BILL ANALYSIS SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE ANALYSIS Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair BILL NO: AB 2645 A AUTHOR: Chesbro B AMENDED: June 21, 2010 HEARING DATE: June 23, 2010 2 CONSULTANT: 6 Bain 4 5 SUBJECT Mental health: skilled nursing facilities: reimbursement rate SUMMARY Requires the reimbursement rate for services in institutions for mental disease (IMDs) that are skilled nursing facilities (SNF) to be the same as the rates in effect on July 1, 2009 from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2012. Would take effect as an urgency statute. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law: Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of health facilities, including skilled nursing facilities (SNF), by the Department of Public Health. Under existing law, IMDs were required to be reimbursed at the same as the rates in effect on July 31, 2004, subject to an increase of 6.5 percent annually from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008, as long as contracts require IMDs to continue to be licensed as SNFs. Effective July 1, 2008, Continued--- STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 2645 (Chesbro) Page 2 rates are required to increase 4.7 percent annually. This bill: Requires the reimbursement rate for services in IMDs that are SNFs to be the same as the rates in effect on July 1, 2009. This requirement would apply on and after July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2012. Would take effect immediately as an urgency statute. FISCAL IMPACT According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis, annual county savings in the range of $3 million to $5 million for the first year a rate freeze for IMDs is in effect. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 2645 (Chesbro) Page 3 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION This bill is sponsored by the California Mental Health Directors Association (CMHDA), which states current state law requires counties to indefinitely pay SNF-IMDs a 4.7 percent increase to their annual rates, that this rate is unsustainable for counties, and that this increase represents the only part of the mental health system that is guaranteed a significant cost-of-living adjustment each year. CMHDA states that every dollar spent by counties on the escalating costs of SNF-IMD care is one less dollar available to counties for other community-based services, that less spending on community-based care means fewer federal dollars are drawn down by counties, and that SNF-IMDs are the most restrictive level of care. CMHDA states the health budget trailer bill of 2009 (ABX4 5 (Evans)), Chapter 5, Statutes of 2009-10) froze rates for many licensed facilities at 2008-09 levels, but the rate freeze excluded SNF-IMDs. CMHDA argues that, without the change in law proposed by this bill, counties must use significantly reduced realignment funding to pay for IMD-SNF level care. CMHDA also notes that federal law statutorily prohibits federal Medicaid funds from being used for the treatment of individuals who are in facilities that are licensed as IMDs. Due to this federal "IMD exclusion," California counties must pay for 100 percent of the cost of services for patients in IMDs. CMHDA concludes this bill will enable counties that are currently facing serious economic difficulties to allocate the dollars they save from the rate freeze toward other community-based programs and services. Background Federal law defines IMDs as a hospital, nursing facility, or other institution of more than 16 beds, that is primarily engaged in providing diagnosis, treatment, or care of persons with mental diseases, including medical attention, nursing care, and related services. In California, IMDs include facilities in the following licensing categories, if the facility has 17 or more beds: acute psychiatric hospitals, psychiatric health facilities, SNFs with a certified special treatment program (STP), and mental health rehabilitation centers. According to the information from the sponsor, there are 23 SNF-IMDs STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 2645 (Chesbro) Page 4 statewide that would be affected by the rate freeze proposed in this bill. These facilities range in size from 37 to 208 beds. IMD SNF rates are based on the location (one of three regions in the state) and size of the facility (whether the facility had 60 or more beds) and range (effective July 1, 2009) from a low of $136.22 per day to a high of $190.23 per day. Federal law excludes these facilities from eligibility for federal Medicaid funds when serving adult Medicaid beneficiaries between the ages of 21 and 65. IMD rates AB 1629 (Frommer), Chapter 875, Statutes of 2004, imposes a quality assurance fee (QAF) on SNFs for the purpose of drawing down additional federal funds to provide a Medi-Cal rate increase to SNFs. In addition, AB 1629 contained a $107 million General Fund appropriation to fund an increase in the 2004-05 SNF Medi-Cal reimbursement rates. Because AB 1629 would have had a significant fiscal impact on county mental health department reimbursement to IMD-SNF, AB 360 (Frommer), Chapter 508, Statutes of 2005, was enacted the following year to exempt SNFs certified by the DMH for a special treatment program that is an IMD from AB 1629. AB 360 instead required that rates for IMDs be the same as Medi-Cal rates in effect on July 1, 2004, and prescribed the following rate increase schedule for IMDs: Effective July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008, an increase of 6.5 percent annually. Effective July 1, 2008, an increase of 4.7 percent annually. Arguments in support The Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) writes in support that the 4.7 percent annual IMD rate increase is unsustainable for rural counties as they struggle with higher caseloads and diminishing state General Fund support and reimbursement. RCRC writes this bill mirrors the action taken by the Legislature to freeze nursing home rates for many licensed facilities at 2008-09 levels and extends it to IMD-SNFs. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 2645 (Chesbro) Page 5 The California Association of Health Facilities (CAHF) writes that it would support this bill if it were amended to impose a two-year rate freeze for SNF-IMDs for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 rate years. The most recent amendments to this measure incorporate the amendments requested by CAHF. Prior legislation ABX4 5 (Evans), Chapter 5, Statutes of 2009, freezes the reimbursement rate at the 2008-09 year level that is paid by Medi-Cal to intermediate care facilities, intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled, skilled nursing facilities that are distinct-part of a hospital, rural swing-bed facilities, facilities owned by the Department of Mental Health or the Department of Developmental Services, and free-standing pediatric sub-acute care units. In addition, AB 1183 repealed a provision that would have provided a maximum annual increase in the weighted average Medi-Cal SNF reimbursement rate of not more than five percent for 2009-10 and 2010-11, based on the previous year's reimbursement rate. Under ABX4 5, the weighted average Medi-Cal SNF reimbursement rates for 2009-10 and 2010-11 rate years will instead not be increased over the weighted average Medi-Cal reimbursement rate in effect for 2008-09 rate year. AB 360 (Frommer), Chapter 508, Statutes of 2005, among other provisions, exempts SNFs that provide pediatric sub-acute services and IMDs from a requirement to pay a QAF and prescribes a rate-increase schedule for these facilities. AB 1629 (Frommer), Chapter 875, Statutes of 2004, established the QAF, established the Medi-Cal Long-Term Care Reimbursement Act, and contained an appropriation to fund an increase in the 2004-05 SNF Medi-Cal reimbursement rates. PRIOR ACTIONS Assembly Health: 18-0 Assembly Appropriations:15-0 Assembly Floor: 75-0 STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 2645 (Chesbro) Page 6 POSITIONS Support: California Mental Health Directors Association (sponsor) Association of Community Human Service Agencies California State Association of Counties California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors County of San Luis Obispo Behavioral Health Department County of Del Norte County of Humboldt Department of Health and Human Services County of San Bernardino Disability Rights California Regional Council of Rural Counties Oppose: None received -- END --