Hospitals' non-reimbursed costs for treating patients would be $4.5 billion lower next year if Medicaid coverage was expanded to the poorest residents in states that haven't done so, according to a new White House report out Thursday.
The 28 states that have already expanded Medicaid -- the polarizing healthcare program for the poor and disabled -- are on track to reduce these uncompensated care costs by almost the same amount, an estimated $4.4 billion in 2016, the White House Council of Economic Advisers said.
If states don't expand Medicaid, people with private insurance pay more for their health care and insurance, and their tax dollars go to help pay for the non-reimbursed costs of the uninsured. The expansion of Medicaid, the report concludes, improves the standard of living of a state's residents.
Medicaid is a state- and federally-funded program, but the federal government is covering the full cost of the expansion of the program, bringing coverage to singles making less than about $16,000 a year and families of four earning no more than $32,500. These people can't buy subsidized insurance on the Obamacare exchanges, and a Supreme Court decision left it up to states to decide whether or not to expand Medicaid to cover all of them.
Starting in 2017, states would have to pick up a small portion of the cost of thisMedicaid expansion , and that portion would grow to 10% by 2020.
Many Republicans and others have expressed concerns about the costs to states and the federal government of expanding Medicaid. Justin Owen, president of theBeacon Center of Tennessee , a state that has not expanded Medicaid, says expanding the program is harmful for taxpayers and threatens to exacerbate doctor shortages and stymie access to care.
"We see Medicaid expansion as one of the worst aspects of Obamacare," he says.
The White House report compiled evidence of the benefits of Medicaid expansion culled from economics and health policy literature. It acknowledges that "estimates of the effects of future policy changes based on past experience are necessarily uncertain" but notes, "this evidence leaves no doubt that the consequences of states' decisions are far-reaching, with major implications for the health of their citizens and their economies."
Among the benefits, it says, is better access to health care for low-income residents. The report estimates that if all states that have not yet expanded Medicaid did so, 626,000 more people would get their cholesterol checked each year once the expanded coverage was in effect. This improved access to care would prevent 5,200 deaths every year. States that have already expanded Medicaid will avoid an estimated 5,000 deaths per year.
Medicaid expansion remains a contentious issue even in places where it has been touted as a success.
In Kentucky, which has gained national prominence as the only southern state to fully embrace Obamacare, two recent reports gave conflicting pictures of how Medicaid expansion has affected the state. A February report fromDeloitte Consulting and the University of Louisville 's Urban Studies Institute said Kentucky hospitals received $506 million more in Medicaid reimbursement since January 2014 because of the expansion and that the expansion generated more than 12,000 new jobs in health care and related fields.
But a report last month by the Kentucky Hospital Association said Obamacare overall has left them facing billions of dollars in cuts and forced them to lay off staff and shut down services. Most of the newly-insured in the relatively poor state enrolled in Medicaid, which hospital officials said now pays 82% of the actual cost of treating patients. So even though hospitals are getting $506 million more in Medicaid payments, officials said, it costs $617 to provide care to those patients.
The number of people with coverage through Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) increased 2.2 million people from the start of the first open enrollment period under Obamacare through March 2015. From February to March alone, the number of people with Medicaid or CHIP coverage rose by more than 500,000 people.
- Jayne O'Donnell and Laura Ungar, USAToday
My take: The medicaid expansion would save 5200 lives relative to heart disease and that is enough reason for states not expanding medicaid subsidies to the poor to do so but just imagine the lives that would be saved by catching hidden cancer and any number of other life threatening diseases in time. Imagine the amount of misery and sickness that otherwise would be prevented. If you care about people that might be enough but if money is your primary concern then consider the improvement in workplace production when your workers are feeling healthy, getting to work on time and producing at their best. Imagine a workforce that feels cared for and feels like an appreciated member of society therein encouraging their hopes and dreams and other intangibles that undergird an ascending life. Imagine revived health free from the shackles of drugs. Imagine a workforce with the real freedom to go where their talents are best applied instead of a workforce compelled to get the quickest health insurance providing job available because they need health insurance immediately. Imagine freedom running a nation more efficiently.
