Somewhat by accident, Bloomer, 26, found Priya Kalyan-Masih six months into her pregnancy. Kalyan-Masih is a doula, a professional childbirth companion who provides emotional support, physical comfort, and education to women before, during, and after pregnancy. Bloomer hadn’t realized Medi-Cal would cover the service until she visited an informational fair near her home in the High Desert region of Southern California.

Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program for low-income residents, started offering the benefit in January — but doulas have wrestled with the program’s bureaucratic requirements and what they say is insufficient pay.

“Priya really listened to me. Out of all my births, this was the most peaceful and stress-free,” said Bloomer, who is a student working part-time as an in-home caregiver and at a detox center. “The fact that I didn’t have to pay anything out-of-pocket was life-changing.”

Having Kalyan-Masih at her side was critical for Bloomer because her partner — now fiancé — was imprisoned a few weeks after she found out she was pregnant, which would have meant she’d have to navigate her pregnancy and delivery without him.

Across the country, doulas are being enlisted to combat rising maternal mortality rates. In 2021, the most recent year for which data is available, about 1,200 women in the U.S. died from pregnancy complications either during pregnancy or within six weeks afterward, about 60% more deaths than were reported two years earlier, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The numbers are starkest for Black women and their children. In 2021, Black women died at more than 2½ times the rate of white women.

Doulas are distinct from the medical team and act as advocates for birthing parents. A National Institutes of Health study published this year found that doula care was associated with reductions in cesarean sections, epidural use, length of labor, premature deliveries, and maternal stress.

During Bloomer’s pregnancy, Kalyan-Masih assisted with strategies such as mapping a birth plan and coaching Bloomer on breathing techniques to ease her anxiety.

Less than a year after Bloomer moved from Texas to be with her fiancé, Tim Smith, he was arrested for firearm possession while on probation for drug-related charges. That left Bloomer in Victorville, on the edge of the Mojave Desert, far from friends and family.

In Smith’s absence, Bloomer was grateful for Kalyan-Masih’s companionship and reminders to take care of herself, she said.

But what meant the most was Kalyan-Masih’s willingness to weave Smith into the birth without judgment, she said. Kalyan-Masih acted as his eyes and ears at the hospital in June, running around with Bloomer’s phone so Smith could meet his newborn daughter, Tiara, via FaceTime.

“It meant everything. I mean, I’m locked up and I saw the baby before Mia did,” Smith recalled, laughing. “Priya made everything possible. She held the phone. She was running around when the baby came out. She made it feel like I was there.”

Smith met Tiara in person when he was released a month later.

Kalyan-Masih’s presence also led to a noticeable difference in how medical staff treated her, Bloomer said.

During her previous deliveries, she felt the medical professionals had been pushy and dismissive. For example, when her son Thaddeus was born last year, she said, doctors pressured her to get an epidural against her wishes after Smith left the room to grab her lunch.

“When I had Priya in the room, they were more attentive to my needs and didn’t treat me like my opinion didn’t matter,” Bloomer said. “It wasn’t an argument or debate. It was just like, ‘OK, that’s what we’re doing.’”

Medi-Cal covers up to 11 doula visits before and after pregnancy, and support during labor and delivery — and patients can petition for extra postpartum visits. Doulas can also be paid by Medi-Cal for providing support during and after miscarriages or abortions.

“I always explain it as obstetricians and midwives are the ones catching babies, and doulas catch Mom,” said Kalyan-Masih, who is a medical doctor by training and a doula since January.

Kalyan-Masih is pleased with California’s investment in doula services but said it has been a challenge to maneuver Medi-Cal’s administrative requirements, like acquiring business licenses.

Samsarah Morgan, a doula and founder of the Oakland Better Birth Foundation, said the business license fees, in addition to Medi-Cal’s reimbursement rates, prevent some doulas from participating in the program.

The state pays doulas fixed rates per visit, adding up to $1,154 if patients schedule the standard number of nine visits before and after birth, in addition to labor and delivery. Doulas can make up to $2,078 through Medi-Cal if patients schedule additional postpartum visits. The $1,154 rate is more than twice what the state initially proposed in 2022, and Morgan said that she’s grateful for the increase — but that it’s still not enough.

In her own practice, most clients pay $2,500 to $3,500, typically out-of-pocket since, in her experience, many private insurance plans don’t cover doula services, she said.

“I want to work with clients who are on Medi-Cal, but I also need to pay my bills,” Morgan said.

Griselda Melgoza, a spokesperson for the Department of Health Care Services, which administers Medi-Cal, said the department pays doulas the same as other providers — including doctors, nurses, and physician assistants — for the same services. The department has proposed rate increases for doula services next year, which would vary by type of delivery. A doula who provides the standard nine visits and attends a vaginal delivery, for example, would be paid $2,180, 89% more than the current rate.

Preliminary data shows that 50 doula claims were processed statewide as of July 31 and that claims from that time frame are still coming in, Melgoza said. She added that the department is working to make the benefit more accessible. In November, for instance, it eliminated most referral requirements, removing a hurdle for patients.

Bloomer said she wishes she had been able to work with a doula during previous pregnancies, especially when she was carrying Lucas, her first child, at age 19.

At the time, she didn’t know what questions to ask or what to expect, including how to cope with postpartum depression.

“With a doula, I would have been more informed,” Bloomer said as 6-month-old Tiara babbled on her lap. “I would have felt more empowered. I would have had the kind of support that would have made me a better mom.”

This article is part of “Faces of Medi-Cal,” a California Healthline series exploring the impact of the state’s safety-net health program on enrollees.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The 48-year-old, who works as the office manager at a nonprofit, can get emergency care through a narrow set of benefits the state makes available to immigrants without legal residency. And she has been able to get mammograms, X-rays, and blood tests at clinics that charge according to income. But it can take a long time to get such appointments, and they are often far from home.

“It’s very frustrating, because you have to have the time to go, and you can’t just lose a day of work,” says Milagro, who asked that her last name be withheld due to fear of immigration authorities.

Milagro and her husband are among the more than 700,000 immigrants ages 26-49 expected to newly qualify for full health insurance come Jan. 1. That’s when California takes the final step in opening up Medi-Cal, the state’s health care program for low-income residents, to everyone who meets eligibility requirements, regardless of their immigration status.

As I have frequently reported, getting quality care through Medi-Cal can be a challenge. But this population — often household breadwinners who can’t afford to get sick — stand to gain far better access to services such as primary and specialty care, routine dental checkups, prescription medications, inpatient hospital care, lab tests, scans, and mental health services.

New enrollees will join more than 655,000 children, young adults through age 25, and adults 50 or over who have already signed up for Medi-Cal through previous expansions to residents lacking legal authorization, according to the most recent data from the state Department of Health Care Services.

