Indiana's tax breaks for jobs cost at least three times more than Medicaid expansion

August 20, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

I thought I had heard all the arguments for Indiana to expand its Medicaid program as called for under Obamacare. But this month I stumbled upon a new one: It would cost a WHOLE lot less than all the tax breaks for company job expansions.

That’s the suggestion made in a new report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute. It first calculates the average annual amount the state of Indiana would be required to spend over the next decade to draw down the federal funding earmarked to pay for more than 300,000 Hoosiers to join the Medicaid program.

Then it compares that number—$110 million per year—to the amount Indiana’s city, county and state governments hand out in tax incentives to encourage private business expansion. The New York Times calculated those incentives in 2012 at $921 million per year.

That’s 837 percent more incurred on corporate tax breaks in exchange for jobs than the state government would spend on the Medicaid expansion.

Those figures may not be quite right. First, it's important to remember that not all companies that win tax breaks actually receive them, because some companies fail to create the jobs promised.

Also, the Medicaid expansion costs start out at basically nothing but then get larger over time. The Commonwealth Fund, in a report issued last year, made a similar comparison. It noted that even in as far out as 2022, Indiana is projected to spend no more than $279 million on a Medicaid expansion.

But that’s still less than one-third what Indiana’s state and local governments commit each year toward corporate jobs incentives.

Indiana is considering an expansion of health coverage using the money marked for a Medicaid expansion to instead bring more people into its Healthy Indiana Plan, which gives participants health savings accounts to pay for some of their care.

The state government has minimized its costs by expanding a tax on hospitals, the main entities that would benefit from an expansion of health insurance coverage.

Of course, the math looks different to state leaders than the way these reports present the situation. The state foots only a minority of the tab for tax incentives for corporate expansions, with most of the breaks coming from local governments.

On top of that, recent research by Ball State University has found that the state’s tax breaks for job expansions actually pay off by bringing in at least six new jobs—and the annual income tax revenue that goes with them—for every $1,000 in tax incentives.

Among local governments, however, they had to offer $1 million in tax incentives for every eight new jobs. It takes a long time for eight new jobs to produce $1 million in additional tax revenue, if they ever will.

Expanding Medicaid would certainly help health care businesses and create jobs in that sector. But a 2004 Mathematica Policy Research report commissioned by the state of Indiana concluded that every job created in the health care sector by additional spending on private health insurance coverage would be offset by more than three jobs not being created among other employers.

The Medicaid expansion does not rely completely on spending by other employers. But if the economic impact of the expansions comes anywhere close to the Mathematica analysis, it would not be a net job creator for the state.

The thing about Obamacare is that state taxpayers won’t save money—at least not in the short-term—by not expanding Medicaid.

That’s because Hoosiers are required to pay the various Obamacare taxes that will fund the Medicaid expansion, whether or not the state accepts the money for that expansion. If Indiana were not to expand its Medicaid program while every other state did, Hoosiers would pay $2 billion per year in taxes that would fund health care coverage in other states, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

Many conservatives in Indiana would prefer to see both the Obamacare taxes and the business tax breaks go away—or at least be reduced substantially. But political dynamics make changing either one difficult if not impossible.

In that scenario, then, the cost-benefit analysis might prevail. A Medicaid expansion would bring Indiana $15.74 in federal money for every dollar the state spends itself. That math will continue to be hard to argue with.

