Analysis: Feds likely to cut Medicaid support

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A fellow conservative provided some support for Gov. Mike Pence’s claim that an expansion of Medicaid will become a “baby elephant” that eats up larger and larger shares of state resources.

Charles Blahous, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush and now a Medicare trustee, published an analysis March 4 that contends federal support for the Medicaid expansion will not hold up given the bipartisan push for budget cuts.

Medicaid is a health insurance program for the poor funded jointly by each state and the federal government. In Indiana, the federal government pays about two-thirds of Medicaid’s costs.

Blahous notes budget-reduction plans from three different sources in Washington—from President Obama, the Simpson-Bowles commission and the House Republicans—all include at least $100 billion in Medicaid spending reductions over the next decade.

If that amount of reductions were passed on to the states, he estimates, it would actually exceed the amount each state would have to spend to expand Medicaid as called for by the 2010 federal health reform law. The law calls for the federal government to cover 100 percent of the expansion costs beginning in 2014 but then gradually reduce its support to 90 percent of the costs by 2020.

“From a practical perspective, it is quite unlikely that the federal government will make the full amount of Medicaid payments now scheduled under law,” wrote Blahous in his report, which was published by the Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank housed at George Mason Unviersity.

“States cannot therefore afford to assume that their Medicaid cost increases will be limited to those directly spelled out in the language of the ACA,” added Blahous, using a common acronym for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. “They face substantial projected Medicaid cost increases under prior law as well as other unspecified but reasonably likely shifts of costs currently borne by the federal government."

Blahous’ report drew few critical responses, but his analysis does not really change the main argument of proponents of the Medicaid expansion: that it’s still too good of a deal to pass up.

A February study by the Indiana Hospital Association estimated that Indiana would spend $503 million over seven years to expand Medicaid eligibility up to 138 percent of the federal poverty limit, as called for the in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

In return, the expansion would draw down $10.5 billion over seven years—or a federal match of nearly $21 for every state dollar spent.

The hospital association also contends that a Medicaid expansion would boost Indiana’s economy, help protect rural hospitals from closure and reduce private insurance premiums.

Other analyses have been less rosy. Milliman Inc., the Seattle-based actuarial firm hired by the state of Indiana, estimated that a Medicaid expansion would cost the state an average of $140 million per year from 2014 to 2020—about twice as much as the hospital association’s estimate.

Pence, a Republican, has said Indiana will not expand its Medicaid program unless the Obama administration allows the state to do so using the Healthy Indiana Plan, which gives low-income Hoosiers health savings accounts to pay for medical care.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.