1991 Realignment Webinar Understanding the relationship between CCI, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1991 Realignment Webinar

Understanding the relationship between CCI, IHSS and 1991 Realignment

Farrah McDaid Ting, CSAC Kirsten Barlow, CBHDA Michelle Gibbons, CHEAC Eileen Cubanski, CWDA

February 22, 2017

1

Goals of the Presentation

To provide answers to the following questions:

• How does 1991 Realignment work?
• Why does elimination of the Coordinated Care Initiative (CCI) affect

1991 Realignment?

• What are the impacts on counties?

2

What is 1991 Realignment?

• 1991 Realignment is the transfer of funding responsibility for

approximately $2.2 billion (at the time) of health, mental health, and social services costs from the state to counties

• In exchange, counties receive dedicated funding sources to cover those

transferred costs and some flexibility in spending the funds in order to meet local needs

3

Programs Realigned to Counties in 1991

Health, Mental Health, and Social Services

February 22, 2017 4

1991 Realigned Health Programs

5

Public Health

County Indigent Health Programs

• Communicable Disease Control
• Chronic Disease Prevention
• Immunizations
• Maternal Child Adolescent

Health

• Public Health Nursing
• Public Health Labs
• Health Education
• Welfare and Institutions Code

Section 17000 obligation

• Direct health care services

provided at county public hospitals and clinics or through contracting with private providers

• Previously funded through state

allocations.

1991 Realigned Mental Health Programs

6

Psychiatric inpatient hospitalization services for all Medi- Cal enrollees

(Funded with 1991 Realignment funds, responsibility transferred to counties after 1991)

Institutions for Mental Disease (IMD) services for adults Lanterman Petris Short Act responsibilities for involuntary evaluation and treatment Community mental health services, to the extent resources are available, for indigent individuals State hospital treatment for individuals committed by courts under civil (non-criminal) code

1991 Realigned Social Services Programs

7

CalWORKs Assistance, Employment Services

Foster Care Assistance Child Welfare Services Adoptions Assistance In-Home Supportive Services County Services Block Grant California Children’s Services

County Administration (CalWORKs Eligibility, Foster Care, CalFresh)

County Juvenile Justice Subventions (AB 90) County Stabilization Subventions

1991 Realignment Funding Structure

February 22, 2017 8

Funding Sources for 1991 Realignment

• Two funding sources
• ½ cent sales tax
• Dedicated Vehicle License Fee (VLF) revenue
• Every 1991 Realignment subaccount includes funds from both sources

9

Sales Tax

Source: ½ cent Sales Tax

Sales Tax Base Account Sales Tax Growth Account

(Revenues in Excess of Base Payments)

Mental Health Subaccount a

($1.12 billion base funding from 2011 Realignment revenue)

CalWORKs MOE b

(capped at $1.12 billion)

Health Subaccount Social Services Subaccount

CMSP Growth

(2nd call on Growth; 4.027% plus 4.027%

• f caseload growth paid if over

$20M)

General Growth

(remaining Growth)

Mental Health

(approx. 40%)

Health

(approx. 18.45%)

Child Poverty & Family Supplemental Support

(remaining growth)

County Allocations CMSP

(County Shares)

a) Now goes to CalWORKs MOE, capped at a total $1.12 B combined VLF/ST. Mental Health account is now funded with 2011 Realignment Revenues b) If CalWORKs MOE has reached cap, funds in excess go to Mental Health

CMSP

(Base Account)

Family Support Subaccount

Child Poverty & Family Supplemental Support Subaccount

Caseload Subaccount

(1st call on Growth)

1991 Realignment – Sales Tax Distributions

Vehicle License Fee

Source: 74.9% Vehicle License Fees

VLF Base Account

VLF Growth Account

(Revenues in Excess of Base Payments)

Mental Health Subaccount a

($1.12 billion base funding from 2011 Realignment revenues)

