Few systematically assess the determinants of Medicaid nursing facility reimbursement. Consequently, this article examines what factors influenceprogram administrators’decisions regarding nursing facility cost report data—the basic information states use to establish payment. Whereas elected officials focus primarily on how much is spent on nursing homes, state Medicaid officials assume primary responsibility for the esoteric and highly technical dimensions that help make spending goals a reality. Findings indicate that the federal government influenced state policy by enabling provider litigation under the Boren Amendment. They also indicate that program administrators responded rationally to fiscal and economic concerns, and that states with stronger administrative capacity were better able to overcome obstacles to sustaining desired policies. Although results reveal that states with more powerful nursing home lobbies tended to implement more generous systems, they fail to reveal significant associations between cost report year and lobbying activity on behalf of the elderly.
American Health Care Association. 1999. Facts and trends: The nursing facility source book. Washington, DC: American Health Care Association.
2.
Barrilleaux, C. J., and M. E. Miller. 1988. The political economy of state Medicaid policy. American Political Science Review82 (4): 1089-1107.
3.
Berry, F. S.1994. Innovation in public management: The adoption of state strategic planning. Public Administration Review54 (4): 322-329.
4.
Berry, F. S., and W. D. Berry. 1990. State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review84 (2): 395-415.
5.
Berry, F. S., and W. D. Berry. 1999. Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In Theories of the policy process, edited by P. A. Sabatier, 169-200. Boulder, CO: Westview.
6.
Beyle, T.1999. The governors. In Politics in the American states: Acomparative analysis,edited by V. Gray, R. L. Hanson, and H. Jacob, 191-231. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
7.
Blomquist, W.1999. The policy process and large-N comparative studies. In Theories of the policy process, edited by Paul A. Sabatier, 201-230. Boulder, CO: Westview.
8.
Burwell, B., K. Sredl, and S. Eiken. 2003. Medicaid long term care expenditures in FY 2002. Cambridge, MA: the MEDSTAT Group.
9.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 2004, September 23. A brief update on state fiscal situations and the effects of federal policies on state budgets. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
10.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary. 2004. Health accounts. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/default.asp (accessed April 6, 2005).
Council of State Governments. 1988-2002. The book of the states. Vols. 22-34. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.
13.
Cromwell, J., S. Hurdle, and G. Wedig. 1986. Impacts of economic and programmatic changes on Medicaid enrollments. Review of Economics and Statistics68 (2): 232-240.
14.
Department of Health and Human Services. 1983. December 19. 42 CFR Part 447. Medicaid program; payment for long-term care facility services and inpatient hospital services. Final rule. Federal Register48 (244): 56046-56058.
15.
Derthick, M.1970. The influence of federal grants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
Grabowski, D., Z. Feng, O. Intrator, and V. Mohr. 2004. Recent trends in state nursing home payment policies. Health Affairs Web-Exclusives-4 (2004): W4-363-W4-373.
17.
Grogan, C. M.1994. Political-economic factors influencing state Medicaid policy. Political Research Quarterly47 (3): 589-622.
18.
Grogan, C. M.1999. The influence of federal mandates on state Medicaid and AFDC decisionmaking. Publius: The Journal of Federalism29 (3): 1-30.
19.
Harrington, C., H. Carrillo, V. Wellin, N. Miller, and A. LeBlanc. 2000. Predicting state Medicaid home and community based waiver participants and expenditures, 19921997. The Gerontologist40 (6): 673-686.
20.
Harrington,C.,and M. Kitchener. 2003. Medicaid, long term care:Changes,innovations and cost containment. San Francisco: University of California, San Francisco.
21.
Harrington, C., and J. H. Swan. 1989-1999. Surveys of state long-term care program and market characteristics. 1989, 1992-1999. San Francisco: University of California, San Francisco, and Wichita, KS: Wichita State University.
22.
Hays, S. P., and H. R. Glick. 1997. The role of agenda setting in policy innovation: An event history analysis of living-will laws. American Politics Quarterly25 (4): 497-516.
23.
Holahan, J, and B. Bruen. 2003. Medicaid spending: What factors contributed to the growth between 2000 and 2002?Washington, DC: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
24.
Hrebenar, R., and C. Thomas. 1990-1998. Most effective interest groups/organized interests in the fifty states in the 1980s, early-1990s, and mid-to-late 1990s. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, and Fairbanks: University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
25.
Huber, J. D.,C.R.Shipan,and M. Pfahler. 2001. Legislatures and statutory control of bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science45 (2): 330-345.
26.
Lammers, W. W., and D. Klingman. 1984. State policies and the aging. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
27.
Lewin Group, Inc. (2000). The long-term care financing model. Prepared for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services. Falls Church, VA: Lewin Group.
28.
McDevitt, R., and W. Buczko. 1985. Medicaid program characteristics and their consequences for program spending. Health Care Financing Review7 (2): 3-30.
29.
Melnick, R. S.1994. Between the lines: Interpreting welfare rights. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
30.
Miller, E. A.2002. State discretion and Medicaid program variation in long-term care: When is enough, enough?Journal of Aging and Social Policy14 (3/4): 15-35.
31.
Miller, E. A.2004. Advancing the state of comparative state policy research: Toward conceptual integration and methodological expansion. State and Local Government Review36 (1): 35-58.
