The Medicaid status quo is not effectively serving the health care needs of the disabled, elderly, children, and pregnant women in poverty. Policymakers should ignore hyperbolic political rhetoric claiming that conscientious reforms to secure and improve the safety net for Medicaid’s core populations and to provide better options for coverage and care to others will result in a situation in which “thousands will die.” Obamacare expanded the poorly performing Medicaid and claimed success for doing so. These new recipients can fare better under a new system that broadens their access to quality care. A Medicaid premium support program can accomplish that worthy end.
. . .

We are 2 former Administrators of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, under Presidents Barack Obama and George H. W. Bush. Although we represent different political parties, we take pride in the accomplishments of these 2 programs, which collectively help millions of US residents get the health care they need.

Medicaid has become a major focus in the debate over repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), because the proposed replacement bills go beyond the ACA into the underlying Medicaid program that was originally passed by Congress in 1965. As we have overseen the Medicaid program at various stages, we are familiar with its successes, its areas for improvement, its effect on state budgets, and its importance to millions of ordinary people who count on the program and will need it in the future.

. . .

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.

. . .

The Senate Republicans’ Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 (BCRA) would partially repeal and replace Obamacare and make major changes in the Medicaid program. The bill would secure a significant federal entitlement reform by addressing a central health policy issue: the structure, function, and financing of the Medicaid program. It would achieve three major policy goals: reform the entitlement, redirect Medicaid funding to the poorest and most vulnerable members of society, and provide greater authority and flexibility to state officials to manage their own Medicaid programs.
 . . .
  • 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.

. . .