by Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com

Vermont’s healthcare system is facing significant financial challenges, with hospitals across the state struggling to remain solvent. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (PPNNE) receives a unique Medicaid reimbursement structure that provides full coverage for its services—an advantage that Vermont’s hospitals do not receive.

While hospitals cut services to stay afloat, Planned Parenthood benefits from a 90-10 Medicaid match, private donations, and millions in political spending. This has raised questions about why a private organization receives a funding advantage over full-service hospitals.

Vermont’s Hospitals Are in Crisis

Many of Vermont’s hospitals have reported significant financial losses:

• Gifford Medical Center in Randolph lost over $10 million in a single year.
• Northwestern Medical Center in St. Albans lost more than $3 million.
• Rural hospitals are struggling to stay open, with state-controlled reimbursement rates limiting their revenue.

The Green Mountain Care Board (GMCB), which regulates hospital rates, has kept Medicaid reimbursement rates low, forcing hospitals to operate with shrinking margins.

Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid Advantage

Unlike hospitals, Planned Parenthood and other family planning providers receive a unique Medicaid funding structure under the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) that gives them a higher reimbursement rate for family planning services. However, this does not mean they are reimbursed for 100% of the actual cost of care—rather, they receive 100% of the Medicaid-approved payout for that service.

To understand this difference, consider a $1,000 procedure under Medicaid:

The Key Difference

• Hospitals often receive less than the Medicaid-approved amount because their federal match rate varies between 50%-83%, leaving them with gaps in funding.
• Planned Parenthood and other family planning providers receive 100% of the Medicaid-approved payout, because of the 90-10 split between federal and state funds, ensuring they don’t face the same reimbursement shortfalls as hospitals.

However, what sets Planned Parenthood apart from hospitals and other clinics is its significant political involvement:

• Planned Parenthood spends millions on lobbying, campaign contributions, and ballot initiatives—something hospitals and other community health providers do not do.
• It benefits from both Medicaid funding and private donations, while hospitals must rely primarily on government reimbursements and insurance payments.

This means that if the Medicaid-approved reimbursement is only $700 for a $1,000 procedure, Planned Parenthood gets all $700 covered, while a hospital might receive only 67%-100% of that same amount ($469-$700), leaving them short.

While other family planning providers also receive the 90/10 match, Planned Parenthood’s role as both a healthcare provider and a major political organization raises questions about whether it should receive the same public funding as non-political healthcare providers.

Planned Parenthood’s Political Spending

While Planned Parenthood claims to be facing an $8.6 million deficit in Northern New England, it continues to allocate large amounts of money to lobbying and political campaigns:

• $1.4 million spent on federal lobbying in 2023.
• $569,000 in political contributions in the 2024 election cycle.
• $282,525+ spent supporting Vermont’s Proposal 5 campaign.
• $40 million pledged for the 2024 election.

Critics argue that if Planned Parenthood can afford to spend millions on political activism, it should not be receiving state subsidies while hospitals struggle.

Is It Time for Funding Reform?

With Vermont’s hospitals on the financial brink, many are questioning whether Planned Parenthood’s funding advantages should be reconsidered. Possible solutions include:

• Eliminating the special 90-10 Medicaid match for family planning providers.
• Requiring Planned Parenthood to cover shortfalls with private donations instead of state aid.
• Shifting healthcare funding toward full-service hospitals instead of single-issue providers.

Conclusion

Vermont’s healthcare system is at a crossroads. As hospitals continue to struggle, the state’s funding priorities are coming under scrutiny. Should a private organization that receives millions in outside donations also receive special state funding advantages? And should hospitals, which serve all patients and conditions, be left financially unstable while a politically connected nonprofit thrives?

As Vermont lawmakers consider future healthcare reforms, these funding disparities are likely to be at the center of the debate.