How Medicaid Reform Could Benefit the Poor
One of the most significant proposals in the Republican budget drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan is a plan to block grant Medicaid. The idea is simple: Rather than give states an incentive extract endless amounts of money from the federal government through the program's system of matching funds, put states on a budget. Then give those states the flexibility to spend their Medicaid dollars however they'd like.
Probably the most common criticism aimed at the plan is that it would decimate health care for the poor. In today's Wall Street Journal, Peter Ferrera and Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity argue that just the opposite is true:
Medicaid reform would especially benefit the poor. In its current form, Medicaid underpays doctors and hospitals so badly that the poor face major difficulties gaining access to essential health care under the program, and they suffer worse health outcomes as a result. Under block-grant reform, states would be free to provide financing to the poor to purchase private health insurance. This would empower the poor to enjoy the same health insurance as the middle class.
The other thing to keep in mind when thinking about Medicaid is that, while the costs are quite high (and rising), the value in terms of health outcomes is quite low. The poor are already served badly by the program, and restructuring it to give states more flexibility could be a way to provide somewhat better service while simultaneously holding down spending.
I wrote about Medicaid reform in The Wall Street Journal here.
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
So giving the states less money than they do now will help the poor by allowing them to buy quality private insurance rather than the lowly payments now provided?
WTF?
Medicaid spending will still increase, only at a slower rate.
I think the "give those states the flexibility to spend their Medicaid dollars however they'd like" is supposed to be the part where states start doing things the smart way instead of the Washington way.
But how can states do a better job than DC?
Congress runs the DC school district, and look at how smashingly that is working out.
Welfare became a block grant program to the states, and we see how that turned out.
Who are we to question the collective wisdom of our federal overlords?
"...restructuring it to give states more flexibility could be a way to provide somewhat better service while simultaneously holding down spending."
Doesn't sound like a very glittering future, any way you look at it. Is anyone going to get excited by this, or will this be case of shrugging the shoulders and saying, "waddyagonnado?"
Why? For those who feel that society has an obligation to help the poor, won't that still happen? To what extent does that obligation exist? And to those who claim we do have a responsibility to help the poor, besides paying taxes, what are you doing to help?
How Medicaid Reform Could Benefit the Poor
You mean besides giving them free healthcare courtesy of taxpayers?
Better head would be "How Medicaid Reform Will Probably Help the Rich." States, after all, won't have to do anything if they don't want to, and they probably won't. We be almost sure of what they WON'T do: as federal cash declines, they WON'T pony up additional cash from state funds that would allow the poor to purchase regular health insurance.*
*And would states do if insurance companies wouldn't insure the poor? Oh, right! Tell poor people to marry citizens of France, and offer to help pay for their air fare. Hey, problem solved! Problem solved!
How will the poor qualify for 'value' insurance with the purchasing power of one?
How do you get value at the grocery store with the purchasing power of one?
Good to see that you support the health care exchange part of obamacare
If medicaid is underpaying hospitals and doctors so badly, why hasn't this "price signal" "incentivized" them to become more efficient lower prices?
To anyone who thinks a voucher program is a bad idea:
Should the government buy groceries for the poor instead of issuing food stamps?
Should the government pay the bills for the poor instead of providing welfare?
Food is more important than health care, yet we don't make an open ended commitment on providing food to the poor. Just because we provide assistance to the poor, doesn't mean that the assistance shouldn't have limits.
Great article. I'm so tired of hearing the "GOP killed the poor today" when people don't even bother to read on the cause / effect of the proposal.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.....e-care-act