Advocates for immigrants note that people without health insurance are generally sicker and die younger. “This is life-changing for people to now be able to go get regular checkups, get labs drawn, see if they might be diabetic or have high blood pressure,” says Sarah Dar, policy director in the Los Angeles office of the California Immigrant Policy Center.

Milagro says she is excited about what is coming. “I never had regular checkups when I was younger,” she says. “Now, I am more conscious of the fact that I need to take care of my health.”

Extending full Medi-Cal coverage to eligible individuals in the 26-49 age range regardless of immigration status is projected to cost the state $1.4 billion in the first six months and $3.4 billion a year upon full implementation.

The state’s estimate of just over 700,000 new enrollees is based on the number of people in the age group who are already signed up for a narrower set of benefits, known as “restricted scope” Medi-Cal, including Milagro. They will be automatically switched over to full Medi-Cal on Jan. 1. The state has begun mailing notices informing them of expanded benefits and directing them to choose a Medi-Cal health plan unless they live in a county with only one plan.

The remaining residents in the 26-49 age range covered by this expansion will be harder to reach because the state does not know who, where, or how numerous they are. Patient advocates, community groups, and county welfare offices face a number of obstacles: language barriers, wariness of governmental agencies, and fear that signing up for public benefits could jeopardize the chances for legal residency.

One challenge is to convince immigrants that being on Medi-Cal is unlikely to affect their future immigration status under the so-called public charge rule. Advocates point out that California doesn’t share enrollees’ information with federal immigration authorities anyway.

But the fierce anti-immigrant sentiment that was so prevalent during the Trump administration and lingers as the nation gears up for the 2024 elections “sent a message to these communities that they should live in the shadows and are not deserving of benefits,” says Dar.

Even those already in the restricted version of Medi-Cal will be a challenge to reach if their contact information is not up to date. And they could be unaware that they were part of Medi-Cal at all. If, for example, they had a health crisis, were taken to the emergency room, and were simply asked by hospital staff to sign some paperwork to cover their treatment, they might not understand what a mailing from Medi-Cal means.

And some may fear any contact by the government. Lena Silver, director of policy and administrative advocacy at Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, says she conducted a training session where a woman who works with day laborers said many of them were afraid to open the envelopes they’d received.

The Department of Health Care Services is spearheading an outreach campaign in 19 languages that includes ads on radio, TV, and social media.

Potentially complicating matters is the fact that the expansion of health benefits to this last ― and largest — group of immigrants coincides with the so-called Medi-Cal unwinding, in which over 900,000 beneficiaries and counting have been disenrolled, mostly due to incomplete paperwork, as pandemic-era exemptions expire.

Immigrants with restricted Medi-Cal must also demonstrate their continued income eligibility in the unwinding, which can be confusing when such a request is piled on top of notices informing them of their newly expanded benefits.

If you, a friend, or a loved one is an immigrant without legal residency, resources are available to help navigate the Medi-Cal enrollment process. A page on the Department of Health Care Services website (dhcs.ca.gov) explains the expansion and contains an FAQ in multiple languages detailing the new benefits that come with it.

If you need help enrolling in a Medi-Cal plan or filling out forms to demonstrate your eligibility, try the Health Consumer Alliance (healthconsumer.org, or 1-888-804-3536). Community clinics are also good sources, as are county offices that administer Medi-Cal.

Brenda, a 33-year-old Los Angeles County resident who also asked to withhold her last name because she lacks legal immigration status, says it will be “a big old blessing” to get full Medi-Cal benefits. She arrived from Mexico as a child and has had to pay for most health care needs out of her own pocket. She rarely goes to the doctor, she hasn’t seen a dentist in three years despite toothaches, and her glasses are five years old.

Come January, she plans to be screened for breast cancer and diabetes, which runs in her family. And, she says, “I definitely want to fix my teeth. I always wanted a Colgate smile.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

As part of the ambitious five-year initiative, called CalAIM, the state is supposed to offer the sickest and costliest patients a personal care manager and new services ranging from home-delivered healthy meals to help paying rental security deposits.

But a quarter of the health care insurers, nonprofit organizations, and others responsible for implementing the program don’t know enough about it to serve those in need, and many are not equipped to refer and enroll vulnerable patients, according to research by the California Health Care Foundation. (California Healthline is an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.)

The survey found that only about half of primary care providers and hospital discharge planners are very or somewhat familiar with the initiative, even though they are essential to identifying patients and referring them for services.

“These workers are on the front lines and if they don’t know about it, that’s a pretty easy win to educate them so they can help more people,” said Melora Simon, an associate director at the foundation, which conducted the survey between July 21 and Sept. 12. The initiative debuted in January 2022.

“These workers are most likely to see people in the hospital, in crisis,” she added, and “have the opportunity to do something about it.”

The roughly two dozen managed care insurance companies serving patients in Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program for low-income people, are responsible for identifying and enrolling patients into the program, and providing the new services. To make this happen, they contract with local government agencies, community nonprofit groups, social service organizations, hospitals, community clinics, and more. Those organizations can also make referrals and link patients to new services. The foundation surveyed 1,196 of these so-called implementers.

Most of the respondents said state payment rates do not cover the cost of providing expensive social services, and half say the workforce they need to deliver them is “tapped out and overwhelmed.”

About 44% also cited inconsistencies and different rules imposed by managed care plans, making participation very or somewhat challenging. For example, some insurers provide on-the-spot Uber rides for doctor appointments while others offer only a bus pass. Plus, not all plans offer the same services.

The survey did pinpoint some early successes. For instance, about half of respondents said the initiative has enabled them to serve more people, and that their ability to manage the comprehensive needs of patients has gotten better.

Tony Cava, a spokesperson for the state Department of Health Care Services, which administers Medi-Cal, acknowledged that the survey findings “resonate” and said the state is working to streamline and standardize patient referrals and authorizations.

“Implementers are on board with the core goals, and we are seeing improvements. But there is room to increase familiarity with CalAIM and broaden and deepen networks,” Cava said.

He said CalAIM represents a major shift in how Medi-Cal delivers care, and that the “kind of seismic system change that we are undergoing takes time.”

“Rather than reactive, we are moving toward a system that is proactive and considers all factors affecting health — the social drivers of health — and not simply what may happen inside of a medical facility,” he added.

The department provides financial and technical assistance to implementers, though only about one-third of survey respondents have found the training, technical guidance, and other resources adequate.

Van Do-Reynoso, chief healthy equity officer for CenCal Health, the Medi-Cal health insurer serving Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, acknowledged that it has been difficult to provide a full complement of CalAIM services. She cited a variety of obstacles such as inadequate reimbursement, lack of housing, and working with social services agencies unfamiliar with the health care system.

