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. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

ADVERTISEMENT