Whether your ideology is wise or not is one thing but how you pursue the ends of your ideology may also be an issue of wisdom. Rethink it.
The 28 states that have already expanded Medicaid -- the polarizing healthcare program for the poor and disabled -- are on track to reduce these uncompensated care costs by almost the same amount, an estimated $4.4 billion in 2016, the White House Council of Economic Advisers said.
If states don't expand Medicaid, people with private insurance pay more for their health care and insurance, and their tax dollars go to help pay for the non-reimbursed costs of the uninsured. The expansion of Medicaid, the report concludes, improves the standard of living of a state's residents.
Medicaid is a state- and federally-funded program, but the federal government is covering the full cost of the expansion of the program, bringing coverage to singles making less than about $16,000 a year and families of four earning no more than $32,500. These people can't buy subsidized insurance on the Obamacare exchanges, and a Supreme Court decision left it up to states to decide whether or not to expand Medicaid to cover all of them.
Starting in 2017, states would have to pick up a small portion of the cost of this
Many Republicans and others have expressed concerns about the costs to states and the federal government of expanding Medicaid. Justin Owen, president of the
"We see Medicaid expansion as one of the worst aspects of Obamacare," he says.
The White House report compiled evidence of the benefits of Medicaid expansion culled from economics and health policy literature. It acknowledges that "estimates of the effects of future policy changes based on past experience are necessarily uncertain" but notes, "this evidence leaves no doubt that the consequences of states' decisions are far-reaching, with major implications for the health of their citizens and their economies."
Among the benefits, it says, is better access to health care for low-income residents. The report estimates that if all states that have not yet expanded Medicaid did so, 626,000 more people would get their cholesterol checked each year once the expanded coverage was in effect. This improved access to care would prevent 5,200 deaths every year. States that have already expanded Medicaid will avoid an estimated 5,000 deaths per year.
Medicaid expansion remains a contentious issue even in places where it has been touted as a success.
In Kentucky, which has gained national prominence as the only southern state to fully embrace Obamacare, two recent reports gave conflicting pictures of how Medicaid expansion has affected the state. A February report from
But a report last month by the Kentucky Hospital Association said Obamacare overall has left them facing billions of dollars in cuts and forced them to lay off staff and shut down services. Most of the newly-insured in the relatively poor state enrolled in Medicaid, which hospital officials said now pays 82% of the actual cost of treating patients. So even though hospitals are getting $506 million more in Medicaid payments, officials said, it costs $617 to provide care to those patients.
The number of people with coverage through Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) increased 2.2 million people from the start of the first open enrollment period under Obamacare through March 2015. From February to March alone, the number of people with Medicaid or CHIP coverage rose by more than 500,000 people.
- Jayne O'Donnell and Laura Ungar, USAToday
My take: The medicaid expansion would save 5200 lives relative to heart disease and that is enough reason for states not expanding medicaid subsidies to the poor to do so but just imagine the lives that would be saved by catching hidden cancer and any number of other life threatening diseases in time. Imagine the amount of misery and sickness that otherwise would be prevented. If you care about people that might be enough but if money is your primary concern then consider the improvement in workplace production when your workers are feeling healthy, getting to work on time and producing at their best. Imagine a workforce that feels cared for and feels like an appreciated member of society therein encouraging their hopes and dreams and other intangibles that undergird an ascending life. Imagine revived health free from the shackles of drugs. Imagine a workforce with the real freedom to go where their talents are best applied instead of a workforce compelled to get the quickest health insurance providing job available because they need health insurance immediately. Imagine freedom running a nation more efficiently.
Whether your ideology is wise or not is one thing but how you pursue the ends of your ideology may also be an issue of wisdom. Rethink it.
No comments :
Post a Comment