Nearly 3,000 CenCal enrollees are receiving CalAIM services, she said, many of them housing- and homelessness-related.

“We are working hard to better engage with hospital CEOs, community providers, and medical providers,” Do-Reynoso said. “People are getting housed. They’re practicing sobriety. It has only whetted our appetite to continue doing this work.”

When Newsom launched CalAIM, the Democratic governor promised it would transform Medi-Cal. The goal, his administration said, is to improve health and prevent people from winding up in costly institutions like the emergency room and jail, and to help move homeless people into housing.

It’s unclear how many of the 15.2 million Californians enrolled in Medi-Cal are eligible for new services and benefits, but several large populations qualify, including homeless Californians, people leaving jail or prison, foster children, people with severe mental illness or addiction, and older nursing home residents who want to transition home.

So far, about 141,000 Medi-Cal patients have a personal care manager through CalAIM, according to Cava, though hundreds of thousands more likely qualify. About 76,000 patients are receiving other social services, which are optional for plans to offer, he said.

In some cases, qualified Medi-Cal enrollees are turning down new services because they are being offered at the wrong time or by the wrong person, Simon said. For instance, a homeless person might not accept services from a police or code enforcement officer.

Insurers say they want to do more but need more help from the state.

“I am very hopeful that a year from now, we are going to be able to demonstrate even greater strides,” Do-Reynoso said. “What we hear often is what is reflected in the survey. We need higher rates, more communication, a more streamlined approval process.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Her blood sugar was plummeting, and the beep came from a continuous glucose monitor attached to her abdomen. The small but powerful device alerts Voros when her blood sugar is dangerously high or low.

“My blood sugar is at 64. It’s too low and still dropping,” Voros, 32, said on a bright October afternoon. She checks the monitor up to 80 times a day to help prevent complications from Type 1 diabetes.

But the monitor means little without the supplies that make it work, including a receiver, a sensor, and a transmitter — some of which must be replaced every 10 to 30 days. Voros also has an insulin pump, which delivers a steady supply of that hormone to her body, and it requires supplies too.

Until recently, Voros — who is covered by Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program for people with low incomes or disabilities — spent countless hours on the phone with her endocrinologists, her Medi-Cal insurer Health Net, and a medical supply company to obtain separate approvals for each item. At times, her authorizations expired too quickly, leaving her short on supplies and forcing her to ration and seek donations on social media from other diabetes patients.

Last year, she received only enough supplies to last six months.

“I’ve had to put in hundreds of hours over the phone in the past few years, and I’ve changed my insurance group twice because of this,” Voros said before slugging apple juice in her studio apartment in the Mission Hills neighborhood, a suburban neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley. “It’s exhausting. It makes you want to give up. But I can’t. I’ll literally die.”

Starting in October, Medi-Cal began relaxing prior authorization requirements that have caused life-threatening delays for Voros and others with diabetes.

Previously, authorizations for medications and supplies lasted six months, though for some patients, like Voros, they expired sooner. Under the new rules, authorizations are supposed to last one year from the date of approval and can include all needed supplies — ending the scramble to secure separate authorizations for each piece of equipment. Patients can receive 90 days’ worth of supplies and medications at once.

The state is also formalizing a policy that allows patients to obtain approvals from their health care providers by phone or video.

“Before, California’s requirements were four pages long, and now it’s just a little more than a page,” said Lisa Murdock, chief advocacy officer for the American Diabetes Association, who helped push for the changes. “This is a really important step forward. It means not having to constantly guess how blood sugars are doing.”

Over the past two years, the state also started making continuous glucose monitors and related supplies available to many more people, including all patients with Type 1 diabetes, a chronic autoimmune disease that attacks insulin-producing cells in the pancreas, and those with Type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and hypoglycemia, or chronic low blood sugar. Before last year, the monitors were available to only some patients on a case-by-case basis, according to the state Department of Health Care Services, which administers Medi-Cal.

The enhanced coverage extends to newer, more advanced devices, such as the popular Dexcom G7 and its components, which retail for about $700 on Amazon for a 30-day supply without insurance. Medi-Cal pays roughly $400 for the same equipment.

Diabetes and prediabetes are on the rise in California. About 3.2 million Californians have been diagnosed with diabetes. The Department of Health Care Services says about 1.2 million Medi-Cal enrollees have the disease, according to the latest data available.

Before these changes, Medi-Cal recipients had a harder time securing medication and supplies than people with private insurance, Murdock said.

“Diabetes is a really heartbreaking and costly disease, and to take care of themselves, people with diabetes need easy access to insulin, but also the supplies to manage the disease,” she said.

Patient advocates and state health officials say the changes will save money and lives by giving those with diabetes more control over their blood sugar, and by preventing complications such as organ failure and foot and toe amputations.

This expansion in coverage “improves access and member outcomes, reduces hospitalizations and comorbidities, and improves members’ quality of life with better disease management and less finger sticks,” said Ann Carroll, a Medi-Cal spokesperson. The state, she said, wants to ensure all diabetes patients get “the care they need to lead healthy, fulfilling lives.”

Before Voros got her monitor about three years ago, she had to visit an emergency room repeatedly for seizures and was hospitalized with other diabetic complications. She also lost nerve function in her stomach — which prevents digestion of high-fiber foods like vegetables — as her disease advanced.

“I haven’t had to go to the intensive care unit in almost two years. It has literally saved my life,” she said.

But the bureaucratic hurdles that kept Voros from getting supplies for her monitor were a constant source of stress. That’s changing since she switched to a new medical supply company and Medi-Cal has debuted its new preauthorization process, amid a broader revamp of its pharmacy system.

Getting her supplies on time means peace of mind, Voros said.

“I used to be so afraid to go to sleep at night because of the seizures I’d get from low blood sugar,” she said. “I’ve been really close to death, but now I feel better than I ever have.”

This article is part of “Faces of Medi-Cal,” a California Healthline series exploring the impact of the state’s safety-net health program on enrollees.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Dignity Health has filed three lawsuits in Sacramento County accusing patients of “commercial blockade” for refusing to vacate hospital beds even though the health care provider had deemed them medically and legally eligible to either go home or go to another facility. Dignity alleges the patients “unreasonably and unlawfully” refused discharge, disrupting its ability to serve others at a time when health facilities were overwhelmed by covid-19.

Relatives and advocates say the patients were exercising their right to be discharged to a facility that offered appropriate care and that they could afford, not simply sent home without the ability to take care of themselves.

