WASHINGTON - Top Minnesota health officials pushed back Tuesday against a congressional committee probing allegations that the state overbilled federal taxpayers for Medicaid services to cover losses from in other state-run public health programs.
In a letter to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Minnesota Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson defended reforms implemented under DFL Gov. Mark Dayton, saying "our focus has been on changing course rather than investigating the past."
Jesson's letter was addressed to U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House oversight committee, which has been focusing on a $30 million payment to the state last year from UCare, one of four state Medicaid contractors.
Committee spokesman Jeffrey Solsby said that congressional investigators have begun reviewing Jesson's response. Meanwhile, he said, "Two things are very clear: Minnesota overpaid insurance companies through the Medicaid program, wasting taxpayer dollars in the process, and federal oversight of Medicaid's rate-setting process failed miserably to detect the problem."
Jesson produced an 11-page legal opinion suggesting that the state could keep the entire payment, even though the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services "might disagree." The state has since agreed to share the money with the federal government, which foots half the bill for the state's Medicaid program.
Nevertheless, the dispute has fueled at least three federal probes into Minnesota's billing practices spanning the past decade.
Jesson's nine-page letter came in response to questions from investigators for the House committee, which held a grueling public hearing last month and then followed with a sharply worded letter to Jesson seeking clarification about remarks she made in her testimony.
Jesson said the Dayton administration has used competitive bidding and profit caps to remedy Medicaid contracts under former GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty that Jesson said "did not produce the value the public expects." But Jesson said that even as she concluded that past contracts earned profit margins "greater than they should be," the rates agreed to were permissible under federal rules.