32.
Miller, E. A. Forthcoming-a. Explaining incremental and non-incremental change: Medicaid nursing facility reimbursement, 1980-1998. State Politics and Policy Quarterly6 (2).
33.
Miller, E. A. Forthcoming-b. Federal oversight, state policy making, and the courts: An empirical analysis of nursing facility litigation under the Boren Amendment. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies3 (1).
34.
Miller, E. A.2005. State health policy making theory, determinants and methods: Asynthesis. Social Science and Medicine61 (12): 2639-2657.
35.
Miller, E. A., and J. Banaszak-Holl. 2005. Cognitive and normative determinants of state policy-making behavior: Lessons from the sociological institutionalism. Publius: The Journal of Federalism35 (1): 191-216.
36.
Miller, N. E., S. Ramsland, E. Goldstein, and C. Harrington. 2001. Use of Medicaid 1915(c) homeand community-based waivers to reconfigure state long-term care systems. Medical Care Research and Review58 (1): 100-119.
37.
National Association of State Budget Officers. 2004. 2003 state expenditure report. Washington, DC: National Association of State Budget Officers.
38.
National Association of State Medicaid Directors. 2003. Aged, Blind, and Disabled Medicaid Eligibility Survey. Washington, DC: National Association of State Medicaid Directors. http://www.nasmd.org/eligibility/default.asp (accessed April 6, 2005).
39.
Peterson, P. E., and M. C. Rom. 1990. Welfare magnets: A new case for a national standard. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
40.
Rhoades, J. A., and N. A. Krauss. 1999. Nursing home trends, 1987 and 1996. MEPS Chartbook No. 3. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.
41.
Rosenberg, G. N.1991. The hollow hope. Chicago: University of Chicago.
42.
Sapat, A.2004. Devolution and innovation: The adoption of state environmental policy innovations by administrative agencies. Public Administrative Review64 (2): 141-151.
43.
Schneider, S.1991. Governors and health care policymaking: The case of Medicaid. In Gubernatorial Leadership and State Policy, edited by E. B. Herzik and B. W. Brown, 159-171. New York: Greenwood.
44.
Schneider, S.1995. The influence of federal regional offices on state Medicaid maternal and child health-care services. Publius: The Journal of Federalism25 (1): 3-21.
45.
Schneider, S. K., and W. G. Jacoby. 1996. Influences on bureaucratic policy initiatives in the American states. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory6 (4): 495-522.
46.
Schneider, S. K., W. G. Jacoby, and J. D. Coggburn. 1997. The structure of bureaucratic decisions in the American states. Public Administrative Review57 (3): 240-249.
47.
Scott, W. Richard. 1998. Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. 4th ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
48.
Senate Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, 96th Congress, 2nd Session. 1980. Spending reductions: Recommendations of the Committee on Finance at 44-45. Committee Print, 96-36. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
49.
Smith, V., R. Ramesh, K. Gifford, E. Ellis, and R. Rudowitz. 2004. The continuing Medicaid budget challenge: State Medicaid spending growth and cost containment in Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005. Washington, DC: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
50.
Swan, J. H., V. Bhagavatula, A. Algotar, M. Seirawan, W. Clemena, and C. Harrington. 2001. State Medicaid nursing home reimbursement rates: Adjusting for ancillaries. The Gerontologist41 (5): 597-706.
51.
Swan, J. H., C. Harrington, W. Clemena, L. Struder, and S. K. de Wit. 2000. Medicaid nursing facility reimbursement methods: 1979-1997. Medical Care Research and Review57 (3): 361-378.
52.
Swan, J. H., C. Harrington, S. K. de Wit, and M. Zhong. 1997. State imposed limits on Medicaid reimbursement for nursing facility care. American Journal of Public Health87:1211-1213.
53.
Swan, J. H., C. Harrington, and L. Grant. 1989. State Medicaid reimbursement for ICFMR facilities in the 1978-1986 period. Mental Retardation27 (6): 353-367.
54.
Swan, J. H., C. Harrington, and R. B. Pickard. 2001. Explaining state Medicaid nursing home reimbursement. Journal of Health & Social Policy12 (4): 53-73.
55.
Thompson, F. J.1998. Federalism and the Medicaid challenge. In Medicaid and devolution: Aview from the states, edited by F. J. Thompson and J. J. DiIulio, 258-296. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
56.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1988-1998. Annual survey of governments. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
57.
Wade, M., and S. Berg. 1995. Causes of Medicaid expenditure growth. Health Care Financing Review16 (3): 11-25.
58.
Walker, J. L.1969. The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review63 (3): 880-899.
59.
Walshe, K., and C. Harrington. 2001. The regulation of nursing facilities in the US: An analysis of the resources and performance of state survey agencies. Birmingham, UK: Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham.
60.
Wiener, J. M., and D. G. Stevenson. 1998. Repeal of the “Boren Amendment”: Implications for quality of care in nursing homes. Vol. A-30, New federalism: Issues and options for states, Series A. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
61.
Wright, G., R. S. Erikson, and J. P. McIver. 1987. Public opinion and policy liberalism in the American states. American Journal of Political Science31 (4): 980-1001.
