IBJNews

Studies: Employers could save with Medicaid expansion

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The debate over expanding Medicaid in Indiana so far has hinged on how much it will cost. But two recent studies suggest Hoosier employers should be focused on how much a Medicaid expansion will save them: perhaps as much as $400 million per year.

The actual number is likely to be lower, but the potential savings are real. That’s because a Medicaid expansion would spare some employers from having to pay penalties for not providing health insurance to their workers and it might lead to less cost-shifting by hospitals, which raises prices for employers to cover the hospitals’ losses on uninsured patients.

In a March 13 study, Jackson Hewitt Tax Service estimated more than 18,000 Hoosiers have incomes between 100 percent and 138 percent of the federal poverty limit and also would qualify for federal subsidies to buy private health insurance through an online exchange the federal government will create.

If Indiana’s legislators decide to expand Medicaid coverage, as called for by the 2010 Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, these Hoosiers would receive health insurance coverage via Medicaid.

But if Indiana does not expand Medicaid, those 18,000 Hoosiers could instead buy private health insurance in an exchange using the federal subsidy.

If they use the exchanges, the employers of these Hoosiers would be on the hook for a federal penalty, which is called a “shared responsibility” payment. Those penalties will range from $2,000 to $3,000.

In Indiana, those penalties could total $36.5 million to $54.8 million per year, according to Jackson Hewitt’s calculations.

“Paradoxically, state government efforts to constrain Medicaid costs growth in and after 2017 may lead to higher net taxes for employers in such jurisdictions beginning in 2014,” the Jackson Hewitt report states.

In addition to that, the Medicaid expansion would give hospitals more paying customers. The Urban Institute, in a 2011 study, said Indiana hospitals would see nearly $345 million per year less in unpaid care if Medicaid were expanded.

That extra revenue might flow back to health insurers and employers—but only if insurers and employers have negotiating leverage over hospitals.

“The likelihood of hospitals passing on this gain to insurers is difficult to predict,” wrote Fernando Wilson, a professor of public health at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, in an e-mail. Wilson and other researchers at Nebraksa cited the Urban Institute study in a February analysis of an expansion of Medicaid in Indiana. That report was conducted for the Indiana Hospital Association.

“It ultimately depends on the relative bargaining positions that specific hospitals and insurers have with each other," Wilson added in his e-mail, "which in turn depends on the characteristics of each hospital and insurer's market.”

In Indiana, WellPoint Inc.’s Anthem subsidiary has a commanding market share, controlling more than half the commercial marketplace. But with hospitals merging and acquiring physicians, their bargaining leverage has increased significantly.

Still, if hospitals passed on those savings in full, they would average about $236 for individual insurance policies and $677 for each family coverage policy, according to the University of Nebraska study.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Medicaid Expansion
    This is an interesting article but I just don't see the state expanding Medicaid. These employers are going to be faced with these tax penalties regardless if the state expands. The state can send these people to the exchanges. They will end paying 1.5% of income on a health insurance policy that may cost $20K a year. They will also have subsidies for actual claims bringing the actuarial value to 90+%. Then the state does not have to take on the liability of insuring these people. www.indianahealthinsurance.com www.indianahealthinsuranceexchange.com

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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT