Bill for Medicaid expansion? $516M a year

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

If Indiana expands its Medicaid program as called for under President Obama’s health reform law, it likely will hike state spending on the program an extra 13.5 percent by 2020, according to the latest projections from Seattle-based actuarial firm Milliman Inc.

That means the state would spend $516 million more per year to provide Medicaid health benefits to low-income Hoosiers. And since Medicaid spending—even without the new law—already is projected to grow more than $1 billion between now and 2020, the extra spending would put even more pressure on state finances.

But the decision before state lawmakers will be whether the benefits outweigh the costs. The state’s extra spending could provide coverage for more than 500,000 additional Hoosiers. And even though the state’s tab would be high, in 2020 it would draw down federal spending of nearly $3.4 billion—a match of more 6-to-1.

“It’s too good a deal,” Dr. David Orentlicher, a former Democrat state representative who is now co-director of the Hall Center for Law and Health at the Indiana University McKinney School of Law, said during an Aug. 21 presentation to the Indiana Medical Group Management Association. He expects Indiana officials to eventually expand Medicaid as much as the health reform law called for.

The decision in Indiana will be left to the winner of the gubernatorial contest between Republican Mike Pence and Democrat John Gregg, as well as the Indiana General Assembly.

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act originally mandated that states expand their Medicaid programs to cover all adults and children in households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty limit. That threshold is equal to $31,800 per year for a family of four.

Currently, Indiana offers Medicaid to children and pregnant mothers with incomes even higher than that threshold. But it restricts Medicaid to adults making only 25 percent of the federal poverty limit, or less than $5,800 per year.

But in June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could elect not to expand their Medicaid programs as called for by the law—without the risk of losing federal funding for their existing Medicaid programs. In Indiana, the federal government currently matches state spending 3-to-1.

Officials in some states have asked the Obama administration if the health reform law allows them to expand Medicaid to all adults making 100 percent of the federal poverty limit, because people making more than that amount would be eligible for new federal subsidies to buy private health insurance.

That option would require Indiana to spend only $411 million extra per year, come 2020, according to Milliman’s estimates. The Obama administration has yet to provide guidance on that option.

Indiana faces at least some extra spending no matter what, according to Milliman’s assumptions. The firm assumes that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that nearly all individuals have health insurance—or else pay a tax—will lead to growing enrollment in Medicaid even under the current income eligibility thresholds.

The tax, known as the “individual mandate,” would not apply to low-income individuals, but Milliman still assumes the talk about it will lead to 100,000 more Hoosiers coming out of the woodwork to apply for Medicaid.

“The individual mandate, while not necessarily imposing a tax penalty, may just raise awareness of people,” said Rob Damler, a principal at Milliman’s Indianapolis office. He led the analysis for the state of Indiana, which was released on Sept. 19. “Individuals will hear about an individual mandate for health insurance and let’s say, go to the exchange, to find out if they’re eligible for a subsidy at the exchange and will find out that they are eligible for Medicaid as well.”

Damler thinks employers—who also face a penalty under the law for not providing health benefits to their workers—will more actively check to see if employees qualify for Medicaid.

If he’s right, Indiana faces higher annual Medicaid spending of at least $123 million by 2020, even if it does not expand its Medicaid eligibility at all.

Damler’s estimates assume that even if Indiana expands Medicaid, the program will not draw participation from all Hoosiers who are eligible. That’s because, since the Medicaid program was launched in 1967, it has never drawn full participation in any state.

But Damler did assume the state will have to pay doctors at least 25 percent higher rates to attract enough to care for another half-million Medicaid patients. The federal government will pick up most of those costs, but in 2020 Indiana will still be paying doctors $114 million more per year, he estimates.

Damler also assumed the state would have to pay $28 million to cover the costs of the health reform law’s excise tax on health insurers. The tax would apply to the three companies the state uses to run managed care plans for Medicaid recipients—Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, MDWise Inc. and Managed Health Services Inc. But Damler assumes the state would have to raise the rates it pays those insurers in order to still provide “actuarial sound” payments.

Lastly, Damler assumes an expansion of Medicaid would force the state to hire more people to process eligibility applications for Medicaid and to do more active contracting and analysis of the Medicaid program. He assumes that will cost an extra $50 million in 2020.

“It’s general overhead of just having more people,” Damler said. “If you have more people [receiving Medicaid benefits], you may be trying to control costs, bidding out program pieces, doing different procurements and things of that nature.”


  • Orentlicher
    Asking Orentlicher if more entitlements are good is like asking my two-year old if she wants more ice cream. The guy is a buffoon.
  • Costs will still be there
    Yes, the state will spend more and the FEDS will be spending even more. But without this federal funding, Hoosiers will still get care from Indiana medical providers and hospitals. And then the providers will be funding the care, and in reality, passing on that cost to the rest of us who are insured by "cost-shifting" a time honored healthcare ploy! So by passing up Medicaid expansion the State "budget" saves, but the State healthcare industry and Hoosiers everywhere lose by not taking federal dollars. Dr. Orentlicher is spot on. It's too good a deal to pass up. Or doctors need to turn away patients who cannot pay

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. Only half a million TV Viewers? And thats an increase? I knew Indycar was struggling but I didn't know it was that bad. Hell, if NASCAR hits 5 Million viewers everyone starts freaking out saying its going down hill. It has a long way to before Indycar even hits NASCAR's bad days.

  2. IU has been talking that line for years with no real progress even with the last Dean, Dr. Brater. Why will an outsider, Dr. Hess, make a difference? With no proof of additional resources (cash in the bank), and a concrete plan to move an academic model that has been outdated for decades with a faculty complacent with tenure and inertia, I can count on IU to remain the same during the tenure of Dr. Hess. One ought to look to Purdue and Notre Dame for change and innovation. It is just too bad that both of those schools do not have their own medical school. Competition might wake up IU. My guess is, that even with those additions to our State, IU will remain in its own little world squandering our State's tax dollars. Why would any donor want to contribute to IU with its track record? What is its strategy to deal with the physician shortage for our State? New leadership will not be enough for us to expect any change.

  3. How do you think the Bridges got approved? I spent a couple days researching PAC's and individual contributions to some city council members during that time. My printouts were inches thick on the two I concentrated on. Finally gave up. Was disgusted with all the donations, and who they were from. Would have taken me days and days to compile a complete list. Tried to give it to the Star reporter, but he thought it was all just fine. (and apparently he was treated well himself) He ended up being laid off or fired though. And then of course, there was land donated to the dad's club, or city, as a partial payoff. All done in the shining example of "charity." No, none of these contributions are a coincidence.

  4. I agree what kind of help or if any will be there for Dr. Ley's patients. I was a patient myself.

  5. What about the hundreds of patients who sought this doctor for the right reasons, to quit drugs. what option do these patients now have, experience horrible withdrawl or return to heroin?? those are the choices. what about the children of these former addicts who's parent(s) WILL not b able to maintain their job, for @ least 2 weeks.. There needs to b an emergency clinic opened for these patients.