Louisiana House Bill HB922

Louisiana 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/28/16
• Refer: 3/29/16
• Report Pass: 4/27/16
• Engrossed: 5/12/16
• Refer: 5/16/16
• Report Pass: 5/24/16
• Refer: 5/25/16
• Report Pass: 5/31/16
• Enrolled: 6/5/16
• Chaptered: 6/17/16
• Passed: 6/17/16

Caption

Revises provider fees assessed on nursing homes by the Department of Health and Hospitals (EN +$16,928,449 SD RV See Note)

Impact

The bill specifically impacts providers by allowing the state to set new fees that align with the operational costs of healthcare services. By establishing a more flexible fee system, it is expected to increase revenues into the Louisiana Medical Assistance Trust Fund, thus enhancing the state's ability to fund Medicaid reimbursements to healthcare providers. The financial implications are significant as they can lead to improved quality of care and operational sustainability for nursing facilities, thereby addressing the economic realities faced by these providers.

Summary

House Bill 922 aims to amend existing regulations regarding fees assessed on healthcare providers, particularly nursing homes, in Louisiana. The bill revises the fee structure established by the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) and repeals certain prohibitions on increasing fees without legislative approval. By allowing for adjustment of fees, the bill seeks to enhance funding for the Medicaid program through a system that is more responsive to the needs of healthcare services. This adjustment aims to ensure that nursing homes can receive adequate financial support amid changing healthcare demands.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 922 has been largely positive among lawmakers and healthcare providers, as the revisions are seen as necessary updates to meet the financial needs of Medicaid and its beneficiaries. Supporters argue that the bill is essential for maintaining healthcare standards and ensuring that nursing homes can continue to operate efficiently. However, some concerns have been voiced regarding potential implications for healthcare costs, especially if fees are increased without appropriate safeguards for consumer protection.

Contention

One of the notable points of contention was the previous requirement for majority legislative approval before new fees could be implemented. Opponents of the repeal argued that this oversight was essential for maintaining checks and balances on how healthcare funding is managed and calculated. While advocates of the bill posit that removing this requirement will foster a more adaptable healthcare funding system, critics worry it might lead to unregulated fee hikes that could adversely affect both providers and patients.