly and disabled, state legislators are relying on information that's outdated, incomplete or inaccurate – and neglecting to think through the predictable consequences. Read More

DiNapoli audit diagnoses the Health Department’s chronic conditions

A penetrating new audit of the Health Department's pandemic response makes clear that problems at the agency run much deeper than its misreporting of nursing home deaths. Read More

The debate over Medicaid home-care funding needs a reality check

The push in Albany to boost wages for home health aides is seemingly disconnected from the larger realities of the state’s long-term care system. As they , officials in the home care industry are warning that the state faces an of in-home caregivers Read More

Answers needed on Governor Hochul’s health-care budget

The health-care agenda laid out by Governor Hochul in her budget proposal this week leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Here are a few of them. Read More

Putting Governor Hochul’s $10 billion health-care ‘investment’ in context

In her State of the State address this week, Governor Hochul prominently called for a $10 billion "multi-year investment" in the state's health care system, including $4 billion earmarked for wages and bonuses, with a goal Read More

Subscribe

Sign up to receive updates about Empire Center research, news and events in your email.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Empire Center for Public Policy
30 South Pearl St.
Suite 1210
Albany, NY 12207

Phone: 518-434-3100

General Inquiries: Info@EmpireCenter.org

Press Inquiries: Press@EmpireCenter.org

About

The Empire Center is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank located in Albany, New York. Our mission is to make New York a better place to live and work by promoting public policy reforms grounded in free-market principles, personal responsibility, and the ideals of effective and accountable government.

Empire Center Logo Enjoying our work? Sign up for email alerts on our latest news and research.
Together, we can make New York a better place to live and work!