The lawsuits, one of which is scheduled to begin trial proceedings Nov. 15, could set important precedents for both the use of the California commercial blockade statute to go after patients and their advocates and, more broadly, the handling of cases in which the hospital and patient can’t agree on a plan for discharge.

The state’s hospital lobby recently highlighted discharge delays as a growing problem costing the industry $2.9 billion a year. The California Hospital Association estimates at least 5,000 patients every day experience such delays, often in trying to identify skilled nursing facilities.

Patient advocates, who typically charge patients a fee to help them navigate the health care system, warn that a decision in favor of Dignity could chill their entire profession and give hospitals a new avenue to seek money from patients.

“It could be a watershed case if it goes in either direction,” said Tony Chicotel, senior staff attorney with the Berkeley-based California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, who has worked on hospital discharge cases. “If it’s a defense verdict, we’ll know our laws are somewhat protective of patients. And if it’s a plaintiff’s verdict, patients around the state could be dumped and us advocates will have to figure out what we can talk about without getting sued.”

San Francisco-based Dignity Health, a tax-exempt organization with $9.5 billion in revenue, was founded by nuns to serve the sick and the poor. Spokesperson William Hodges said the health system doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

A 68-year-old patient, Daphne Muehlendorf, who is blind, began suffering a series of seizures in 2021 and was in and out of the hospital. Each time she went home, her daughters say, her health declined, with slurred speech and the inability to carry a cup, despite receiving in-home physical therapy. By the time she entered the acute rehabilitation unit at Dignity’s Mercy General Hospital in Sacramento, she had already applied for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, which covers the cost of nursing homes if the patient demonstrates both financial and medical need.

Dignity, which has not specified an amount it seeks in damages, contends in its lawsuit that doctors determined Muehlendorf was eligible to go home but the family refused for weeks while waiting for her Medi-Cal assisted living waiver to be approved. Once that came through, Muehlendorf was transferred to Bruceville Terrace, one of Dignity’s skilled nursing facilities in Sacramento.

“I don’t see what the case is and that’s what’s scary for me,” said one of Muehlendorf’s two daughters, Terra Khan, about Dignity’s legal argument. She is also being sued by Dignity. “I have no idea what’s going to happen. I’m terrified.”

Dennis McPherson, the attorney representing Dignity, said the hospital made the decision to sue after serious deliberation. Muehlendorf “did cause a significant disruption,” McPherson said. “It took a lot more manpower and our unit was full. There were patients wait-listed who couldn’t get into this unit.”

The family and their patient advocate, Carol Costa-Smith, who runs the company The Light for Seniors in San Diego, said it wasn’t safe for Muehlendorf to return home and accused the hospital of delaying filing paperwork for Muehlendorf’s Medi-Cal application. State and federal laws require hospitals to arrange care for patients who are likely to suffer adverse health consequences upon discharge, and patients have a right to appeal discharge decisions.

Likening themselves to tax advisers, independent advocates with legal, finance, and insurance backgrounds fill a cottage industry helping patients and their families navigate the health system and long-term care facilities, which often includes applying for Medi-Cal.

Costa-Smith, who charges each client $2,000 to $3,000 a year, said Dignity is trying to put patient advocates out of business so there is less pushback against hospital discharges and other decisions. “I’m the pit bull and I’m not going to let them do a home discharge if it’s not safe,” she said.

Muehlendorf’s trial is scheduled to begin this week.

Dignity’s use of the commercial blockade law appears to be new. California lawmakers passed a bill in 1994 allowing civil claims against trespassers at health facilities, authored by then-Assembly member Jackie Speier, who recently retired from Congress and is now running for the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. The legislature’s analysis of the proposed bill from that time showed it was intended to dissuade anti-abortion protesters from blocking people entering or exiting health care facilities by threatening a lawsuit.

The analysis said it could also stop other disruptive activities such as excessive phone calls to tie up phone lines, the use of stink bombs to evacuate health facilities, and fake fire calls that prompt emergency evacuation. It was backed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, California NOW, and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

Anti-abortion groups opposed the bill, arguing “those who impede access in order to save babies should not be treated differently than those who might do so to save animals, or to block access to government buildings or bridges.” Opponents suggested that pro-choice groups could seek to exploit the bill for profit.

Patient advocates are alarmed by the Dignity lawsuits and say they have never heard of hospitals filing such claims. Dignity is also suing Craig Smedley, who operates Estate Advisory Group in Murrieta. According to a June 30, 2021, complaint, Smedley advised a patient at Mercy Hospital of Folsom “refusal to accept safe and lawful placement and be discharged” even though the patient had been medically eligible for discharge since May 9, 2021.

Dignity contends it lost money because the patient’s insurance denied payment, and it accuses Smedley of directing the hospital to send her to a skilled nursing facility when doctors said she had no need for that level of care. Dignity has not specified an amount it seeks in damages. Smedley, who is defending himself, said disagreeing with a hospital’s discharge plan was hardly a commercial blockade.

“I’m not chaining myself to the front door to prevent people from passing through to the hospital like an anti-abortion protester,” Smedley said. “I’ve never visited the hospital. I give advice by phone. My clients were the ones communicating with the hospital.”

Chicotel, the attorney with the nursing home reform group, said he did not believe Dignity’s claims were supported by the law. Hospitals, he said, have a duty to discharge patients to a safe facility they can afford.

“In my experience, the Catholic hospitals are focused on the bottom line,” Chicotel said. “We see finances become much more important than the spiritual mission. I see that over and over again.”

McPherson argued that the commercial blockade law was written broadly to include any disruption to the normal functions of a health care facility that renders it temporarily or permanently unavailable.

“The outcome of the trial will dictate to the client what we’re going to do with respect to the others,” he said. Dignity has filed a third lawsuit, against Costa-Smith and another client.

As a registered nurse who has worked for various hospitals, Khan believes she was doing what any person would do in advocating for a loved one. She said her mother, who once lived independently despite her disability, wouldn’t have asked for help if she didn’t really need it. “I know we moved through this honorably,” she said.

Khan is both troubled and comforted knowing that Dignity is going after other patients and patient advocates.

“It makes me feel like, OK, it wasn’t that we did something wrong — there’s something else at play that we’re not privy to.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Johnson, 58, said her ordeal started in September 2022, when she went for a CT scan of her abdomen after a bout of covid-19. Though Johnson warned the lab she was allergic to iodine, she believes the lab tech used it in an injection, triggering an allergic reaction. She spent the next three weeks in the hospital, feeling as if her body was on fire.

When she was discharged to her home at the base of the San Jacinto Mountains in Riverside County, Johnson said, her quality of life deteriorated and her frustration mounted as she waited for her Medi-Cal plan to get her assessed by a specialist. She could barely walk or stand, she could no longer cook for herself, and sometimes she couldn’t even lift her leg high enough to step into the tub.

