Skip to main content

Slaying the Medicaid Monster

Legislators have created a Medicaid monster, which eats up 22% or more of their state budgets.  Now they want to slay it. 
However, theyā€™re not seeing the real monster clearly.  Cutting the legs out from under Medicaid recipients isnā€™t the same as cutting the monster down to size.
A Florida bill illustrates how states are attacking the wrong things. 
Under a Florida Medicaid reform proposal, Medicaid patients would be charged $100 for non-emergency visits to a hospital emergency room.  The purpose is to save money by discouraging unreasonable use of emergency rooms. 
Nearly half of all visits to emergency rooms are for non-emergency reasons.  This is true of Medicaid patients, insured patients, and uninsured patients.  The main reason the percentage is so high isnā€™t that people choose to go to the emergency room for minor complaints.  Laypeople arenā€™t qualified to diagnose their own emergencies.  Health professionals tell them to use emergency room because itā€™s better to be safe than sorry.
Here are three true-life examples that illustrate the point.
  • A 56 year old man complains of chest discomfort and shortness of breath, and the paramedics who respond advise him to go to the hospital immediately.  Even though clinicians describe his symptoms as those of a classic heart attack, the tests are negative. It is a false alarm. 
  •  A 35 year old woman walks into the emergency room complaining of an upset stomach.  She is examined and advised to take an antacid.  She reports feeling better and is discharged. Several days later she is admitted to the hospital in severe pain, and is diagnosed with an ovarian cyst. 
  • Three times in two weeks, a young man enters the emergency room complaining of leg pain.  Clinicians suspect that he may be shopping for pain pills.  They find nothing wrong with his leg, and discharge him.  A few days later, the patient is in the hospital after attempting suicide.  His complaint was about his leg, but his problem was his mental illness.
Who is to say which of these patients shouldnā€™t have gone to the emergency room?    
When people need health care someone has to pay for it.  For too long, states have taken the position that this should be someone else.  Letting people at the poverty level shoulder more of the burden through $100 charges is just the latest strategy. 
This is because imposing a $100 charge on patients will cause care to be deferred, delayed, or denied.  People will try to wait out their emergencies.    
This wonā€™t matter to the 56 year old who didnā€™t have a heart attack.  Heā€™ll be fine the next day.  The woman with the ovarian cyst and the suicidal man wonā€™t be so lucky.
Medicaid isnā€™t a monster.  Itā€™s a lifeline for people who need health care. 
It is also a lifeline to the states.  It may absorb 22% of their budgets, but it also supplies 15% or more of their total projected state revenues.  The federal government reimbursed states for an average of 57% of their costs through 2009, 66% in 2010, and will pay 90-100% of the cost of program expansions under health reform. 
Like the governor of Texas, some Florida legislators are threatening to drop out of the Medicaid program unless the federal government agrees to let them cut Medicaid benefits to the elderly, children, and lower middle class families.  The Governor of Texas dropped this idea when his commissioner reported how much harm this would do to the state. 
The way for states to control Medicaid costs isnā€™t to make it harder for people to receive Medicaid benefits.  States need to fix the mistakes they have made over the years that have led to higher costs, not compound them. 
First, they reduced Medicaid reimbursement to physicians and other providers to such a low level that most dropped out of the program.  In many areas, the only Medicaid providers left are the hospitals, so thatā€™s where Medicaid recipients go for care.  To its credit, Florida is following the federal governmentā€™s lead and considering higher reimbursement rates for some providers.   
Second, they limited community care, home care, and non-health care options to people on the program, and refused Medicaid to people with mental illness, pushing them into higher-cost treatments.
Third, they forced recipients into managed care programs that did a better job of denying care than coordinating it, making the population sicker.
Fourth, they put healthier, working people with incomes slightly above the poverty level onto county and local programs that receive no federal reimbursement.
Despite the harm theyā€™ve done, some of these mistakes are still on lists of state-proposed ā€œreforms.ā€   
Thatā€™s the real Medicaid monster.

Comments

  1. Just a couple of comments: I think some of our legislators are over-simplifying the (apparent to me) complexities of the various factors that define health-seeking behaviors of individuals.
    Second, I think we have obviously forgotten how "the system" is supposed to work...health care providers are pivotal! You are right...why would we cut (no, SLASH) reimbursement rates (direct services) while costs associated with the program administration have not sustained such cuts?? Money has simply been moved from one pot to another...but it's still indirect.
    Finally, I think education is critical! I do feel that our ER's are over-utilized for non-emergencies; but, what serious health literacy efforts have ever been deployed to educate Medicaid recipients on appropriate health care utilization of their local system of care?? Adding to this is the fact that many people erroneously believe that a hospital HAS to treat them, so they access care at the place they believe they will not be turned away from, regardless of the ability to pay; whereas, if they access care in an outpatient setting, they may be subject to stricter adherence to the requirements for their "share of cost."

    Just two of my cents!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

For the Health of Our Community, Can We Plan More in Advance?

Mayor Florsheim has proposed a budget with a 2.7 mill increase for the coming fiscal year. This will mean an increase in taxes of approximately $500 per year for a home with a market value (not an assessed value) of $250,000, with larger increases for many homes in our city. While I appreciate the time and effort that went into his budget calculation, like many people I donā€™t believe that this is a sustainable increase on top of the increases of the past few years. What I appreciate even more is that the Mayor has invited members of the public to work together to offer their own perspective and suggestions to the City Council. In the past few weeks, I have offered several short-term suggestions, including a job freeze, a search for an alternative health insurance provider, and greater advocacy at the state level for fairer PILOT funding for Middletown. As an example, the Mayorā€™s budget proposes $77,800 for a Grantwriter versus zero from the Finance Department. Maybe we wait on that? ...

Veterans and Mental Illness

On a sultry June morning in our nationalā€™s capital last Friday, I visited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial .   Scores of people moved silently along the Wall, viewing the names of the men and women who died in that war.   Some stopped and took pictures.   One group of men about my age surrounded one name for a photo.   Two young women posed in front of another, perhaps a grandfather or great uncle they never got to meet. It is always an incredibly moving experience to visit the Wall.   It treats each of the people it memorializes with respect. There is no rank among those honored.   Officer or enlisted, rich or poor, each is given equal space and weight. It is a form of acknowledgement and respect for which many veterans still fight. Brave Vietnam veterans returned from Southeast Asia to educate our nation about the effects of war and violence. I didnā€™t know anything about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder when I entered the Connecticut Legislature in the...

Scapegoats and Concepts of a Plan: How Trump Fails Us

When a politician says he has ā€œconcepts of a planā€ instead of a plan, there is no plan. And yet, thatā€™s where we are with Donald Trump, nine years after he first launched a political campaign promising to replace Obamacare with something cheaper and better, nearly four years after he had four years to try to do just that. And fail. Doubling down during Tuesdayā€™s debate, he claimed he had ā€œconcepts of a planā€ to replace Obamacare. Really? Heā€™s got nothing. In fact, he sounds just like Nixon sounded in 1968, when he claimed he had a ā€œsecretā€ plan to get us out of Vietnam. That turned out to be no plan at all (remember ā€œVietnamization?ā€) and cost us seven more years there and tens of thousands of lives. The Affordable Care Act, about which I wrote plenty in this blog a decade or more ago, wasnā€™t perfect. But it was a whole lot better than what we had before it ā€“ and anything (save a public option) that has been proposed since. Back then, insurers could deny coverage because of pre-exi...