CalWORKs MOE b

(capped at $1.12 billion)

Health Subaccount Social Services Subaccount

CMSP Growth

(1st call on Growth; 4.027% plus 4.027%

• f caseload growth paid if over

$20M)

General Growth

(remaining Growth)

Mental Health

(approx. 40%)

Health

(approx. 18.45%) Child Poverty & Family Supplemental Support

(remaining growth)

County Allocations CMSP

(County Shares)

a) Now goes to CalWORKs MOE, capped at a total $1.12 B combined VLF/ST. Mental Health account is now funded with 2011 Realignment Revenues b) If CalWORKs MOE has reached cap, funds in excess go to Mental Health

CMSP

(Base Account)

Child Poverty & Family Supplemental Support Subaccount

(Base is $0 in 2013-14)

Family Support Subaccount

1991 Realignment – Vehicle License Fee Distributions

CalWORKs MOE Subaccount Changes to 1991 Realignment Account Structure

• Created as part of 2011 Realignment
• 1991 Realignment revenues that went to Mental Health Subaccount now

go to CalWORKs MOE Subaccount up to a capped amount of $1.12 billion

• Mental Health Subaccount now funded from 2011 Realignment
• CalWORKs MOE Subaccount has reached capped amount, so additional

growth funding goes to Mental Health Subaccount

12

AB 85 Changes to 1991 Realignment Account Structure

• AB 85 (Ch. 24/13) was one of the ACA implementation bills
• Redirected revenues from Health Subaccount
• Created two new subaccounts – Family Support and Child Poverty and

Family Supplemental Support

• Changed and redirected general growth distribution

13

Growth Funding: An Overview

• Growth funding is determined separately for sales tax and VLF revenues
• Sales Tax Growth:
• Caseload growth is only funded from sales tax growth and has first call on sales tax growth

revenues

• CMSP has second call on sales tax growth revenues
• Any sales tax growth revenues available after funding caseload growth and CMSP are

distributed as general growth

• VLF Growth:
• CMSP has first call on VLF growth revenues
• Any VLF growth revenues available after funding CMSP are distributed as general growth

14

What is Caseload Growth?

• Eight realigned Social Services subaccount programs are subject to caseload growth increases:
• CalWORKs Assistance
• CalWORKs Employment Services
• Foster Care Assistance
• Adoption Assistance
• Child Welfare Services
• IHSS (services)
• County Administration (Foster Care, CalFresh, and CalWORKs Eligibility)
• CCS
• Caseload growth reflects changes in expenditures in the eight programs, not actual caseloads
• Caseload growth has first call on sales tax growth revenues to ensure that the entitlement

programs get funded first

• Unlike the base, any unfunded caseload growth from one fiscal year carries over to future fiscal

years until it is fully paid off

15

How Caseload Growth is Calculated

• County-by-county calculation
• Year-over-year increases or decreases in expenditures in each the eight

programs are determined

• Change in expenditures is then used to calculated the amount of cost

change due to 1991 Realignment using the pre- and post-Realignment sharing ratios

• The increases and decreases in each program are added together for

each county

16

How Caseload Growth is Calculated (cont.)

• If the sum is a positive amount, the county is due that amount in caseload

growth funding and a like amount of funding is added to the county’s social services account base

• If the sum is a negative amount, the county is “held harmless” – the negative

amount is set to zero and not subtracted from the county’s social services account base