“I would never wish this on anybody,” Johnson said while rocking back and forth on the couch to still the pain. “You don’t know if you should cry, or just say OK, I can make it through this. It messes with you mentally.”

Johnson said her primary care doctor told her he wasn’t sure what triggered the pain but suspects it was compounded by the lingering effects of covid. Johnson, who is diabetic, developed neuropathy, a type of nerve damage, possibly after the allergic reaction caused her blood sugar levels to skyrocket, her doctor told her.

He referred Johnson, who receives care through California’s Medicaid program for low-income people, to an endocrinologist in March. But Johnson said she was not offered timely appointments, and it took more than six months, four referrals, multiple complaints to her health plan, and a legal aid group’s help to finally snag a phone call with an endocrinologist in mid-September.

Access to specialists — from gastroenterologists to cardiologists — has been a long-standing challenge for many Medi-Cal patients, especially those in rural areas or regions facing staff shortages. The Inland Empire, where Johnson lives, has the second-lowest supply of specialists in the state, according to the California Health Care Foundation. (California Healthline is an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.)

The state Department of Managed Health Care, which regulates most Medi-Cal health plans, requires plans to get patients in to see specialists within 15 business days, unless a longer waiting time would not harm the patient’s health. But the timeline often looks very different in reality.

“It’s hard to get a specialist to contract for Medi-Cal patients. Period,” said Amanda Simmons, executive vice president of Integrated Health Partners of Southern California, a nonprofit organization that represents community health clinics. “Specialists don’t want to do it because reimbursement rates are so low.”

Johnson said she made her first call in March to the endocrinologist assigned by her Medi-Cal insurer, Inland Empire Health Plan, and that the office offered her an appointment several months out. Over the next four months, she received three more referrals, but she said she got a similar response each time she called. When Johnson objected to the lengthy wait times, requesting earlier appointments, she was told there was no availability and that her condition wasn’t urgent.

“They told me it wasn’t important,” Johnson said. “And I asked, ‘How would you know? You’ve never seen me.’”

Esther Iverson, director of provider communications for the plan, declined to speak about Johnson’s case but said the plan makes every effort to meet the 15-day requirement. It can be challenging to meet the standard, she said, due to a lack of available physicians — especially for certain specialties, such as endocrinology and pain management.

She pointed to the nationwide physician shortage, which is more pronounced in rural areas, including parts of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, where the plan operates. She also noted that many physicians decided to leave the field or retire early due to burnout from the covid pandemic.

At the same time, she said, the plan’s enrollment ballooned to 1.6 million as eligibility expanded in recent years. Statewide, more than 15 million Californians are enrolled in Medi-Cal.

“The highest priority for us is timely access to quality care,” Iverson said.

During her quest, Johnson enlisted the help of Inland Counties Legal Services, which provides free legal representation to low-income residents. They called the plan multiple times to request earlier appointments but got mired in bureaucratic delays and waiting periods.

In one instance in August, after the insurer told Johnson it couldn’t meet the 15-day time frame, her legal representative, Mariane Gantino, filed an appeal, arguing that Johnson’s request was urgent. The insurer’s medical director responded within a few hours denying the claim, saying the plan concluded that her case was not urgent and that a delay would not cause a serious threat to her health.

“I’m so burned out after dealing with this for so long,” Johnson said in mid-September. “Why do they have the 15-day law if there aren’t going to be any consequences?”

A few days later, Johnson finally received the call she had been waiting for: an offer of a phone appointment with an endocrinologist, on Sept. 18. During the appointment, the doctor adjusted her diabetes and other medications but didn’t directly address her pain, she said.

“I’m in the same position,” Johnson said. “I’m still in pain. What’s next?”

Over the years, Johnson has worked a variety of jobs — from driving eighteen-wheelers cross-country to weaving hair — but her most consistent work was as a caregiver, including to her six children, 21 grandchildren, and three great-grandkids, with another great-grandchild on the way. Now, because of her extreme pain, the roles have been reversed. A daughter and granddaughter who live with her have become her full-time caregivers.

“I can’t do nothing. I can’t take care of my grandkids like I used to,” said Johnson, who sleeps most of the day and wakes up only when her pain medication wears off. “I was planning to take care of the new baby that’s coming. I probably can’t even hold her now.”

This article is part of “Faces of Medi-Cal,” a California Healthline series exploring the impact of the state’s safety-net health program on enrollees.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Federal regulators say these arrangements “appear designed to” redirect Medicaid dollars away from facilities that treat the poorest patients to those that “provide fewer, or even no, Medicaid-covered services,” according to a proposed enforcement plan released May 3 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The practice is typically orchestrated by the lobbying groups that represent hospitals in state capitals — and is often kept secret. Not even federal regulators know how widespread it is, although programs operate in at least a few states, including California and Missouri. It’s also the subject of a Texas lawsuit that could block the federal government’s proposal.

“It does seem like these associations are finding a way to distribute the money in a really weird way,” said Joshua Gordon, the director of health policy for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Washington, D.C. “But without the transparency, we don’t exactly know what’s going on.”

Previous efforts to block these payback arrangements have gone nowhere in the face of opposition from the powerful health care industry and state health officials who fear that clamping down could result in less money for Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Several Medicaid experts predicted the latest proposal could meet the same fate, or face immediate court challenges if adopted.

The federal government’s sweeping and contentious proposal would require states to police hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care providers to ensure they made no private agreements to redistribute Medicaid dollars.

Public and private hospitals argue CMS has no jurisdiction to regulate private transactions and has overstepped its legal authority. Together with state health officials from around the country, they warn the move could strip billions of federal dollars from Medicaid and threaten safety-net coverage for 94 million low-income people. Texas alone could lose $6 billion a year, according to Texas Health and Human Services.

California Healthline attempted to interview state health leaders and hospital association officials around the country, but they declined to comment or did not respond to repeated calls and emails.

The federal government’s proposal is part of a broader Medicaid financing package, and it resurrects a long-standing effort by administrations of both parties over the years to rein in Medicaid spending — which ballooned to $734 billion in 2021.

In this case, regulators are targeting what are known as provider taxes, which states are increasingly imposing on hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care providers to help states pay for their share of the Medicaid program. The more provider taxes states levy, the more money they can also get in federal funding.

These taxes are a critical source of revenue that all states except Alaska rely on for their Medicaid programs — and to get federal matching Medicaid dollars. They account for 17% of state Medicaid funding in 2018, according to a 2020 report by the Government Accountability Office, which called for more transparency in how the money is collected and spent.

