Yesterday, I noted that states were still having trouble making ends meet on their Medicaid bills—and the program expansion called for by the new health care law is only expected to make their already precarious fiscal situations worse. Today, The Washington Post, reporting on new data released by the National Association of State Budget Officers and the National Governor's Association, makes the same point:
The report says that Medicaid, the combined federal-state health program for the poor and the disabled, will place the biggest budgetary burden on states. Because of increasing caseloads, declining federal help and spiraling health-care costs, state Medicaid spending is growing much faster than state revenue, crowding out funding for other priorities.
The federal government had provided extra Medicaid help to states as part of the stimulus program. But that help has ended, prompting states to increase their Medicaid spending by an average of 29 percent this fiscal year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Many states have streamlined their Medicaid programs in an effort to control costs. Still, officials in more than half of the states said in a recent survey that there is an even chance that their Medicaid programs will face a budget shortfall as enrollment continues to increase.
Officials say the fiscal pressure that Medicaid puts on states is expected to increase when the federal health-care overhaul takes effect in 2014. Although the federal government is required to pick up the costs for people newly eligible for the program, many who are now eligible but not enrolled are expected to be drawn in, and states must shoulder part of those costs.
As I explained in a feature on states and the new health law last summer, under ObamaCare, the federal government covers the full cost of newly eligible enrollees in Medicaid;after a few years, states are eventually required to pick up 10 percent of the cost. But states get no help with new enrollees who were previously eligible for programs like Medicaid and S-CHIP. Estimates indicate that there are 10-12 million individuals who qualify for these programs yet for whatever reason aren't enrolled; given that the law requires everyone to carry health insurance starting in 2014, it's a safe bet that a large number of them will find a way to enroll.
For the last few years, the federal government's response to the size of state Medicaid bills was to provide substantial additional funding on a temporary basis—a bailout, in a sense, for a program that states can't entirely afford on their own. The problem with these temporary funding measures, which typically appear in economic downturns as more individuals qualify for aid, is that if and when the money goes away, the additional costs frequently don't. The temporary federal funding measure has created even bigger headaches than usual this time around, because historically states could reduce eligibility in a fiscal squeeze. But ObamaCare also penalizes them for doing that.
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
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.
What is it with the left? Do they impose all of these expensive laws and expect nobody to notice? Do they really think everybody will agree with them once the truth is exposed? Maybe they just don't care.
What is it with libertarians? Do they impose all of these big-government Land enTITLEment regulations that restrict free movement of people and expect nobody to notice? Do they really think everybody will agree with them once the truth is exposed? Maybe they just don't care.
Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?
Why do you keep posting the same message over and over again? Except for possibly the communist party (which, last I checked, is quite small in the U.S.), is there any political party which doesn't recognize land ownership? Why single out the libertarians who, at least, want to allow people as much economic and social freedom as possible (if not freedom to gambol about).
I'm inclined to think that they don't care because they don't think it through. They believe that feelings trumps thought. So they feel that, hey, health care should be "free" in a "civilized society"--and there they stop. People who bring up annoying shit like cost and consequences just have a bad attitude, you see.
Universal health care for the victims of KOCH OIL pollution is bad.
You shouldn't have breathed the air and got that birth defect, you lazy parasite.
is retarded.
Huge rise in birth defects
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1878358.stm
Pollution linked to birth defects
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1731902.stm
Oh, my, when will it end?
Between the birth defects and the autism and the small penises that the modern world causes I'm convinced we need to go back to living in caves.
What is it with the left? Do they impose all of these expensive laws and expect nobody to notice? Do they really think everybody will agree with them once the truth is exposed? Maybe they just don't care.
What is it with libertarians? Do they impose all of these big-government Land enTITLEment regulations that restrict free movement of people and expect nobody to notice? Do they really think everybody will agree with them once the truth is exposed? Maybe they just don't care.
Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?
is still retarded.
As retarded does.
still think that Koch is problem and Communism will save us all.
Why do you keep posting the same message over and over again? Except for possibly the communist party (which, last I checked, is quite small in the U.S.), is there any political party which doesn't recognize land ownership? Why single out the libertarians who, at least, want to allow people as much economic and social freedom as possible (if not freedom to gambol about).
Because I as dumb as Koch is long.
I'm inclined to think that they don't care because they don't think it through. They believe that feelings trumps thought. So they feel that, hey, health care should be "free" in a "civilized society"--and there they stop. People who bring up annoying shit like cost and consequences just have a bad attitude, you see.
Why is Dr. Hibbert passing out condoms on a stick?
Because the game where he shows you how to put it on is a fun reward for the boys who are good during their physical?
Libafarians think it's funny?