• The total of all the positive caseload growth amounts becomes the statewide

1991 Realignment caseload growth amount for that fiscal year

17

Caseload Growth Timing

• Caseload growth for a fiscal year is calculated based on expenditures from the prior fiscal

year compared to expenditures compared to the two-year prior fiscal year

• Example: 2017-18 caseload growth is 2016-17 expenditures over 2015-16 expenditures
• Realignment revenue growth for a fiscal year will not be known until after the end of that

fiscal year (i.e., until the following fiscal year

• Example: Growth revenues to pay 2017-18 caseload growth will not be known until the

fall of the 2018-19 fiscal year

• As a result, counties front funding for cost increases in the realigned social services

programs for over a year

• Example: Cost increases incurred in 2016-17 become caseload growth for 2017-18 that

is paid in 2018-19

18

General Growth – Pre AB 85

• Any sales tax growth revenues above that needed to fund caseload

growth and all VLF growth revenues were distributed as general growth

• General growth was allocated by formula to the Social Services, Health,

and Mental Health subaccounts

• General growth was roughly shared as follows:
• Mental Health (40%)
• Health (52%)
• Social Services (8%)

19

General Growth – Post AB 85

• General growth to Social Services Subaccount was eliminated and to Health

Subaccount fixed at 18.4545% each year (unchanged to Mental Health Subaccount)

• The logic at the time was that the Social Services Subaccount no longer needed general

growth funding because of the IHSS MOE and the 2011 Realignment growth funding available for APS, and the Health Subaccount needed less growth because of the Medi- Cal expansion and reduced indigent care costs

• Redirected Social Services and Health subaccounts general growth revenues to the

Child Poverty and Supplemental Support Subaccount

20

1991 Realignment Revenue Estimates

(At Governor’s January 2017 Budget)

21

To view tables illustrating the Governor’s 2017 Budget figures for 1991 Realignment revenues, please see page 29 of the “CSAC Summary of January 10, 2017 Budget Proposal”, available

• nline at:

http://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/january_budget_2017_final.pdf

Notable 1991 Realignment Account Features

• Transfer Provisions
• Poison Pill Provisions
• Rolling Base

22

Transfer Provisions

• Counties may transfer funds among the Health, Mental Health, and Social

Services accounts

• Transfers of up to 10% of any account’s revenue to the other two accounts

is allowed

• An additional 10% may be transferred from the Health Account to the

Social Services Account in order to offset caseload increases for mandated programs in excess of revenue growth

23

Transfer Provisions (cont.)

• An additional 10% may be transferred from the Social Services Account to

the other two accounts whenever excess revenues exist in the Social Services Account beyond the amount necessary to fund the mandated programs

• Transfer of funds among accounts in effect for one fiscal year – election to

transfer must be made each year by BOS

24

Poison Pill Provisions

• Three poison pills included in legislation that would make 1991

Realignment inoperative

• 1. Medically Indigent Adult (MIA) transfer – if determined to be a

mandate, then VLF increase repealed

• 2. Proposition 98 – if new ½ cent sales tax revenues counted toward
• Prop. 98, then new sales tax repealed
• 3. If any provision determined to be a reimbursable state mandate,

then all of 1991 Realignment rendered inoperative.

• The first two hurdles were cleared, but reimbursable state mandate

poison pill remains

25

Rolling Base Provision

• “Rolling” base: base funding + growth funding = next fiscal year’s base
• No base restoration – if base funding level is not met in any fiscal year

then next fiscal year’s base starts out lower

26

1991 Realignment Base Determination: Base met, growth available

Year 1 Base Year 1 Growth Year 2 Base $100 $10 $110 Example:

1991 Realignment Base Determination: Base not met, growth unavailable

Year 1 Base Actual Sales Tax comes in lower than base Year 2 Base $100 $90 $90 Example:

Elimination of the CCI and Interactions with 1991 Realignment

28

What Is the Coordinated Care Initiative (CCI)?

• Through the Cal MediConnect demonstration pilot, allows individuals eligible to receive

both Medi-Cal and Medicare (dual-eligibles) to receive coordinated services encompassing medical, behavioral health, long-term services and supports, and home and community-based services (including IHSS) from a single health plan

• Implemented in seven counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San

Diego, San Mateo, and Santa Clara

• Implemented in conjunction with a requirement for most other dual eligibles statewide to

enroll into managed care plans

• The creation of CCI also included a shift of collective bargaining responsibility for IHSS

from counties to the state as the CCI was implemented in a county, along with a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement in place of the traditional county share of IHSS costs, which applied to all counties (even those that did not participate in CCI)

29

Why is the CCI Being Eliminated?