In California, hospitals have redistributed provider tax funds since 2009. Here’s how it works: Hospitals with a significant share of low-income patients get more Medicaid funding back than they pay in the tax, so they donate a small portion of their Medicaid funding to a charity run by the leadership of the California Hospital Association, a statewide lobbying organization. The charity awards grants to the hospitals that treat a smaller share of low-income patients and don’t receive as much funding back as they paid in taxes.

For instance, Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, one of the country’s richest hospitals, paid nearly $172 million in provider taxes in 2022, eclipsing the $151 million it got back in Medicaid dollars. Then, it received nearly $28 million from the hospital association’s charity — earning about $6.9 million from the program, the hospital’s audited financial statements show.

Meanwhile, faith-based Adventist Health, which serves a larger share of poor people and operates roughly two dozen hospitals in California, Oregon, and Hawaii, paid $148 million in taxes in 2022 and reaped $401 million in Medicaid dollars through the program, according to its independently audited financial statements. It then contributed $3 million of that Medicaid money to the charity.

Federal law sets stringent rules for provider taxes: They must be broad-based and apply to all providers within a certain category, like hospitals; providers within a state must be taxed at the same rate; and taxes can’t be returned directly or indirectly to providers as part of a “hold harmless” agreement.

It’s that last clause that has spurred the feds to act.

Regulators say some health care providers, to gain the needed support within their ranks for the tax, are moving the tax money — and the federal revenue it draws to states — among themselves.

“We believe providers with relatively higher Medicaid volume agree to redistribute some of their Medicaid payments to ensure broad support for the tax program,” they wrote in their proposal.

These agreements “undermine the fiscal integrity” of the Medicaid program, they wrote.

It’s unclear how widespread such agreements are because hospitals don’t make them public. CMS said it has identified “instances” of Medicaid redistribution payments, but spokesperson Greg Myers declined to elaborate.

Jonathan Williams, vice president of government affairs at Sutter Health, which operates about 20 hospitals across Northern California, argued in a June 30 letter to the federal agency that these arrangements help hospitals expand “care networks and afford necessary incentives to ensure that providers can continue caring for Medicaid beneficiaries with unique and specific care needs.”

Missouri’s hospital association also runs a “pooling arrangement,” in which hospitals that get more Medicaid money than they paid in taxes can donate funds to the hospitals that didn’t.

“Missouri providers have had various private agreements to redistribute funds among themselves for decades, with the full knowledge and approval of CMS,” according to an unsigned and undated letter to the agency from the MO HealthNet Division, which runs the state’s Medicaid program.

In 2002, Missouri got federal approval for its redistribution program by pledging to use the funds for Medicaid services, whereas California has not received approval.

The federal government’s plan would require states to get health care providers to attest that they don’t participate in any arrangement that violates federal law. State officials described the proposal as an impractical administrative burden that could dissuade hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers from participating in Medicaid altogether. “Imposing additional requirements on providers that participate in Medicaid managed care networks would only serve to further dissuade network participation, which will have a negative impact on member access to care,” Mike Levine, the assistant secretary for MassHealth, Massachusetts’ Medicaid program, wrote to CMS on July 3.

Texas, which has long tangled with the federal agency over how it funds its Medicaid program, sued in federal court earlier this year after the agency declared in a separate letter to states that these types of arrangements aren’t allowed and must be reported. The letter was sent in February, before the agency issued its formal proposal.

In June, a federal judge handed Texas and its health care industry a victory, temporarily delaying the reporting requirement that regulators had outlined in their February letter. The judge agreed with Texas that the agency had exceeded its legal authority and couldn’t regulate private agreements.

State health officials and hospital leaders are pointing to the Texas court case as evidence that the agency’s May proposal to crack down on the redistribution of Medicaid funds is a “widely controversial interpretation” of the law, as the Tennessee Hospital Association put it in a July 3 letter to CMS.

Federal regulators have not said if or when they will implement their plan. The last time the agency issued a sweeping Medicaid financing proposal, it withdrew it almost a year later.

Mark McClellan, who served as head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for two years during the George W. Bush administration, predicted states and Congress would push back hard if the new proposal moved forward.

“Medicaid is a huge component of state spending and keeps getting bigger,” McClellan said. “So, sudden CMS changes or clamping down is going to be disruptive for state coverage.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Bullied and ostracized, Wrangell started repressing those feelings in middle school and kept them bottled up for a long time. That led to decades of sadness, isolation, and even a couple of suicide attempts. What gnawed at Wrangell was gender dysphoria, a condition widely acknowledged in the medical community, which causes severe distress to people whose gender identity does not match their sex assigned at birth.

“It’s a sense of wrongness, like someone attached an arm to my head badly, and it just punches me in the face every time,” said Wrangell, 38, who grew up and still lives in this idyllic central California beach community. Facial and body hair is particularly upsetting: “I see my face in the mirror, and anytime I have to deal with hair, it is uncomfortable. I hate seeing it.”

Wrangell is nonbinary, meaning neither a man nor a woman, and uses the pronouns they and them. For over three years, they have been undergoing gender transition treatments to take on more feminine physical traits. These treatments have included genital transformation, known as bottom surgery; hormone replacement therapy using estradiol; and electrolysis hair removal for their face, neck, and chest.

All of it is paid for by Medi-Cal, California’s version of the federal Medicaid insurance program for people with low incomes. California law requires Medi-Cal and all other state-regulated health plans to cover gender-affirming care that is deemed medically necessary. But therein lies the rub.

Wrangell, an enrollee of the Central California Alliance for Health, the only Medi-Cal health plan in Santa Cruz, said it has been laborious to get the care they need. They contend with seemingly endless paperwork and phone calls to prove what they’ve already established — that their need for treatments is real and ongoing.

“There is a joke among the trans community, where they are always asking for letters, along the lines of, ‘Oh, did they think I stopped being trans or did the hair magically go away?’” Wrangell said.

And it requires a lot of work to find and vet the scant number of gender-affirming care providers who take Medi-Cal patients, Wrangell said.

Over 1.6 million people ages 13 and older in the U.S. are transgender, according to the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute, which conducts legal and policy research on gender identity and sexual orientation. Data from the institute shows an estimated 276,000 transgender people in the U.S. are enrolled in Medicaid, including 164,000 in states where transgender care is covered. Of those, 36,000 are in California, one of 25 states, plus Washington, D.C., whose Medicaid policies cover gender-affirming care.

“I think there’s a lot of pressure in society to fit into a very narrow set of narratives, and I don’t think honestly that works for most people,” Wrangell said. “For some people, it’s so ill-fitting, it’s disastrous.”

