Printer Friendly

New bipartisan policies revisit IMD issue: full-scale repeal would probably cost too much to earn support.

Industry advocates who want to recraft the IMD exclusion policy must feel a lot like Sisyphus these days: They keep rallying support for changes only to have the issue roll down the legislative hill once again. The National Council for Behavioral Healthcare, the Joint Commission and others have endorsed a proposal reintroduced on May 17 by a group of bipartisan senators that would alter some of the IMD limits to increase access to care.

The Medicaid Coverage for Addiction Recovery Expansion (CARE) Act would allow Medicaid payment to residential addiction treatment facilities with up to 40 beds--an increase over the current 16 bed limit. It would also allow for treatment services for up to 60 consecutive days.

"The CARE bill is an example of the interest on Capitol Hill in trying to make residential addiction treatment more available in the Medicaid program," says Chuck Ingoglia, senior vice president, public policy and practice improvement for National Council, which helped Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) draft the bill.

Ingoglia says the bill has more co-sponsors now in the 115th Congress than when it was introduced in the previous session, noting the growing recognition of the importance of the IMD issue. Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) introduced the companion bill in the House on May 25.


Additionally, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) updated IMD rules within its authority last year and now allows managed care Medicaid--but not fee-for-service Medicaid--to pay for 15 day stays in residential mental health and addiction facilities with more than 16 beds. The new rules took effect in March 2017.

CMS also offers technical assistance and 1115 waiver information to help states improve access to inpatient services for Medicaid members.

"Given that, the fundamental problem they have is the underlying statute contains a payment prohibition," Ingoglia says. "They've gone very far to do what they can within the strictures of the statute to make the service more available."

The CARE Act approach is targeted to addiction treatment, and that's deliberate.

"A full-scale repeal of the IMD exclusion would cost a lot of money," Ingoglia says. "And Congress does not have the ability or the willingness to find the appropriate offsets to cover the costs of full repeal."

In terms of impact, Durbin's office estimates that the CARE Act would expand access in Illinois alone to an additional 535 addiction treatment beds in 18 facilities.

But in the meantime, "all the oxygen is being sucked out of the room by the repeal and replace of'Obamacare,'" Ingoglia says.


Julie Miller is Editor in Chief of Behavioral Healthcare Executive

COPYRIGHT 2017 Vendome Group LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:POLICY
Author:Miller, Julie
Publication:Behavioral Healthcare
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jun 22, 2017
Previous Article:5 facts about Medicaid spending to treat opioid use disorder: expansion states have increased spending significantly.
Next Article:5 findings from the SAMHSA Behavioral Health Barometer: alcohol misuse remains an issue.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |