Medicaid: Still a Mess
The Wall Street Journal's Janet Hook and Janet Adamy are reporting that debt-deal talks are focusing on potential cuts to Medicaid, the joint-federal state health program for the poor and disabled. If major entitlement reforms are on the table, I'd prefer to see Medicare go first, and take the biggest hit. It's the bigger debt driver, its per-patient costs are higher, and it doles out taxpayer-funded entitlement benefits to upper and upper-middle class individuals who can afford their own care.
But if Medicare is more or less untouchable, Medicaid reform isn't a bad idea. In fact, it's quite a good one. Ideally, reform would mean block-granting the program—capping the federal share of the program's costs and putting states on a budget, but giving them lots more flexibility to redesign their own programs as they do. But a good start would be to simply repeal ObamaCare's Maintenance of Effort (MoE) requirements, which prohibit states from saving money by adjusting program enrollment and eligibility requirements between now and 2014.
Apart from the debt deal, that's what Republican governors are already hoping for:
"This law will greatly expand state Medicaid programs, pulling tax dollars from other necessary areas like education and law enforcement," Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) told congressional lawmakers earlier this year. He added that the health-care reform law "expanded a broken system."
Like many in the GOP, Barbour would like to see Medicaid converted into a block grant, which would have fewer restrictions and allow states to tailor their programs. But opponents say that change could lead to a decline in the level of health care for the poor.
…The federal stimulus program provided more than $100 billion to help states pay for Medicaid during the depths of the recession, but that money is all but gone.
Christie's proposal would deny new Medicaid coverage to adults in a family of three who earn more than $5,300 a year, down from the current cutoff of $24,645. The eligibility change is part of a broader plan to save $300 million in the state's Medicaid program.
"Even with $250 million of Medicaid savings in this budget, and additional projected savings from a $300 million global waiver to reform Medicaid, spending will grow by nearly $1 billion over last year," Christie said in his budget address earlier this year. "That is the definition of an out-of-control program. Worse yet, we cannot make meaningful reforms because of the restrictions on New Jersey from Obamacare.
"States desperately need relief from that unfunded federal mandate," he said.
I wrote about block grants and the need for greater state-level in The Wall Street Journal back in February. Last summer, I looked at how ObamaCare would affect Medicaid programs at the state level.
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
But a good start would be to simply repeal ObamaCare.
Ftfy. Not sure why you kept writing past that point.
No - block granting would mean corrupt governors would steer funds to illicit cronies. Rick Scott and Nathan Deal were selected for this purpose down here in Redneck Country. Scott has already done it.
Of course. Because we all know that corruption only exists at the state level, not the federal level of government.
Give me a break.
TOP. MEN. What part of that do you not understand, free2? You uneducated troglodyte.
When you elect a criminal like Florida did - why trust them?
How many counts of Medicare fraud was his company found guilty of?
I live in Georgia - this is Redneck Country where a Bible-Beating Scumbag will win even if he tells the crackers he will skullfuck them.
Rick Scott must be doing something right judging by the number of heads that are assploding here in the Sunshine State.
I'll only fault him on some of the socon legislation he signed. And that he caved in on the pillmill legislation.
Not if it was a block grant of $0.
Yep, that's the number I had in mind.
If states want to provide subsidized medical care to the indigent, they are free to do so. Or not.
If I'm not mistaken, Medicaid is a bigger drain on charges to private insurers, patient to patient, than Medicare is.
The reason so many inner-city hospitals are closing or have closed is because they're so dependent on Medicaid--and Medicaid reimburses hospitals so poorly.
I'm a little rusty, but back in the day, Medicaid used to reimburse an average of 6.5 cents on the dollar billed--averaged over all codes. Relatively speaking, Medicare used to reimburse about 12 cents on the dollar billed.
If those ratios more or less hold true, then Medicaid is the bigger drain on the bottom line of hospitals--especially in poorer urban areas where the patient mix is skewed so heavily with patients on Medicaid.
A high Medicaid Payer Mix in your area means a hospital doesn't have enough private pay patients to charge--to make up for all the money they lose treating Medicaid patients.
This is the fundamental reason why private insurance costs so much--and why the uninsured have to pay so much for care. If you look at the sources and uses analysis, Medicare and Medicaid patients consume the lion's share of the healthcare--but they only pay for a relatively small portion of what they consume...
The source of the revenue for hospitals is disproportionately private pay patients--the insured and the uninsured who are paying out of pocket.
If Medicaid is where the worst of the problem is, it makes the most sense to start there.
Yes this is exactly what I remember from when I used to work at a hospitale (in the finance dept)
"Payer mix refers to your payer entities, such as patients who pay out-of-pocket, private-sector insurers, and Medicare and Medicaid. Each payer generates a specific income, and you can identify which payers generate the highest proportionate revenue.
[...]
You can increase profits by tracking and using this information to adjust the payers with whom you contract and the proportion of patients you accept from each payer category (self-pay, private insurance, Medicare/Medicaid)."
http://www.asha.org/Publicatio.....1/090811i/
Please note that this is an analysis tool they're talking about here.
You can identify codes to go after and doctors to market your hospital to--to try to go after more highly reimbursed codes or to try to get some more private pay patients in your hospital...
But you can't suddenly decide to stop accepting Medicaid patients through your emergency room. If you did? The government will shut you down.
So if you're a hospital in an urban area with a lot of poverty and not much in the way of private insurance patients?
Medicaid is destroying your bottom line.
Of course some hospitals close for exactly that reason.
