In the 1990s, there was plenty of teeth-gnashing by welfare reform opponents over changing the funding structure for cash assistance, implementing work requirements, and creating time limits – rhetoric that sounds eerily similar to much of the health reform coverage today.
Mostly absent from the welfare discussion was the role that earned income tax credits (EITC) would play in reform. Similarly, in the current health care debates over Medicaid changes there is a lack of any reference to proposed tax credits.
. . .
- 56% say Medicaid should target set spending to the disabled, elderly, children, and pregnant women in poverty based on their specific needs.
- 62% say it is a bad thing that Medicaid expansion spends money on childless adults, rather than the most vulnerable populations the program was designed to serve.
- 57% say it is a bad thing that Obamacare gave states higher reimbursements for adding able-bodied adults to Medicaid than for serving the elderly and disabled.
The last man to pull out of the Republican race against Donald Trump was John Kasich, the Ohio governor, a long-shot contender for the presidential nomination whose chances had long since faded. But he has returned to the role of thorn in Mr Trump’s side as Republicans in Washington struggle to reform Obamacare, leading a group of governors trashing their own party’s plan.
The intra-party revolt is rooted in Republican proposals to gut Medicaid, a programme for the poor that provides insurance to 69m Americans. Republicans have long seen it as an emblem of mismanaged welfare programmes that distend government and discourage people from working. But Mr Kasich is showing change is afoot.
He was one of 16 governors from Republican-led states that took an option to expand Medicaid offered by Obamacare, adding 700,000 Ohioans to the programme, despite the broad distaste for Barack Obama’s reforms in his party. In recent weeks he has stressed its vital role in treating people ravaged by opioids and other drugs, which killedan average of 11 Ohioans each day last year, and those suffering from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses.
. . .
Republican efforts to pass health-care legislation are in jeopardy again, in part because of controversy over its potential impact on Medicaid. But the Republican reforms are more moderate, and more worthwhile, than they are getting credit for.
The CBO is exaggerating the effects of the Republican legislation on Medicaid enrollment, it’s worth putting Medicaid on a firmer footing, and any additional resources for health insurance for low earners should be directed toward enabling them to buy private coverage rather than pumped into Medicaid. On Medicaid, in short, the Republicans are on the right track.
. . .
The Senate proposal wouldn’t cut Medicaid spending in real dollars — spending would continue to grow — but it would slow the rate of spending for the program, phase out extra money the federal government has given to states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) and leave states to pick up more of the tab.
. . .
If we want to make headway on improving public policy discourse, a good place to start might be with how we’re debating Medicaid policy, in particular how it might be affected by pending legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including legislation presented on Thursday by Senate Republicans.
Medicaid has long been on an unsustainable cost growth trajectory. This was true long before the ACA was passed in 2010, though the ACA exacerbated the problem. Annual federal Medicaid spending is currently projected to grow from $389 billion in 2017 to $650 billion in 2027. The biggest problem with that growth rate is that it’s faster than what’s projected for our economy as a whole. As with Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid costs are growing faster than our ability to finance them.
. . .
The House-passed bill left large numbers of Americans uninsured, in part because very low-income households could not afford to enroll in private coverage even with the House’s tax credits. Medicaid is the nation’s safety net insurance program. In practical terms, there is no real alternative to Medicaid for a person below the poverty line. Under the approach recommended here, federal Medicaid funding would be dispensed to the states to strengthen the safety net for the poor, even as there would be less support for expanding the program to persons with higher incomes.
. . .
Much of the public discussion about health care and health insurance reform abounds with misinformation. Medicaid, in particular, has become a political tool, with daily posts and articles about reforms to the program that distort the record for political gain. But there is little mention of the need to empower governors to take ownership of the program.
. . .
Obamacare’s second biggest flaw is that even as it upended the half-century long consensus over who should be in Medicaid, the law inexplicably left intact a feature of Medicaid that we have known for decades fuels excess spending: its open-ended matching rate.
So long as states put up a dollar to fund Medicaid, Uncle Sam is obliged to match it with anywhere from $1 to $3 federal dollars depending on that state’s unique matching rate. It has been proven empirically that this formula fuels higher spending. An analysis by Thad Kousser at UC Berkeley showed that all other things being equal, shifting a state from the lowest to highest federal matching rate increases discretionary Medicaid expenditures by 22 percent.
. . .