The CA Governor’s Medi-Cal budget can cripple health care for women, critics say- calm

From ChristenCalmness

This story was originally published by CalmattersS Register about their ballots.

Six months after California voters have predominantly approved a vote initiative that increases the payment of physicians treating patients with Medi-Cal, Gavard Gavin Newo, wants to divert that money to cover other health costs.

Newsom Last week offered Using $ 1.6 billion generated by Proposal 35 In the next two years to help deal with California A state deficit of $ 12 billionS The governor said the cost plan was admissible according to the vote measure, while doctors, hospitals, clinics and others who support the measure cry.

Increasing costs make Medi-Cal, state health insurance for people with low incomes, unstable, causing a dispute over the use of funds that voters determine for specific health expenses, such as the payment of a doctor and the reproductive health of women.

In addition to the redirection of Fund 35, the governor wants to move $ 500 million from the state tobacco tax to the State General Fund. This money that voters have approved in a 2016 vote should support family planning and women’s health care, among other services.

Health defenders claim that the governor’s proposals to displace money will weaken the state’s health safety network and reproductive health care for health.

Planned parenting said the double blow from Prop. 35 and the proposals for tobacco tax in the state budget can cripple its services.

Jody Hicks, CEO of the California Planned Parental Branches and co -chair of the Yes in Reporter 35, called NEWSOM’s proposal “Shocking” and “Plain Cruel”. She said the planned parenting would lose one third of her budget if approved by the legislature next month. Low-income patients will need to fight longer waiting times, less appointment options and potentially have to drive further to access care.

“Our imprint is so large in sexual and reproductive healthcare in California. There is no way for other clinics to absorb this,” Hicks said.

Newsom’s proposal comes at a time when the Republican -led congress is considering deep cuts on Medicaid. The cut of all federal funding for planned parenting is included. (Medi-Cal is the name of California for Medicaid.) “We need the state to help us prepare, not make things significantly worse,” Hicks said.

“Our imprint is so big in sexual and reproductive health care in California. There is no way other clinics to absorb this.”

Jody Hicks, California Planned Parental Brails

The use of state health funds is likely to be a center, as the state legislative body negotiates a budget transaction with Newsom next month. The final budget is June 15.

State democratic legislators who have an over-master in the legislature have largely joined the Newsom changes in Medi-Cal, which also include includes Freezing new enrollment for most adults with no constant legal statusS

“I am concerned that the governor’s updated budget is stretched with deep redundancies of our voters. We cannot boast about having the fourth largest economy while balancing our budget on the back of the Californians’ daily healthcare.

Is it legal to move prop. 35 funds?

35, approved by 68% of California voters in November, is designed to ensure that doctors will receive more fee to serve patients covered by Medi-Cal. Medi-Cal recovery degrees are so low that Patients often struggle to find doctors Who will accept their insurance.

Prop. 35 uses a special tax paid by health insurance plans to generate Medi-Cal revenue. Most of the money-9 billion dollars in 2024-25, they are in the State General Fund. But the extra $ 1.6 billion that the Newsom wants to take for total costs for Medi-Cal, had to be saved to increase the amount that doctors receive paid for specific services, such as primary assistance, specialty and visits to the Emergency Department.

The Newsom budget proposal will instead use $ 1.6 billion designed to increase the pay of doctors to support higher Medi-Cal costs for primary care, specialized care, ambulances and hospital outpatient procedures.

Planned Parentation and the Medical Association in California helped keep the lead an industrial group that put the ballot measureS

In a statement, Dr. Shannon Udovic-Constant, President of the Medical Association, called the Newsom budget proposal “A direct violation of the will of the voters in California.”

“The proposal was submitted to prevent this type of maneuver – Increasing Funding of Health to Solve Budget Problemsshe said.

“The proposal was submitted to prevent this type of maneuver – invading funding for health care to solve budget problems.”

Dr. SHANNON UDOVIC-CONSTANT, California Medical Assn.

When questioned this move during a budget presentation on Wednesday, Newsom denied this characteristic and stated that the proposed costs were “absolutely compatible” with the rules established by the vote measure.

NEWSOM repeatedly blames prop. 35 that it causes part of the lack of a budget of the state and called it other recent measures for voting “unfinanced initiatives”.

The governor said Medi-Cal has a growth problem that the state cannot afford.

Medi-Cal government expenditures have doubled since 2017 and is now expected to cost $ 76.8 billion in the budget year 2024-25. Earlier this year, legislators approved an additional $ 6 billion for unexpected Medi-Cal costs.

The governor said Medi-Cal has a growth problem that the state cannot afford. Medi-Cal government spending is more than doubled since 2017 and is now expected to cost $ 76.8 billion.

Linnea Koopmans, CEO of California’s Local Health Plans and President of the Prop Advisory Committee.

“Undoubtedly, the challenge for the state budget is real, but the coverage of more than $ 1 billion (prop. 35) revenue is not an option. These funds should be used to support investment in Medi-Cal in suppliers and labor that are needed to improve access to care,” Coopmans said.

Prop Advisory Committee. 35 was created by the voting initiative to watch the state spend money.

Proponents of the measure of the measure say that Newsom’s proposal does not really pay no more to doctors; It links the increased costs associated with increasing Medi-Cal recording with payment.

Asks Ued, a spokesman for the yes 35 campaign, said in a statement that the budget proposal raises “serious legal problems”.

“The governor offers the use of prop. 35 funding to cover already rented expenses in Medi-Cal, not to increase suppliers’ payments to increase access to healthcare,” Weedn said.

The most controversial part of the debate comes down to whether he uses 35 money support to pay the total expenditure of the state, not just healthcare.

The Financial Department of the Newsom Administration said in a document shared with Calmatters that the payment of doctors is reviewed and increased annually, which is aligned with the Prop requirements. 35. The department also denies that the use of payment money for Medi-Cal will replace the total costs of funds, since the amount the state is taking from the General Medi-Cal Fund continues to grow.

Critics claim that these standard adjustments are not necessarily a real increase in percentage for doctors – they are most reflect increased costs for Medi-Cal as a result of more patients who are enrolled or more expensive care provided. In order to increase significantly how many doctors are paid, State will have to apply for federal approvalwhich did not do.

“It seems that the growth of the Medi-Cal load is used to justify the need for these funds,” says Jennifer Kent, a Prop campaign advisor. 35 and former director of the Health Services Department.

NEWSOM is not the first governor to clean money approved by voters in the General Fund, and his budget proposal also reflects a move made by his predecessor, Jerry Brown, in 2017 to remove payments made for family planningWomen’s health and dentistry from the state tax on tobacco.

Amy Mine, CEO of the Hefortive Access Health Health Health, which provides grants to clinics for reproductive health care, said that the governor’s proposed by the governor cuts California’s commitment to make available abortions, contraceptives and other reproductive health services.

My, member of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee in the proposal 35, said it was confident that the final budget approved by the legislature would withdraw some of the proposed abbreviations of Newsom.

“In the end, we believe that California’s commitment, including the commitment of our administration, to sexual and reproductive health will be reflected in the final budget.”

Supported by the California Foundation for Health (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the necessary care when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org To learn more.

This article was Originally Published on CalMatters and was reissued under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivatives License.