Currently several Republican governors are threatening not to take part in the Medicaid expansion, which has become an optional part of the Affordable Care Act. Even if you share the optimism of people like Peter Orzag, who claims all states will eventual adopt the expansion because federal funding will end up being too good of a deal to refuse, that will not change the fact that, long term, having states manage and fund a large part of Medicaid will become a larger and larger problem.
Before the possible expansion, Medicaid already was one of the largest expenses on state budgets. Currently roughly 13 percent of state budgets are spent on health care programs. That is only going to increase in the future because of raising health care costs and the expansion of Medicaid.
Even though in the first few years the ACA covers 100 percent of the cost of the newly eligible, it only covers those who were previously eligible but not enrolled at the pre-ACA matching fund rates. After the first few years the federal government’s share for the newly eligible declines to 90 percent matching. There is also no guarantee that deficit mania won’t cause Congress to trim the federal contribution back in the future.
It’s conceivable that most states could cover a growing Medicaid obligation in normal times. But it’s a more difficult problem during economic downturns, when Medicaid requires increased (counter-cyclical) spending. As a true social safety net program, Medicaid spending needs to go up significantly during economic downturns when people are losing their jobs — including employer-provided insurance — and unable to afford insurance on their own. But that’s exactly when state revenues are plummeting. Medicaid is thus unique among big state budget items in this respect.
Traditionally this problem has been dealt with by states just slashing Medicaid eligibility, benefits and enrollment during the economic downturns when it is needed most. That is not going to be possible in the future if we want Medicaid to be part of a total system to produce near universal coverage. To make it work, spending on Medicaid most go up significantly when unemployment rises.
As Medicaid becomes a bigger part of state budgets, the shock it will cause to state budgets during economic downturns is going to become more significant, forcing larger and larger cuts elsewhere. The destructive anti-Keynesian nature of having the states cover much of the program’s funding will only get worse unless serious changes are made. Since a balanced budget requirement is not required and makes no sense for the federal government, the solution will be having the feds directly or indirectly take over the funding to deal with this serious and growing problem.




11 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
For all the reasons stated and some others the Medicaid expansion portion of the ACA was poorly designed, poorly implemented and plain old bad law doomed to fail from the very start.
Texas is already in the process of trying to privatize Medicaid. In the Houston area there are actually 4 Medicaid providers: traditional Medicaid administered by the state and three Medicaid HMO’s.
The statistic being thrown around that 31% of Texas doctors will accept new Medicaid patients is laughable. Try finding one. The state doesn’t even know who will and who won’t accept Medicaid. The last time I tried to find a new doctor for my fully disabled adult daughter, the state hotline gave me three numbers in my area. One doesn’t see private patients of any kind, one has never accepted Medicaid in any form and the third is not accepting new patients.
There are simply not enough doctors to absorb 1.something million new Medicaid enrollees and I am sure this is not a unique Texas only problem.
I think your right about the state issues surrounding implementation. I’m always more than a little wary when states are administering federal programs. Too much temptation for state legs to tinker around the edges trying to divert funds to “other projects”.
As far as future cutbacks? Unless there is a political will to raise state taxes (and I think we all know how likely that is), they will have no choice but to reduce rolls. The more partisan states like Texas here will be doubly so.
OffT:
Amazing news. OBL’s manservant has been released from Gitmo.
U.S. apparently stuck to its bargain. That has to be a first.
the ACA was never design to work!
the ACA comes from the Heritage Foundation, when has the Heitage Foundation ever done anything for the 99%
What the ACA does do?
The ACA demands that Americans pay almost as much money to private insurance companies as they do in federal taxes
I have no doubts at all the ACA will benefit the 1% tremendously and do nothing much for the 99%
Keep in mind USA cities are going Bankrupt and Obama and Hillary are giving money to foreign nations.
What is the USA military fighting for?
If cities and states continue to go Bankrupt, the USA military will no longer be needed, because their will be no homeland to fight for.
Will Police and Fire Fighters work for free? Probably not
The PTB have no idea the hell that is coming, it will not come from the Left, their Moronic Zombies ie Tea Nuts will eventually have to eat their Masters.
Keep in mind the GOP is no longer a political party, the GOP is cancer that will destroy the fabric of the USA and the Earth if not stop.
Jon, I want to say thank you for your work here. You (and David Dayen) present the complexities and nuances of the ACA and the state Medicaid issue in a way that is sorely lacking on many left-leaning outlets where complexity and nuance are displaced by jerking knees. I link here often when trying to get other members of what I once thought was “the reality based community” to examine reality. Doesn’t generally work, and I sometimes get accused of being a Republican (for linking to FDL!), but I try. So…thanks.
On edit…
Call me lazy (’cause I’m sure I could dig it out myself), but does anyone know the political/legislative history that led to Medicaid being a federal-state partnership rather than a fully federalized program like Medicare in the first place? It took literally a couple of decades for state participation in some version of Medicaid to happen, and even then the restrictions on income and/or assets (requiring enrollees to not be merely poor but pretty much destitute in order to qualify for even meager benefits…see Texas and Mississippi for example) left many out and provided utterly inadequate access to care for others. I can’t understand why ACA would choose to go that route given that history.
A friend of mine called the ACA “a bailout for the insurance companies.” Sounds right.
Then there’s this angle, too:
“ddayen @jblumgart add’l implication of ruling, though, is states can decrease their Medicaid rolls w/o sanction, b/c MOE rules expire in 2014″–from FDL on Twitter
Some states have in place good health care plans like MA, VT, and perhaps Oregon and Washington. I think the ACA is designed to work with states who want to provide universal coverage. Republicans support “free to die” and can’t be trusted to manage any federal money. In the near future when one has a health problem, consider the state policies first. Several of my friends who became ill moved from CA to Oregon. CA has passed single payer three times only to have it vetoed by the governor. This year a traitor Democrat sank it.
“Several of my friends who became ill moved from CA to Oregon.” There’s a problem with this scenario for states like Oregon.
That is true. We are in a war with the red states in defiance of the federal government. As it stands now, I could not get some forms of health care as a woman in some red states; I would need different types of papers to be able to vote, I would not have access to medicaid or the exchanges in the ACA and on and on. Florida just shut down their only TB hospital in the middle of a TB epidemic. A judge kept open the only abortion clinic in Mississippi. Wisconsin had a top-rated educational system until Walker began to dismantle it. Time to check the state where one lives if there are certain needs. In the case of CA, it was GOP dominated for many years with no belief that health care was a right when Oregon made a generous program for health care. I don’t know if that still exists in Oregon.
Texas hospitals will lose a billion in Federal money to help with uncompensated care because Medicaid will pay for hospitalization for the poor, and subsidies will pay for insurance for the working poor.
Gov Perry is telling the Texas hospitals to find some way to tax Texans with money who need to be in a Texas hospital, because Gov Perry isn’t anti-business. Or is he trying to bankrupt the Texas hospitals.
I’m sure the hospitals’ lobbyists will be bending the ears of State legislators with their demands the State of Texas pay the bills of the poor.