On Tuesday, February 5, PA Governor Tom Corbett stated that at this time he cannot recommend accepting $38
billion in federal funding to expand Medicaid, thereby denying
medical assistance to more than 700,000 Pennsylvanians. So far, I've
discussed empirical studies demonstrating that Medicaid improves
health and saves lives, the costs and benefits of Medicaid, how those
costs and benefits are distributed in Pennsylvania, and the
governor's stated reasons for rejecting Medicaid expansion.
The conclusion to this series has
proven to be the most difficult to write. I've already had to change
the “tomorrow” in part 3 to “next time.” It's time to tie
the loose ends together.
First, let me try to justify the rude
title of these posts. As previously noted, the Sommers, et al, study
contains an estimate of the number of lives saved by Medicaid
expansion.
Results
correspond to 2840 deaths prevented per year in states with Medicaid
expansions, in which 500,000 adults acquired coverage. This finding
suggests that 176 additional adults would need to be covered by
Medicaid in order to prevent one death per year.
Granted,
this is just an estimate. The real number may be somewhat higher or
lower, but both mortality and Medicaid enrollment statistics in this
country are usually pretty accurate. Corbett's decision will deny
health insurance to 719,000 Pennsylvanians whose income is between
46% and 100% of the Federal poverty level. This too is an estimate
based on 2010 census data. Using these two estimates, we can compute
the number of lives per year that would be saved by Medicaid
expansion.
719,000/176
= 4085
I
think we can safely estimate that Corbett's decision
sentences approximately 4000 Pennsylvanians to death per year,
at least for the first five years (the duration of the Sommers study). These lives will be lost in order to save the state (by
Corbett's estimate) $4.1 billion over eight years, while
simultaneously turning down $37.8 billion in Medicaid funds from the
Federal government.
Gov. Tom Corbett |
As
if to add insult to injury, Corbett has been extremely generous to
Pennsylvania's corporate class. His budget projects that corporate
tax revenues will drop $311 million (-5.9%) in 2013-14, due mostly to
rate cuts in the capital stock and franchise tax beginning in 2014.
He proposes to gradually phase out this tax. He also proposes to
gradually eliminate the corporate income tax beginning in 2015.
Corbett has pledged $1 billion in corporate welfare to Shell Oil to
attract a $5 billion ethane cracker plant to Western Pennsylvania.
(These are not saltines; they are dirty petrochemicals.) This plant
will create hundreds of jobs, far fewer than Medicaid expansion. And
Act 13, which imposes a minimal “impact fee” on natural gas
drillers, has been described as “the nation's worst corporate
giveaway.” Meanwhile, the Governor is not proposing to close tax
loopholes, such as the Delaware loophole, which allows two-thirds of
Pennsylvania corporations to completely avoid income tax.
I
would argue that the humanitarian and economic arguments in favor of
Medicaid expansion are overwhelming. In addition, Medicaid expansion
would be easy to incorporate into a single-payer system, should the
state or the nation move in that direction. I suggest that as
health care advocates we immediately begin to lobby for Medicaid
expansion with all the enthusiasm we can generate.
The
economic logic of Medicaid expansion is so strong, and there are so
many powerful economic interests that support it, I think that we will
ultimately find ourselves on the winning side of this debate. Here
are some of the reasons to be optimistic:
- Governor Corbett's announcement rejecting Medicaid expansion contained the hedge words “at this time,” suggesting that he may be open to changing his mind.
- He will face serious pressure from hospitals that, instead of gaining new customers, face financial losses as a result of having to provide medical services to the uninsured (“forced charity”). Other segments of the health care industry, such as pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies, are also seeing dollar signs disappearing.
- Since Medicaid expenditures ultimately circulate throughout the economy, it's likely that Chambers of Commerce and other business interests will come out in favor of expansion.
- Public opinion data collected last Summer showed 49% of Americans favor of Medicaid expansion in their state and 43% opposed. The number in favor should increase as the costs and benefits become more clear.
- The fact that several other Republican governors who initially opposed expansion, such as Govs. Brewer of Arizona, Kasich of Ohio and Snyder of Michigan, have decided to accept it has cast Corbett in the role of an ideological extremist.
- Since Pennsylvania Democrats who have spoken out so far seem to be unanimous in their support of Medicaid expansion, it may take only a few high profile Republican defectors to convince the Governor that he doesn't have majority support.
- I hedged my statement by saying “ultimately.” Even if it isn't decided to expand Medicaid this year, there is nothing to prevent Pennsylvania from accepting it in the future, should Gov. Corbett not be re-elected and the political balance of power in Harrisburg change.
However,
there is no justification for complacency. The stakes for
Pennsylvania's working poor are too high.
I've
previously reviewed research showing that wealthy people have the greatest influence on political decisions in this country, the
influence of the middle class is much less, and the influence of the
poor is virtually nonexistent. This suggests that the occasional
successes progressive activists have are usually due to our interests
temporarily coinciding with those of much more powerful economic
forces. For example, passage of the Affordable Care Act itself may
have had little to do with providing health care to uninsured
Americans, except insofar as this provided the cover story for a
massive transfer of wealth from the government to health insurance,
pharmaceutical, and other health care corporations.
Medicaid
expansion is another instance in which our preference coincides with
that of important segments of the economic ruling class. Our support
may make a difference; we will never know for sure. But even if
Medicaid expansion occurs for reasons having nothing to do with
anything we say or do, this is an excellent opportunity for health
care advocates to renew their faith in the effectiveness of
progressive activism.
I expect
more sophisticated analyses of the costs and benefits of Medicaid
expansion to become available soon. Meanwhile, if you would like to
reprint this analysis or if you want me to edit it down to meet your
needs, please let me know.
You may also be interested in reading:
Tom Corbett to PA's Working Poor: "Drop Dead!" (Part 1)
You may also be interested in reading:
Tom Corbett to PA's Working Poor: "Drop Dead!" (Part 1)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.