I mentioned this home health program, which is currently 100 percent Federal with no State match. Right now the States are not paying anything. So to have this in Medicaid, where Medicaid will pick up for lower-income beneficiaries a small portion of that--I might mention the Federal Government picking up, in most cases, 60 percent, in some cases 70 percent--is not the problem. What we are asking to do, what you are talking about, we are saying, ``Beneficiaries pay $5; pay $5 out of a total cost of a $70 visit.'' So the Federal Government is paying 65 percent, and the individual would pick up $5, and in some low-income cases, for some low-income individuals, the State might pick up 30 percent, or in some cases 40 percent, in some States maybe 50 percent of that share. To me that does not seem unreasonable.
Don Nickles: “I mentioned this home health program, which is currently 100 percent Federal with no State match. Right now the States…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the funding structure of home health programs in Medicaid.
Share
More from Don Nickles
If somebody is activated and they go to Afghanistan or Iraq, don't they receive full health care costs without paying the 28 percent?
I have a couple comments. Again, I compliment my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator DeWine. They have been steadfast in their advocacy. Senator DeWine is right, he and Senator Kennedy introduced this a long time ago. If I am correct…
I will make a few comments concerning the Baucus amendment requesting $2.65 billion of drought assistance. I have two or three comments. One, it doesn't belong on this bill. This is the Homeland Security bill. This is not an agriculture…
Lowering the threshold required for cloture, in my opinion, would be a mistake, because that is a threshold that almost by definition requires bipartisan involvement.





