Will Oklahoma Drop Out of Medicaid?
In The Wall Street Journal, Oklahoma's governor, Mary Fallin, says she'll consider alternatives to expanding Medicaid as required in the new health care law:
Mary Fallin, a Republican elected Oklahoma governor, said she was emboldened by a largely symbolic 65%-35% vote in her state for a measure opposing the individual insurance requirement.
"I think the people of Oklahoma have spoken that they're concerned and they do not support the program of taking over the health-care system," Ms. Fallin said.
She said she was looking at whether Oklahoma can lean on an existing public-private program that provides insurance to the poor as an alternative to the law's Medicaid expansion.
"We certainly will try to minimize the impact the new federal law will have on the state of Oklahoma and certainly on our budget with unfunded mandates," Ms. Fallin said.
Should states opt out of the law's Medicaid expansion, they would have to remove themselves entirely from the Medicaid program—an unlikely outcome.
First, I think it's worth noting that Fallin is taking the symbolic vote against the mandate as encouragement to fight the PPACA at the state level. Critics of the anti-mandate ballot measures, which have now passed in three states, say they're meaningless. And as a matter of legal force, that's probably true. But the ballot measures send signals to politicians, who may be more willing to block or reduce the impact of the health care law as a result.
Second, I agree that dropping out of Medicaid is not a likely outcome. But it could certainly be an interesting experiment. And, according to some estimates, many states may have a strong incentive to pursue the option. Even without the PPACA's expansion, Medicaid remains a troubled, expensive program in desperate need of reform. And Oklahoma has felt its budget buren more than most states recently: Between 2004 and 2007, state spending on the program grew at 9.2 percent, compared with an average growth of just 3.6 percent nationwide. In 2008, the state's Medicaid program cost about $3.5 billion to run.
The high and rapidly increasing might make dropping out of the program attractive. States could rid themselves of the existing cost of Medicaid as well as the burden of expanding Medicaid, as required by the PPACA. One big problem with dropping out of the program, though, is that it could greatly increase the total cost of the recent health care overhaul. A large number of the individuals who would've been served by Medicaid would end up getting insurance through the insurance exchanges that will go into operation in 2014. That would give them access to federal subsidies. And while state budgets might look healthier, those subsidies could prove far more expensive, overall, than simply continuing on with Medicaid.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good. More states need to defy the Almighty Fed on this issue... and others.
Spoken like a true capitalist pig Christ-fag.
And while state budgets might look healthier, those subsidies could prove far more expensive, overall, than simply continuing on with Medicaid.
Isn't this the point of federalism? "Laboratories of democracy"?
And, FWIW, while Repeal-The-17th rhetoric mostly gets blown off these days as anti-suffrage nutjobbery, the whole point of appointing Senators was to keep a lid on these kind of excessive mandates and obligations being bequeathed on state governments with no say in the process.
Inohofe and Coburn may get along and agree with Governor Fallin and the Oklahoma legislature, but those Senators were originally supposed to answer to them and work to prevent this stuff from happening.
The Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase and whatever they did in Florida would never have happened if the Senators involved knew they'd automatically lose their jobs at the first opportunity.
I'm surprised with how fast anti-17th ammendment leanings went from something you'd only read about on places like this to part of the "OMG HE IS CRAZY" arsenal of all the panty wetting media.
And if I got to repeal the 17th ammendment, I would just leave it up to the states. I'd REQUIRE that all senators be chosen indirectly by some state legislative body.
Well if the 17th was repeal the law would just revert back to the original wording in the Constitution.
You people are Tenth Amendment-worshiping fools.
Fudge Off
The best time to cut Medicaid/Medicare is when Democratic governors have to deal with the ensuing budget crises. Too bad the Red States have a disproportionate % of federal funding. Has this been a Democratic ploy to prevent cuts being made?
You could do wonders to balance the federal budget by just ending Medicaid. Period. Its supposed to be a state program anyway, with a federal subsidy. That subsidy is probably around $250BB a year.
Let the states do what they want for their medically indigent residents, and leave it at that.
those subsidies could prove far more expensive, overall, than simply continuing on with Medicaid.
What's the basis for this claim? One way or the other you're subsidizing health care for folks who can't or won't pay for it themselves. Why would it be far more expensive to do so by subsidizing 3rd party insurance for them vs keeping them in a dysfunctional single-payer system?
medicaid reimbursements to doctors are well below market rate, hence why there is a servere shortage right now of primary care doctors willing to take new medicaid patients. Moving people off of medicaid to the subsidy programs would essentially be an upgrade in healthcare quality. And therefore it comes at a cost.
One of the lesser talked about effects of the health care bill is that in putting 15 million more people into the price onctrolled program, the quality of care for medicaid patients is likely going to decline greatly as it will become far more difficult to find a doctor who will take you.
Well, I'll be damned! I voted for Fallin with little hope she would be any improvement over the Dems. But this might be a good strategy for the republican states to pass a measure to opt out, and put pressure on congress to repeal all or some of that abortion of a health care reform or face losing Medicare participants.
It's already been decided in the Supreme Court that states do not have to carry out federal mandates.
This is from a case concerning the mandates in the Brady bill.
"We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the states to enact or enforce a
federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that
prohibition by conscripting the state's officers directly. The federal government
may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor
command the states' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer
or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is
involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such
commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual
sovereignty." [Printz v. US, USC, 117 (1997)]
http://www.limitedgovernment.o.....rf5-21.pdf
Hence the bribery that accompanies them.
This reminds me of a related topic I've often wondered about: here in COnnecticut, if you follow local or state politics you will often hear complaints about "unfunded mandates." Specifically, the state board of ed will mandate local school districts do X, Y or Z, but will not pay for these to be done. And in at least a couple cases, my casual back-of-the-envelope calculations show that the total cost of complying with these mandates is MORE than the total subsidies the towns get from the state. And I never could get a straight answer when I'd ask various mayors or councilpersons or town selectmen, "So what would happen if you told the state 'No, we're not doing this anymore, and you can keep your damn subsidy money'."
Of course, unlike the red states of America, the towns generally got *less* money from the state than they paid to it in taxes. I don't think the red states can afford to tell the Feds "keep your subsidies and we'll do things our way."
Related question: for the red states who take more from the feds than they receive, how much of that federal money actually goes into state coffers for the state to spend, and how much goes to things like military bases, or maintenance of Interstate highways, national parks and other federal property? It could be the red states aren't *quite* as dependent on the federal teat as statistics would indicate. I don't know much about Oklahoma but in places like Virginia, for example, I rather doubt the feds would shut down the Norfolk Naval Base -- largest in the world -- no matter how often Virginia politicians flipped the feds the bird.
It's cheaper for any state to drop out of Medicaid than to stay in it -- the feds only subsidize part of the cost. The problem is that by dropping out, politicians will piss off voters getting the subsidy who will then have to buy their own damn insurance. And when you have competitive races, pissing off 10% or more of the people who would vote for you otherwise is a nonstarter.
A state would have to be in dire financial straits, considering really massive budget cuts, for this to be politically doable.
The people on Medicaid are the poor or near poor; they probably vote Democrat, if they vote at all. A Republican state legislature and governor aren't likely to be concerned with their needs when it comes to cutting state expenditures.
Oklahoma's Medicaid program pays for 70% of their nursing home residents. None of those people are going to be able to pay for that care on their own, those nursing homes sure aren't going accept 30% (the state share) of what they currently receive, and no politician is going to tell people they're on their own with taking care of their elderly parents and grandparents.