IBJNews

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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The east side does have potential...and I have always thought Washington Scare should become an outlet mall. Anyone remember how popular Eastgate was? Well, Indy has no outlet malls, we have to go to Edinburgh for the deep discounts and I don't understand why. Jim is right. We need a few good eastsiders interested in actually making some noise and trying to change the commerce, culture and stereotypes of the East side. Irvington is very progressive and making great strides, why can't the far east side ride on their coat tails to make some changes?

  2. Boston.com has an article from 2010 where they talk about how Interactions moved to Massachusetts in the year prior. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/innoeco/2010/07/interactions_banks_63_million.html The article includes a link back to that Inside Indiana Business press release I linked to earlier, snarkily noting, "Guess this 2006 plan to create 200-plus new jobs in Indiana didn't exactly work out."

  3. I live on the east side and I have read all your comments. a local paper just did an article on Washington square mall with just as many comments and concerns. I am not sure if they are still around, but there was an east side coalition with good intentions to do good things on the east side. And there is a facebook post that called my eastside indy with many old members of the eastside who voice concerns about the east side of the city. We need to come together and not just complain and moan, but come up with actual concrete solutions, because what Dal said is very very true- the eastside could be a goldmine in the right hands. But if anyone is going damn, and change things, it is us eastside residents

  4. Please go back re-read your economics text book and the fine print on the February 2014 CBO report. A minimum wage increase has never resulted in a net job loss...

  5. The GOP at the Statehouse is more interested in PR to keep their majority, than using it to get anything good actually done. The State continues its downward spiral.

ADVERTISEMENT