A national survey of transgender people shows they disproportionately experience physical abuse, economic hardship, and mental health problems. And research finds gender-affirming care can significantly enhance their quality of life.

But as Wrangell has learned, coverage and care are not the same thing. Hair removal, their top priority, has been hard to get. After 2½ years of electrolysis treatment, they’ve had roughly only about half the total number of hours their electrologist said they needed.

Permanently removing the facial hair of a transgender person assigned male at birth can require 400 or more hours of electrolysis spread over several years. For those paying out of their own pockets, the cost would easily reach tens of thousands of dollars. That doesn’t include the cost of facial, bottom, and body-shaping surgeries.

Wrangell said their health plan has limited the number of sessions it authorizes at a time, requiring constant reauthorization.

Dennis Hsieh, deputy chief medical officer of the Central California Alliance for Health, said the health plan recently updated its policy to allow 50% more electrolysis in a three-month period and eliminate a rule requiring patients to submit photos of relevant body parts.

Hsieh acknowledged a shortage of providers and said the alliance contracts with clinicians across several counties to provide more options.

To a large extent, the challenges transgender people encounter seeking care are the same ones many people face in the “terror dome of U.S. health care,” said Kellan Baker, the executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Institute, which conducts research and education on topics of concern to gay, bisexual, and transgender people. “There are a lot of people in a lot of circumstances who cannot get medically necessary care for their conditions, whether that’s gender dysphoria or cancer or diabetes.”

Legal aid lawyers and transgender activists say another big reason for denials or delays in gender-affirming care, especially hair removal, is that many people in the medical world still think of it as cosmetic.

Medi-Cal, like most commercial insurance plans, does not cover cosmetic treatments. “But if it’s affecting your mental health, and it’s affecting your life opportunities, and it’s affecting your ability to get a job, and it’s affecting your ability to get housing, is that cosmetic?” asked Elana Redfield, the federal policy director at the Williams Institute.

Despite their travails in obtaining care, Wrangell said, the treatment is improving their life. The estradiol, they said, makes them feel “way more relaxed, much less on edge all the time.” And Wrangell feels good about an uncommon bottom surgery they got last October, but they are facing more paperwork for a needed follow-up operation.

They are frustrated about all the red tape they’ve encountered, precisely because the treatments are helping. “This is working,” Wrangell said. “Please finish it.”

This article is part of “Faces of Medi-Cal,” a California Healthline series exploring the impact of the state’s safety-net health program on enrollees.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

But the intense jockeying over the money is only beginning.

Top state health officials say they plan to plow most of the money into higher payments for doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers who serve Californians covered by Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. But the framework, hammered out this summer as part of state budget negotiations, lacks critical details, which has set off a lobbying frenzy among health industry groups seeking a cut.

Even as they battle for their share, industry leaders are quietly plotting a November 2024 ballot initiative to lock in the Medi-Cal payment increases, which they argue are needed to sustain the safety-net program that covers nearly 16 million Californians — a staggering 40% of the state’s population.

“We are addressing decades of systemic underfunding in Medicaid that has exacerbated inequity and health care provider deserts, where patients are often forced to get their care in emergency departments,” said Dustin Corcoran, the CEO of the influential California Medical Association, which represents doctors.

Corcoran also leads the coalition negotiating with Gov. Gavin Newsom and fellow Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento over how the money — a combination of state and federal funding to be doled out over six years — will be spent.

“Even with this historic deal, there are still parts of the health care system that are going to struggle to provide the care that patients need,” Corcoran said. “The coalition is dedicated to ensuring long-term stability and predictability in reimbursement rates in California.”

California has among the lowest Medicaid reimbursement rates in the country, which is often cited as a key reason many low-income patients can’t get care and often face excruciating wait times, especially for primary care, obstetric, and mental health appointments, said Kathryn Phillips, the associate director for improving access to care at the California Health Care Foundation. (California Healthline is an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.)

“That’s where the state is struggling the most,” she said. “Low rates are why a physician may not accept Medi-Cal patients, or only accept a low number of patients.”

This deal funds the largest increase in base Medi-Cal reimbursement rates in at least 25 years, said Jennifer Kent, a former director of the state Medicaid agency.

The money will come from the managed care organization tax, which has been levied since 2005 on health insurers that do business in California. Revenue from the tax, which allows the state to secure billions in federal health care dollars it wouldn’t otherwise receive, has previously been funneled into the state general fund, which can be used for anything state leaders want.

Under the deal, and for the first time, Newsom and the legislature have agreed to use the money to improve care for poor Californians. Of the $19.4 billion projected to be raised by the tax between 2023 and 2026, $11.1 billion will go directly to Medi-Cal and $8.3 billion to the general fund to offset state spending on Medi-Cal, according to state Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer.

The new funding will start flowing next year, with $820 million earmarked for initial rate increases in primary care, obstetric care, and mental health care, Palmer said.

From 2025 through 2029, the state plans to allocate nearly $2.7 billion a year, according to the department. State and industry officials said they plan to direct some of the money to expand medical residency programs for doctors serving low-income people, fund new beds for psychiatric patients, and increase the workforce of other providers such as nurses, mental health therapists, and community health workers.

But the bulk will go to rate increases for primary care and an array of providers and services, including hospitals and long-term care facilities, abortion care, and emergency services. Higher rates for specialists, such as psychiatrists and dentists, are also desperately needed.

Although Newsom and state health officials have promised to direct the money to health care providers, they haven’t specified which ones will get increases — and there’s no guarantee the money won’t be diverted to another program. Medi-Cal, a massive and ballooning program with a budget of $152 billion this fiscal year, is under tremendous pressure. The state continues to expand the program to more people and offers a growing list of expensive services, despite the threat of budget deficits.

“There has to be more guardrails,” said Assembly member Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield) during a June legislative debate. “This should not be seen as a revenue grab.”

Mark Ghaly, Newsom’s health and human services secretary, acknowledged that even though some providers and treatments may be left out initially, the payment boosts represent a critical step toward better access.

“The core providers in Medicaid will benefit,” Ghaly told California Healthline. “There’s always going to be someone out there with a question and a concern, and I hope that as we learn about them and we hear them, we address them.”

Ghaly said the tax will bring some Medicaid rates in California from the bottom in the country to the top. While he acknowledged concerns that the money might be diverted in future years, he said Newsom is committed to spending it on Medi-Cal. “Who knows about the uncertainty of the future?” he said. “But we have basically done as much as you can to hard-wire these changes into the way we design Medicaid. The man with the pen — the governor of California — is committed to this.”

Even though the tax deal isn’t big enough to fix all the problems in Medi-Cal, it will improve patient care, said Charles Bacchi, president and CEO of the California Association of Health Plans, which represents private and public insurers.

