Occasionally there are glimmers of bipartisan hope in the midst of today's political storm. One appeared in the Minnesota Legislature with the introduction of House and Senate bills proposing a claims expenditure assessment (CEA) to replace the 2% provider tax that is set to end this year.
The provider tax was instituted in 1991 to provide funding for safety net health programs. An abrupt end to those funds in January 2020 would significantly compromise the health care of 200,000 of the most vulnerable Minnesotans.
The sun-setting of the provider tax was a bipartisan compromise between the GOP Legislature and Gov. Mark Dayton back in 2011, but a solution for this looming problem was put off until now.
Political caricatures would assume a GOP reflex to rejoice in the end of the tax and a DFL impulse to reimpose it. For a few thoughtful and courageous legislators, the assumption would be wrong.
The current 2% tax is levied on the gross revenue of all health care providers on a quarterly basis. Some legislators in the House and Senate from both parties recognize the importance of maintaining the funding. But they have proposed moving the tax upstream to the health plans and third-party administrators, assessing a 2% tax on their claims expenditures.
I am not a neutral observer, but the physician owner of an innovative midwife-led maternity care practice. We have been doing our part to deliver improved care to mothers and babies. Bucking the medical confusopoly is daunting, and the 2% provider tax equals our narrow margin.
Transferring the assessment to the health plans and third-party administrators, meanwhile, makes sense.
The current provider tax is an inefficient burden, requiring quarterly payments from thousands of entities. Collecting from the smaller number of health plans and third-party administrators would be much simpler. But the major argument for the CEA is that it eliminates the regressive burden of the provider tax on self-pay patients and the uninsured.