• Under current law, the Director of Finance is required to annually determine whether

CCI is cost-effective and if determined to be not cost-effective, the program automatically ceases operation in the following fiscal year

• The budget released on January 10 estimates that CCI will no longer be cost-

effective and as a result of this formal declaration, the CCI program will be discontinued in effective December 31, 2017 (pursuant to the current statutory timeframes)

• While legislative action is not required to discontinue the CCI, the Administration

indicated it will seek legislative approval to continue the underlying Cal MediConnect program, meaning that dual eligibles will continue to be enrolled and receive services through managed care plans, and proposes to integrate long-term services and supports (except IHSS) into managed care

30

From the Governor’s January 2017 Budget:

“Based

• n

current estimates, growth in 2017-18 realignment revenues alone will not be sufficient to cover the additional IHSS

• costs. Therefore, this change is likely to result in financial hardship

and cash flow problems for counties. The Administration is prepared to work with counties to mitigate, to the extent possible, the impact of returning a share of the fiscal responsibility for IHSS to counties.”

31

The Effect of CCI Elimination on IHSS Costs: Unwinding the IHSS MOE

• Discontinuance of the CCI would end the county MOE in IHSS
• A 35% county share of all nonfederal IHSS program costs would be reinstated,

effective July 1, 2017

• This increases county IHSS costs by $623 million in 2017-18
• State minimum wage $12.10, effective January 1, 2020
• Implementation of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime regulations
• Paid sick leave for IHSS providers starting July 1, 2018
• These additional IHSS costs to counties reach an estimated

$1.6 billion by 2022-23

32

Cash Flow Implications

• Immediate cash flow problem of coming up with an additional $623 million in 2017-18
• The estimated rate of 1991 Realignment revenue growth is far exceeded by the rate of

IHSS program costs under the Administration’s current cost shift proposal

• That $623 million would not be included in the caseload growth calculation until 2018-19

and would not begin to be funded with sales tax revenues for caseload growth until 2019-20

• In the absence of the IHSS MOE, counties would have had to pay a portion of that $623

million in 2017-18 anyway, and would not have received reimbursement of those costs until 2019-20 under the normal caseload growth calculations

33

Impacts to Realigned Programs

• The 1991 Realignment subaccounts have benefitted from the existence
• f the IHSS MOE in the form of higher general growth (received over

$400 million more than if there had been no IHSS MOE)

• Caseload Subaccount has first call on 1991 Realignment Sales Tax

Growth

• Transfer provisions may need to be used to absorb IHSS costs

34

IHS IHSS C S Cost

• sts

s Wi Will ll Abso bsorb rb Sal Sales T es Tax ax Gr Growt wth h Revenues enues

35

Sales Tax Growth Account

(Revenues in Excess of Base Payments)

CMSP Growth

(2nd call on Growth; 4.027% plus 4.027%

• f caseload growth paid if over

$20M)

General Growth

(remaining Growth)

Mental Health

(approx. 40%)

Health

(approx. 18.45%)

Child Poverty & Family Supplemental Support

(remaining growth)

Caseload Subaccount

(1st call on Growth)

1991 Realignment – Sales Tax Distributions

(Excerpt from earlier slide)

Questions & Answers

36

Co Cont ntacts F acts For

• r Addi

dditi tiona

• nal

l In Infor

• rma

mati tion

• n
• Farrah McDaid Ting, CSAC (fmcdaid@counties.org)
• Kirsten Barlow, CBHDA (kbarlow@cbhda.org)
• Michelle Gibbons, CHEAC (mgibbons@cheac.org)
• Eileen Cubanski, CWDA (ecubanski@cwda.org)

37