Skip to main content

States Expanding Medicaid Face Challenges of Their Own

Last week, I wrote about the states that have decided not to expand Medicaid this year.  The decision will cost them in money and lives. 

But the 24 (and counting) states that have chosen to expand Medicaid will face challenges of their own.  As a new article in Health Affairs Blog reveals, expanding states will have plenty to do to assure that the benefits of expansion reach those most in need.

The article, entitled Lessons of Early Medicaid Expansions Under the Affordable Care Act, reviews the experiences of five states and the District of Columbia in expanding Medicaid benefits to additional populations using authority granted to them under Obamacare.  The five states were Connecticut, California, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Washington.

All of the states were able to capture federal dollars to support state or local low-income insurance programs.  But, according to the authors, there were seven lessons these states learned that could be warning signs to other states banking on the savings.

One lesson was that they could not predict the size of their eligible populations as well as they thought they could.

For example, when Connecticut’s expansion was approved in 2010, it was estimated that 45,000 people would be affected.  By May of 2013, over 90,000 had been enrolled.  So while Connecticut may have saved $50 million on the first 45,000; it may have spent all of that on the second.

Connecticut will still benefit in the long run – the original expansion took place under the old federal reimbursement rate.  Higher reimbursement begins in 2014.

But I spoke recently with one former state official, who echoed the concerns of others.  He said that taking into consideration all of the state’s financial difficulties in recent years, perhaps the state should have waited to expand.

Another lesson was that it was not as easy to enroll newly eligible people as the states thought it would be.

On the surface, enrollment seemed straightforward enough.  If a person’s income was below a certain cut-off – 138 percent of poverty – he or she was eligible under the expansion and could enroll.

But this presumes that people are following the news as closely as our public officials do.  And it also presumes that they can easily calculate how much income 138 percent of poverty means for them, taking into account their own family situation.  Finally, it presumes that they can get to the right place to file an application and verify their income, their address, and other information.

Beyond that, once they were enrolled, they often moved or had other changes in their status.  And that meant making certain that the state found them at their new address and captured up-to-date information.

The federal government anticipated these challenges when it provided for more navigators to assist with enrollment.  But not every state is on board with the widespread use of navigators. Even though Florida chose not to expand Medicaid, it still passed a law this year placing some unnecessary and onerous registration requirements on the new navigators.  States following Florida’s lead may discourage both Medicaid and private insurance enrollment in general.

The authors also found that expanding states were covering more people with mental illnesses than they anticipated.

To anyone following the implementation of Obamacare closely, this is no surprise.  The mental health coverage required by both Obamacare and the soon-to-be-implemented Mental Health Parity Act is far more generous – and fairer – than it has ever been.

The authors think that the jury is out on whether every expanding state will experience this.  The early expanders typically focused on very poor people, and there may be more people with mental illness in this group than in the poor and near-poor populations most affected by Medicaid expansion.  We will find out soon enough whether this is so.

Finally, the authors also noted that the political context for expansion is important. 

At bottom, states that want to provide coverage to more people will find a way to do it.  Those that do not, will not.

But in every state, the political drumbeat for better coverage is going to get louder over the next year or two.  

And, according to the authors, the drumbeat may be loudest among the safety net providers.  Hospitals and community health centers have the most to gain by expansion, and the most to lose in states where the numbers of uninsured remain the highest.

Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/ 

Comments

  1. This should be interesting...
    At bottom, states that want to provide coverage to more people will find a way to do it.  Those that do not, will not.
    I know where CT stands as far as this piece. From what I've seen so far is the benefits are substandard compared to typical insurance plans. Also it Iooked like the deductible was very high making it unaffordable for many. I am watching this like a hawk. CT is not making decisions in the best interest of the disadvantaged as far as I have experienced raising a disabled child. I hope that Obamacare levels the playing field.
    What is the reimbursement rate for 2014 ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. My friend told me about your blog and I like you after reading it. Many thanks for what you have supplied.

    Lumigan

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Missing Mental Health Element in the Ferguson Story

By now, everyone has heard the news from Ferguson, Missouri.  An unarmed 18 year old named Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer.  Michael Brown was black. Some of the events surrounding the shooting are in dispute.  But what isn’t in dispute is that for the past two weeks, a community has been torn apart by race – a community that until recently was best known for its proximity to St. Louis and its designation as a Playful City, USA . Picture credit: Health Affairs Media reports since the August 9 th shooting have focused almost entirely on one angle – race relations.  We’ve heard about unrest in the city, the National Guard, police in riot gear, and danger in the streets.  We’ve heard about the District Attorney’s ties to law enforcement, and concerns that a too-white Grand Jury may be racially motivated not to indict the police officer involved in the deadly shooting. But the media have been strangely silent about a different angle – this comm

Celebrating Larissa Gionfriddo Podermanski Five Years Later

My daughter Larissa died of Metastatic Breast Cancer five years ago, in May of 2018.  She had only two wishes at the end. One was that we plant a tree for her. We did - in a Middletown CT city park - and it has grown straight and tall. The other was that she not be forgotten. Larissa's family and friends took pains to reassure that she could not be forgotten. If you were fortunate enough to know Larissa, you would know why. Still, I wondered how I might celebrate her a little more now that some years have passed, while sharing some of her memorable spirit with others (some who knew her and others who did not), while reminding us why she was such an extraordinary woman. In early 2017, Larissa started a blog called Metastatically Speaking, through which she chronicled her life with MBC. Unfortunately - and through no one's fault - her blog disappeared some time after her death. So, if you search for it now, you can't find it.  However, I was fortunate enough to see and retain

Judgment Day

Ironic. I was not as nervous as you would think on April 23 rd .  Martin, my mother and I drove up to Dana Farber.  All weekend I wanted plan for Poland, Barbados and Florida, as we brainstormed ideas of what could be attainable or possible. I started to realize I looked pregnant… but that couldn’t be. When the appointment began I noticed it felt like a routine visit. Everything went smoothly, but what were we focusing on? It was this: if I did nothing the outlook for me was living three weeks to a few months longer. So, is that my only option, I wanted to know?   No, I was told we can try a low dose chemo and see how it works.   Since it is low dose, they said, it won’t do much harm, but we truly don’t know how it will work. It’s not a treatment we have used a lot at low dose and technically you are in liver failure, leaving you with limited options.   Of course, the goal would still be to get you to be stable; however, this is a blind treatment. We don’t know if this approach w