  • Medicaid
    Medicaid is not health insurance, it is a price fixing scheme run by the government.
  • Are Cited Studies Reliable & Relevant?
    JK - You raise some good points but your references to all these so-called studies confuse the issue. On the surface, some of the studies seem to be illogical. For example, the Mathematica report is over 10 years old and seems illogical to me; is it still relevant? The "recent" research by Ball State regarding the results of 6 vs 8 jobs also seems illogical. Moreover, you have given us a data dump without really taking us through a good analysis. I have come to expect that from you. Nevertheless, I will probably look through the methodologies of some of the studies you cite to see if they appear to have credibility; I am always skeptical that they have political agendas that are not apparent. Anyway, thanks for continuing to raise issues regarding the stat of health care in Indiana.
    • To Jim F.
      I always appreciate your thoughtful comments, so let me try to understand this one better. Can you tell me what you mean by illogical in regards to the Mathematica and Ball State research? Do you mean that the results just don't ring true? Or did you have something else in mind? As for the Mathematica report being old, it's a fair point. However, there has been nothing like it done for Indiana since then. And much of the social science research cited in policymaking and debates is far older. For example, the key research folks use to advocate for publicly funded preschool is 40-50 years old. So I don't think 10 makes something irrelevant, unless more recent research has shown it to be.
      • To JK
        JK - I meant that the results don't ring true. I also questioned the 10-year-old study because so much in the "health care system" has changed since the study was made. Moreover, it was hard to get to any overall conclusion or observation with the article. But....don't be defensive given my comments; I still think you do the best job of any journalist in the area shedding light and insight on important health care issues.
        • To Jim F.
          Sorry for a slow response. You are correct that this post was more observational than analytical. I thought that was needed because it's difficult to get perspective when we're talking about spending hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Also, I hope I don't tend to be defensive in my responses. I always appreciate your comments. They always raise the level of conversation about these issues.

        Post a comment to this blog

        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
        1. Hiking blocks to an office after fighting traffic is not logical. Having office buildings around the loop, 465 and in cities in surrounding counties is logical. In other words, counties around Indianapolis need office buildings like Keystone, Meridian, Michigan Road/College Park and then no need to go downtown. Financial, legal, professional businesses don't need the downtown when Carmel, Fishers, North Indy are building their own central office buildings close to the professionals. The more Hamilton, Boone county attract professionals, the less downtown is relevant. Highrises have no meaning if they don't have adequate parking for professionals and clients. Great for show, but not exactly downtown Chicago, no lakefront, no river to speak of, and no view from highrises of lake Michigan and the magnificent mile. Indianapolis has no view.

        2. "The car count, THE SERIES, THE RACING, THE RATINGS, THE ATTENDANCE< AND THE MANAGEMENT, EVERY season is sub-par." ______________ You're welcome!

        3. that it actually looked a lot like Sato v Franchitti @Houston. And judging from Dario's marble mouthed presentation providing "color", I'd say that he still suffers from his Dallara inflicted head injury._______Considering that the Formula E cars weren't going that quickly at that exact moment, that was impressive air time. But I guess we shouldn't be surprised, as Dallara is the only car builder that needs an FAA certification for their cars. But flying Dallaras aren't new. Just ask Dan Wheldon.

        4. Does anyone know how and where I can get involved and included?

        5. While the data supporting the success of educating our preschoolers is significant, the method of reaching this age group should be multi-faceted. Getting business involved in support of early childhood education is needed. But the ways for businesses to be involved are not just giving money to programs and services. Corporations and businesses educating their own workforce in the importance of sending a child to kindergarten prepared to learn is an alternative way that needs to be addressed. Helping parents prepare their children for school and be involved is a proven method for success. However, many parents are not sure how to help their children. The public is often led to think that preschool education happens only in schools, daycare, or learning centers but parents and other family members along with pediatricians, librarians, museums, etc. are valuable resources in educating our youngsters. When parents are informed through work lunch hour workshops in educating a young child, website exposure to exceptional teaching ideas that illustrate how to encourage learning for fun, media input, and directed community focus on early childhood that is when a difference will be seen. As a society we all need to look outside the normal paths of educating and reaching preschoolers. It is when methods of involving the most important adult in a child's life - a parent, that real success in educating our future workers will occur. The website is free and illustrates activities that are research-based, easy to follow and fun! Businesses should be encouraging their workers to tackle this issue and this website makes it easy for parents to be involved. The focus of preschool education should be to inspire all the adults in a preschooler's life to be aware of what they can do to prepare a child for their future life. Fortunately we now know best practices to prepare a child for a successful start to school. Is the business community ready to be involved in educating preschoolers when it becomes more than a donation but a challenge to their own workers?