“There’s a lot more work to do hammering out the rate increases and where they should go,” Bacchi said. “We have to make sure that the funding actually survives the budget process next year.”

Some providers worry they may be left out.

“We’ve argued hard for optometrists to be included,” said Kristine Schultz, executive director of the California Optometric Association, noting that optometrists can’t afford to treat poor patients because of low rates. For example, optometrists get about $39, on average, to conduct an eye exam on a new Medi-Cal patient, while Medicare reimburses $158, she said.

As a result, she said, patients “are not able to get in for months.”

Ann Rivello, a therapist in San Mateo County specializing in trauma, also cited low rates — and complicated medical billing demands — as the reasons she doesn’t accept Medi-Cal patients.

“I’ve been practicing over 20 years and I do not accept Medi-Cal even though it’s within my values,” she said.

Detailed rates for most health care treatments for Medi-Cal patients are not publicly available because they are negotiated privately by insurance companies and vary by geography and health insurance plan. And the state has a slew of bonus payments it uses to supplement base Medi-Cal rates, further obfuscating how much health care providers receive.

While Medi-Cal rates vary widely, on average, California reimburses 76% of Medicare rates, Phillips said. Next year, the state plans to raise that base payment rate to 87.5% of Medicare in three target areas — primary care, obstetrics, and mental health.

As health care providers battle for their slice of the tax revenue, they say they want to avoid the same lobbying fight each time the state renews the tax, which happens every few years. One option they are considering: a ballot initiative next year that would lock the Medi-Cal funding into the state constitution.

Bacchi declined to take a position on the concept but said insurers are “taking a look at it.” He argues that California “needs to make a long-term commitment to the Medi-Cal program.”

John Baackes, the CEO of L.A. Care, the largest Medi-Cal insurer, supports the idea. He argues that a permanent increase in Medi-Cal rates would help address the disparities between Medi-Cal and private insurance coverage.

“The pandemic showed us that inequality is a life-and-death matter, because if you look at the people who got sick the most and died, they were people of color,” he said. “If we continue to ignore that, we’re idiots.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

About three weeks before his May move, Tennison called the agency that administers Medi-Cal in Contra Costa County, where Walnut Creek is located, to inform them he’d be moving to San Joaquin County.

Little did he suspect his transfer would get tangled in red tape, disrupt his care, and saddle him with two bills totaling nearly $1,700 after he was removed from his old plan without notice before his new one in Stockton took effect.

Medi-Cal members who move counties are often bumped temporarily from managed care insurance plans into traditional Medi-Cal, also known as “fee for service,” in which the state pays providers directly for each service rendered. But managed care practitioners who don’t participate in traditional Medi-Cal have no way to get paid when they see such patients, and they sometimes bill them directly — even though that’s prohibited.

Medi-Cal is a statewide program, but it is administered by the counties, which have separate government bureaucracies and different approaches to care: Some have just one county-operated Medi-Cal plan. Others have only commercial health plans, which are paid by the state to manage the care of Medi-Cal patients. Many have one of each.

Traveling from Walnut Creek to Stockton takes a little more than an hour by car, but as far as Tennison is concerned, the two cities might as well be on opposite sides of the planet.

Tennison, 63, needed a smooth health care transition. With severe chronic pain in his back, shoulders, and neck, he requires regular physical therapy and monitoring by an orthopedist, as well as multiple pain medications. He also has carpal tunnel syndrome and Type 2 diabetes.

Because of miscommunication and confusion surrounding his move, several physical therapy appointments he’d made for June 2022 were canceled, and he had to wait nearly two months for new ones.

“To me the whole issue is the confusion,” Tennison said. “Right hand and left hand, nobody talks to each other, and nobody talked to me.”

The first hint of trouble came when he called Contra Costa County Employment & Human Services in late April 2022 to report his upcoming move and was told the new county had to initiate the transfer — only to hear from a worker at San Joaquin’s Human Services Agency that it was the other way around.

They were both wrong: Medi-Cal members who move can inform either county.

Tennison persuaded a Medi-Cal worker in San Joaquin County to initiate the transfer. He also filed a notice of his move online, which Medi-Cal workers in Contra Costa processed and flagged for a June 2 transfer date, said Marla Stuart, director of the county’s Employment & Human Services Department.

They set that date, Stuart said, because they believed Tennison might have some medical appointments in May under his Contra Costa Anthem Blue Cross plan.

Medi-Cal workers in San Joaquin County, however, set a move date of May 5, which overrode Contra Costa’s June 2 date and bumped Tennison from his Anthem plan for most of May, according to Stuart.

“If anybody had called me to verify any of this, I definitely would have told them May 5 was the wrong date,” said Tennison, who moved to Stockton on May 17.

“There were good intentions all around,” said Stuart. “It’s unfortunate what happened.”

Being cut from Anthem left Tennison with fee-for-service Medi-Cal, a rapidly shrinking part of the program.

He discovered it only in mid-July, when he called the Office of the Ombudsman for managed care Medi-Cal to complain about two bills he’d received — one for $886.92 from his orthopedic surgeon and another for $795 from his physical therapist.

He had seen both providers in May, when he thought he was still covered by Anthem. But he wasn’t, and they billed him directly, despite signed agreements and a state law that prohibit billing patients for services covered by Medi-Cal.

The bills caught Tennison by surprise, because the ombudsman had told him in early June that he had still been on Anthem through May, he said.

“To me, that’s how insurance works: One insurance ends, the other begins,” he said.

When Medi-Cal patients are between health plans and temporarily in fee for service, it theoretically ensures they have ongoing access to health care. But in practice, that’s not always the case.

“Because the state is pushing most Medi-Cal members into managed care, fewer providers are accepting fee for service,” said Hillary Hansen, an attorney with Legal Services of Northern California who is handling Tennison’s case.

The prohibition against billing Medi-Cal patients is spottily enforced, Hansen said. And although the patients are not legally required to pay, she said, their credit rating can suffer if they don’t. Michael Bowman, a spokesperson for Anthem, said the company regularly communicates with its providers to ensure compliance with the terms of their contracts and Medi-Cal rules.

Hansen is not confident Tennison’s bills will be paid anytime soon. After legal aid lawyers sent a letter to state officials about improper Medi-Cal billing, and later met with them about it, the officials instructed them to have their clients submit reimbursement claims.

But the reimbursement rules require that patients have already paid the bills, and Medi-Cal beneficiaries typically can’t afford that, Hansen said.

Tennison submitted his reimbursement form in May and is waiting to hear back. “Getting medical care should not be this difficult,” he said. “Here it is a year later, and I’m still trying to work this out.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).