Search people, articles, bills, and more
“On agreeing to the Pettersen amendment (A003) Failed by recorded vote: 213 - 213 (Roll no. 150).”
This amendment would have required the government to count long-term savings when deciding if state Medicaid experiments are too expensive. It aimed to make recent policy permanent by ensuring that if a program saves money in the future—such as by preventing hospital stays—those savings would count toward the program's budget requirements.
No reactions yet. Be the first to weigh in.
An amendment numbered 3 printed in Part A of House Report 119-130 to codify Biden-era guidance to ensure that budget neutrality requirements for Section 1115 Waivers take into account downstream savings.
“On agreeing to the Pettersen amendment (A003) Failed by recorded vote: 213 - 213 (Roll no. 150).”
This amendment would have required the government to count long-term savings when deciding if state Medicaid experiments are too expensive. It aimed to make recent policy permanent by ensuring that if a program saves money in the future—such as by preventing hospital stays—those savings would count toward the program's budget requirements.
When states want to try new ways of running Medicaid, they have to prove the experiment won't cost the federal government extra money. If 'downstream savings' are counted, it is easier for states to get approval for programs that spend money upfront on things like housing or nutrition to save money on emergency room visits later.
This primarily affects state health agencies and Medicaid recipients, as it influences which types of experimental health programs states are allowed to create.