Traditional Medicaid is jointly
administered by the state and federal governments. The Feds set some
basic rules. All children are covered if their family makes less
than the federal poverty level. Children under six are covered up to
133% of the poverty line. But the states set the eligibility rules
for adults. In most states, if you don't have children, you can't
qualify for Medicaid no matter how poor you are. In states like
Texas and Louisiana, parents only qualify for Medicaid if they make
less than 40% of the federal poverty level—$4850 a year for two
parents with a single child. Other states are more generous.
Massachusetts, thanks to Romneycare, covers all adults up to 133% of
the poverty line. But on the whole, Medicaid as currently
implemented is not much of a safety net for the poor. Right now, the
federal government pays on average 57% of the cost of traditional
Medicaid—between 50% and 75%, depending state eligibility rules.
The ACA expands Medicaid by making
everyone—children and adults—eligible for Medicaid if their
family income is 133% of the poverty level or lower. This is
expensive, so the Feds agreed to pay most of the cost. In 2014, they
will pay 100%. This drops to 95% in 2017, and to 90% in 2020.
Notice that states that whose current Medicaid eligibility rules are
relatively stingy—which tend to be the states with the highest
percentage of uninsured citizens—stand to gain more money per capita when from the Medicaid expansion than states whose eligibility
rules are generous. Texans will make out like bandits if they accept
the money, while Massachusetts residents will get nothing, since they are already covered up to 133% of the poverty line.
This is another example of a
little-known source of inequality in our national politics. As I previously pointed out, conservative states—states that are
more rural, have a lower median income, and tend to vote
Republican—receive more money back from the federal government than
they pay in taxes. Liberal states get shortchanged. In fact, you
could argue that much of U. S. domestic policy involves a
redistribution of income in which the “blue states” subsidize the “red states.” (Note: They're not grateful.)
Enter the Supremes. The ACA required
states to implement the Medicaid expansion. If they refused, the
federal government threatened to withhold its contribution to
traditional Medicare. Chief Justice John Roberts, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,
ruled that this was coercive, and that the states may opt out of
Medicaid expansion. Six Republican governors have already
said that they will refuse to comply, and several others are
threatening to do so. Here is the map. The chart below it shows that, with the exception of Wisconsin, the states that plan to refuse the Medicaid expansion have a higher percentage of uninsured citizens, or in other words, have more to gain from it. This will not only frustrate
the intent of the ACA, but will deny medical help to many of the Americans
who need it most.
To make matters worse, some Republican
governors have announced that they are exploring the possibility of
dropping out of traditional Medicaid as well. They interpret the
Supremes' decision to mean that they can opt out of any federal
program that requires the states to pay part of the cost. The
states' reaction to Medicaid expansion makes it very clear that
attempting to implement health care reform at the state level is an exercise in futility.
The usual reason given for why
conservatives refuse to expand Medicaid is said to be conservative ideology. This is
most charitably described as opposition to big government, but when
applied to health care, it sounds suspiciously like an unwillingness to
help one's fellow citizens who can't afford medical care, either
because they are poor or because their family is struck by
catastrophic illness. Are there rational reasons for refusing to
expand Medicaid?
- The 5% (in 2017) to 10% (in 2020) of the cost of Medicaid expansion is not exactly pocket change. States may be justifiably worried about the cost.
- The “woodwork effect.” Many Americans who are eligible for Medicaid in their state don't apply for it. They may think it's not worth the trouble. However, the publicity surrounding the Medicaid expansion and the threat of a fine for violating the individual mandate may persuade more eligible people to sign up. The states will then be on the hook for whatever part of the cost they would have had to cover under traditional Medicare.
Many health care policy experts,
however, think that the financial logic of expanding Medicaid is strong enough to overcome any resistance due to
ideology. Here are some of the points they make.
- Not only will it be difficult for states to turn down “free money,” the citizens of those states that turn down the Medicaid expansion will be paying for it anyway through their federal taxes. Their money will go to other states that have accepted the deal (partially reversing the flow of money from blue states to red).
- As noted above, the states whose governors have been most vocal about opting out of Medicaid expansion are the ones that stand to gain the most from it, since they have a higher percentage of uninsured citizens.
- Uninsured citizens in these states will continue to show up at hospital emergency rooms. Their care will be paid for through cost shifting. Costs are shifted in several ways.
- Some of the cost is paid by those who have health insurance. Their premiums are higher in order to pay the cost of treating people without insurance.
- Part of the cost is paid for through federal, state and local taxes, which provide emergency health care for the poor. The Urban Institute estimated that in 2008, state and local governments spent $10.6 billion dollars providing emergency care for the uninsured. However, beginning in 2014, the federal government will no longer subsidize emergency care, so the burden will fall more heavily on state and local government. This cost alone will probably be greater than the cost to the states of Medicaid expansion.
- Finally, part of the cost is shifted to hospitals through what is called “forced charity”—uncompensated medical care for the uninsured. (Of course, they get some of this money back by charging you or your insurance company $28 for a box of tissues while you're in the hospital.)
- Low income citizens and the public interest groups that represent them will protest the denial of coverage to hundreds of thousands of poor and sick people. However, research at the federal level shows that the attitudes of poor people have either no influence, or a slight negative effect, on public policy. This is probably true at the state level as well, but this remains to be demonstrated.
- Most importantly, hospitals and doctors were expecting to have many more customers due to Medicaid expansion. They've already agreed to reduce their reimbursement rates under the ACA, in anticipation of these higher profits. They're also not happy about forced charity. Health care providers are powerful lobbying groups who spend a lot of money paying off governors and state legislators. They won't take this loss of revenue lying down.
What will happen? Nothing, until after the election. Given how unpopular the ACA is, anything the Republicans can do to resist it now will probably help them in
November. If Romney defeats Obama and the Elephants gain control of
the Senate, it's probably all over for health care reform for at least a decade.
If that doesn't happen and the ACA
survives, it seems inevitable that all the states will eventually agree to
expand Medicaid. However, that will take a long time and a lot of
people will die while they're waiting for it to happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.