Skip to main content

Reforming Obamacare: What About a Per Capita Cap on Medicaid?

As Congress works through the challenge of changing Obamacare, how the federal government pays its share of Medicaid dollars will be part of the debate.

At first, Medicaid was designed primarily to offer to people with chronic conditions the long-term care benefits that Medicare did not. It pays much of our nationā€™s nursing home bill.  It was later expanded to provide safety net insurance to low income families, especially for women and children.

Medicaid is a federal/state partnership program. The states design their own programs within federally-established rules, and the federal government reimburses half (or more) of the stateā€™s cost.

The Affordable Care Act added a new wrinkle to the cost-sharing formula.  For those states that expanded the Medicaid program to serve even more people, including uninsured single adults, it offered 90+ percent reimbursement for the new populations.  To date, 32 states have expanded.

Whatā€™s wrong with Medicaid?

Medicaid costs the federal government a lot (more than $500 billion), and it is one of the biggest cost drivers of state budgets.

Also, with a few exceptions, it pays less to providers than Medicare and private insurance. This limits access for beneficiaries, and drives up the cost of private insurance.

In addition, as our population ages, the projected growth rate in Medicaid is high ā€“ up to 7.5% per year. It could become a trillion-dollar program over the next decade.

In reforming Medicaid, members of Congress have two goals ā€“ to improve access and to lower costs.

It is hard to do both at once.

Some have argued that we should create a Medicaid ā€œblock grant.ā€ The federal government would give states a fixed amount of money, adjusted annually for inflation, along with greater flexibility in benefit design to improve access.

But this isnā€™t sensitive to all the factors that influence a stateā€™s Medicaid costs, such as the differences in case mix across states.  Should a state be penalized for having an older or sicker population?

It also has the potential to shift costs to states, if the states canā€™t figure out how to design sets of services that are relatively cheap.

So, Congress will consider a ā€œper capitaā€ grant approach.  

The federal Medicaid share would be based on a per capita amount for everyone who is covered by Medicaid. This ā€œper capitaā€ amount could be adjusted for case mix severity. In other words, if the stateā€™s Medicaid population mix changed, the amount could change, too.

States could still get flexibility within the per capita allotment to cover different services, but the allotment would carry a lower inflation factor to bend the cost curve over time.  The chart illustrates how this might work.

The gray line represents the costs of the program in the states that did not expand, the blue line the costs in those that did.  The numbers arenā€™t intended to be exact or translated directly to dollars ā€“ just to reflect that in the base year, the federal costs in the expansion states are higher because of the added population. In both cases, we apply a 7.5% inflation factor for ten years and see that the disparity remains, while the federal cost roughly doubles.

The orange line represents the intended consequence of a per capita approach. In both expansion and non-expansion states, the federal share becomes the orange line.  Expansion states might get a little less per person at the start, and non-expansion states might get a little more ā€“ but neither would necessarily be cut from their base year level.

But if ā€“ and this is a big ā€œifā€ ā€“ you could use the promise of flexibility to limit the annual increase in the per capita grant to, say, 6%, then the orange line flattens just a little bit.

After ten years, that little bit would amount to a lot.

You are still spending far more than what you were spending ten years earlier.  But the difference between the orange line and the others represents billions of dollars in a projected trillion dollar Medicaid budget.

How could the orange line be flattened, while still improving access?

Whenever you reform, you create new incentives.

One incentive the per capita approach would create would be for states to enroll everyone who is eligible for the Medicaid program.  More enrollees mean more money.

And the only way to keep a lid on your cost per capita is to enroll people before they get too sick. So, there is a huge incentive to do more in prevention, early identification, and early intervention ā€“ and to cover more non-medical services with lower inflation rates.

Would the per capita approach work?

No one knows for sure. It depends on finding the right balance among base year spending, case mix adjustments, service flexibility, and inflation factors, and all that involves a lot of guess work.

Comments

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...