"Urban and suburban areas have lost a quarter of their hospital emergency departments over the last 20 years, according to the study, in The Journal of the American Medical Association. In 1990, there were 2,446 hospitals with emergency departments in nonrural areas. That number dropped to 1,779 in 2009, even as the total number of emergency room visits nationwide increased by roughly 35 percent.
[...]
So-called safety-net hospitals that serve disproportionate numbers of Medicaid patients and hospitals serving a large share of the poor were 40 percent more likely to close."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05.....pital.html
Medicare may be a bigger drain on the federal budget? But Medicaid is the bigger drain on our healthcare system. ...and that's specifically because Medicare costs the federal budget more--so it doesn't distort the market as badly.
Medicaid is destroying access to healthcare for the poor. ...and that's coming from the right-wing New York Times.
And ObamaCare--is essentially and expansion of Medicaid.
"It's the bigger debt driver, its per-patient costs are higher,..."
Mr Suderman, with all respect, you seem to be missing some really fundamental stuff here.
Medicare may pay out more per patient? But because Medicare covers more of the costs of Medicare patients compared to Medicaid--that means Medicare patients are less of a burden on the insured and people who pay out of pocket.
If you think the purpose of reforming Medicare and Medicaid is to keep the federal budget deficit down? Then you're on the right track.
But understand that if we were to slash Medicare reimbursement we would also be exacerbating the burden on the privately insured and those who have to pay out of pocket.
Restrict Medicare rolls through means testing? I'm on board with that. But if we have to fix one or the other--and we want to go to a more capitalistic system? We need to start with Medicaid. That's where the worst of the market distortion is.
If I'm not mistaken, Medicaid is a bigger drain on charges to private insurers, patient to patient, than Medicare is.
You are correct, sir. Most hospitals lose around 10% on each Medicare patient. For Medicaid, there's a lot more variability by state, but I seem to recall its around 40 - 60%.
It seems astounding to me that this isn't common knowledge.
People have been blabbing on and on about healthcare for years--why doesn't everyone know that hospitals are losing so much money on every Medicaid patient and...?
They're not making it up on volume!
I bet the average person knows more about the science behind global warming!
If hospitals that serve poorer populations are breaking even--it's only on the backs of the uninsured and rising premiums for health insurance. ...and it's largely because of Medicaid!
Why don't more people know about this?
Math is hard?
I think it is complicated for people to understand.
They understand that having Medicare or Medicaid means you don't have pay for a lot of your own medical bills.
...but when you try to explain to them that having Medicare and Medicaid doesn't mean the government reimburses your hospital for the full cost of care?
Their eyes glaze over.
Skipping the issue whether governments should pay for Medical care.
$5300? Really? If you're making a year, that's less than $300 a month. I can't see you you having much income for any type of medical care.
Uh, gotta get that nit:
$5,300/12 = $441.66/mo.
Yeah, I thought at first glance that had to be a typo, missing $10,000 I'd imagine.
If you're making that per year, you're qualifying for all sorts of welfare programs. You probably get food stamps, section 8, maybe EITC, etc., so while 300 a months sucks, it's actually probably not as bad as it seems at first blush.
I can see what Christie wants to do there, but lowering the Medicaid qualifying income from $24645 to $5300 may as well be called the "Make All Minimum Wage Jobs Go Unfilled Act".
If you eliminate Medicaid entirely, then there's no perverse incentives in play. But if you keep Medicaid in existence but just lower the income limit to such an extreme level, you are basically incenting everyone in your state who can't earn a middle-class income to quit their jobs. With a pretty compelling incentive.
Most states have income cut-offs this low or lower. In Texas, I think it's like 2000 per year.
"But if Medicare is more or less untouchable, then we're screwed."
FIFY.
My Medicaid reform proposal:
Abolish it. The welfare that each state provides to its residents should be entirely funded and controlled by that state alone.
I'd love to see a big ol' fight in Washington over what to do with the Medicaid taxes the feds collect that aren't going to the states anymore. Tax cut? Reduce the deficit? Some of each?
Since Medicaid paid for out of general revenue a lot of the Fed's share is borrowed money.
I have no problem with cutting programs and letting the deficit drop by that amount.
Of course, it's the borrowing that's behind most of the reason the states want federal aid. It's not like the Federal govt can actually raise any more in tax revenue than any state could for itself. It's the magical borrowing that the feds can do that makes the difference.
I wrote about block grants and the need for greater state-level in The Wall Street Journal back in February.
State-level what?
What I really think will happen is that Medicare will become a rationing system (something it is not now). The reason I believe this is that I had actual lefties point me in the direction of a recent Krugmonster post entitled "Yes, Medicare Is Sustainable In Its Current Form" which includes this charming graf:
In other words, it will cease to be what it presently is, a glorious money spigot, a check-writing operation benefiting the elderly with only minimal oversight. While all manner of hell is rained down on Paul Ryan for suggesting that individuals should have their per-capita spending limited, more or less the same idea coming from Krugman yields not even an eyelash bat from the left. Indeed, it's considered common sense.
There's no question it's an aesthetic thing for a lot of people.
People buy into narratives that scratch whatever itch makes them think they need to band together and save the defenseless from the white guys in the suits.
Meanwhile, the working poor and elderly are getting hurt by other people's good intentions.
You can seriously understaff your emergency room and make people wait hours and hours for care. I'm pretty sure that's the approach most hospitals in this situation take.
thanks
Greetings Now i'm for that reason happy I stubled onto any site,Nike Dunk High Prefer came across you will just by error, at the same time Document was first Nike Dunk 2008 Gold Black browsing relating to Bing just for something.
thanks