Savings possible with state Medicaid expansions
Barb ShellyMore evidence that state lawmakers should get the data before rejecting out of hand an expansion of Medicaid limits comes in a new report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. The report says Missouri’s Medicaid costs would increase just 2.6 percent over 10 years if it raises Medicaid eligibility to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, as called for in the Affordable Care Act. Kansas’s Medicaid costs would increase by only 1.8 percent. Those numbers take into account the savings states would attain by no longer having to pay hospitals millions of dollars to treat uninsured patients.
The Kaiser report doesn’t account for further savings for states, as many people who currently receive aid, such as medically needy adults and mentally ill persons, would be covered by the expanded limits.
Also, as the report notes, the federal government will pay all of the costs of the expansion for three years, and not less than 90 percent after that. That will mean billions of dollars coming into states to expand medical networks, with a hefty boost to economic activity.
The Kaiser report, prepared in cooperation with the Urban Institute, isn’t the definitive word on what Medicaid expansions will cost states. Getting at accurate numbers is an incredibly complex task, and the people who are ultimately best suited to achieve it are likely to be the analysts in state budget offices.
The Missouri Hospital Association is expected to add to the mix of data on Wednesday with the release of a study on the impact of a Medicaid expansion and its effect on the state’s economy. Several more studies are forthcoming in Missouri and Kansas.
But indications so far are that Medicaid expansions up to the limits called for in the federal health care law will not be overly burdensome for either Missouri or Kansas, and both states may actually see savings and revenues from complying with the law.
Phil Bertels
5 months, 3 weeks agoWhat a joke this is. More people covered getting more services but costs go down. Only a liberal would believe this one!
Didn’t they tell us medicaid would originally cost us 1/10th of what it actually does?
Government is sooooo cost effective! HA
Let the propagandist begin
Stephen Platt
5 months, 3 weeks agoThe Star is at it again, wanting to spend others people money to give away to the poor. In this case the poor are now from the poverty level to 133% of the poverty threshold. We can argue whether the poverty threshold is accurate since it does not include credits for benefits received, but the issue is that at the poverty level your needs of food, shelter, and clothing are being met.
Now comes the distortion and misstatement of facts. The report clearly shows the medicaid expansion would cost the State of Missouri $1.573 billion dollars. It’s a 3.5% increase not the convenient 2.6% cited. To assume the current uncompensated costs will be returned to the state treasury is flawed. And isn’t it cheaper to continue to absorb $385 million for charity care rather than spend $1.573 billion. And this is only the state’s share of the cost. The federal government’s share of this expansion is $17.795 billion. Since the federal government doesn’t balance their budget no one seems to worry about the additional cost, but the state of Missouri has a balanced budget. Both revenue and taxes would have to increase by $1.573 billion or expenses to education, transportation, or corrections and public safety will have to be cut.
Will we stop educating kids so those above the poverty level get free health care? Or are we going to raise taxes on those above the poverty level to redistribute our earnings to those at and slightly above the poverty level consequently narrowing the gap between middle class and poverty. Rather than bring the working class down, let’s encourage job growth to pull the below poverty class up.
SlapHappy Pappy Poling
5 months, 3 weeks agoTax cuts and subsidies for the Rich is the most costly Welfare Program in the US.