- Activists vow to occupy fast-food restaurants to get higher pay
- Rep. Luis Gutierrez: Senate Dems wary of immigration politics
- Summer camp for 1 percenters: Sushi, limos and shopping at FAO Schwarz
- Colorado gun crackdown law found to be built on faulty data
- Hank Aaron steps to fundraising plate for Democrat Michelle Nunn
- ISIL terrorists blow up burial site of Jonah, vow more of same
- Impeach Obama, say 35 percent in new poll
- Taliban yank 14 Shiites off bus, bind and shoot them on Afghan road
- Obama takes aim at ‘corporate deserters’
- Dick’s Sporting Goods lays off 478 PGA golf pros
ALEXANDER: Resisting the Medicaid-expansion temptation
Obamacare’s promise of federal funds won’t offset the costs
Question of the Day
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling, states are no longer required to liberalize Medicaid eligibility, one of the strategies of Obamacare to improve health care access among lower-income Americans.
Yet that doesn’t mean the 25 states that have resisted turning the means-tested welfare program into a default health care plan for working-age, able-bodied Americans face no pressure to do so.
Indeed, a phalanx of welfare-advocacy groups, health care consultants, hospital systems, and managed-care organizations continue to lobby the legislatures of the holdout states.
The pro-expansion forces are not simply downplaying the costs involved. Citing numerous studies and economic projections funded by the health care industry, these well-connected advocates of Medicaid are actually claiming that its expansion represents a fiscal bonanza.
Not only will states gain, we are told, needed federal Medicaid funds, but they will also experience “a more positive net flow of federal dollars” in general, according to a much-touted December report of the Commonwealth Fund.
That’s an argument that most states will find difficult to resist, as their escalating Medicaid expenditures long ago — even before Barack Obama decided to run for the presidency — became their largest single budget line-item, according to data of the National Association of State Budget Officers, outpacing K-12 education.
In a day when governors and legislatures need more resources for priorities that benefit all citizens, such as education and transportation, the promising of a bigger stream of federal revenue may be too enticing to forgo.
Yet a recent economic forecast and risk analysis we conducted for the state of Maine flatly contradicts that glowing assessment, suggesting that the hope of using Medicaid expansion to solve state budget woes is as empty as President Obama’s promise that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”
Ten-year projections made on the basis of current expectations reveal that even if the state were to expand Medicaid eligibility, Maine would continue to experience rising rates of poverty and increases in both median and per-capita income.
Those simultaneous trends may seem counterintuitive, but the patterns were well established before the economic downturn that started in December 2007, and have been documented in other states dating back to 2000.
While the poverty trends by themselves might justify Medicaid expansion, the upward trajectory of per-capita income means that a state like Maine should not count on any anticipated increase in Medicaid reimbursements from the federal government.
That’s because there is little or no statistical correlation between poverty and the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, the technical measure used to determine federal matching funds for state Medicaid and welfare expenditures. This is because that formula is based on per-capita income relative to other states.
Since poverty rates and per-capita income can and do grow together, as they have in Maine, the state Federal Medical Assistance Percentage rate can decline rapidly, as they have in states such as Texas and Pennsylvania, while a state’s poverty rate increases.
Only in two states, California and Georgia, did our regressions yield statistically strong negative correlations between poverty and income, In 29 states, the negative correlation was moderate or weak, but in 19 states (including Maine), the correlation turned positive, albeit statistically weak or moderate.
The bottom line: Even as the federal government has promised to cover 100 percent of the costs of state Medicaid expansion through 2016, and 90 percent after that date, states may well find that their Federal Medical Assistance Percentage rates will decline, not increase.
TWT Video Picks
Second- and third-stringers eye 2016 if front-runner stumbles
Get Breaking Alerts
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- Presidents of Honduras, Guatemala blame U.S. for border children crisis
- PRUDEN: The Democratic-wannabe mice under Hillary Clinton's feet
- Crime-ridden U.S. cities differ on ways to fight gun violence
- Let it roll: D.C. Council hits Las Vegas on taxpayer's dime, leaves $14,000 tab
- Obama takes aim at 'corporate deserters'