Medicaid Expansion: Texas Should Chart Its Own Course

Document technical information

Format pdf
Size 1,8 MB
First found фев 4, 2016

Document content analysis

Language
English
Type
not defined
Concepts

United States wikipedia, lookup

Health care wikipedia, lookup

Health insurance wikipedia, lookup

Medicaid wikipedia, lookup

Economics wikipedia, lookup

Transcript

N AT I O N A L C E N T E R F O R P O L I C Y A N A LY S I S
Medicaid Expansion: Texas Should
Chart Its Own Course
Policy Report No. 363
by Devon M. Herrick
January 2015
The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) required each state
to expand Medicaid eligibility to individuals and families with incomes up to
138 percent of the federal poverty level or risk losing federal funding for its entire
Medicaid program. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that provision of
Obamacare unconstitutional.
Executive Summary
As a result, Texas and other states that have not expanded Medicaid
eligibility have more options to tailor the program to better meet their unique
needs.
The ACA also provides generous, sliding-scale subsidies for low- to
middle-income individuals to purchase private coverage in a governmentoperated health insurance exchange. Exchange subsidies are more generous,
and more valuable, than Medicaid:
Dallas Headquarters:
14180 Dallas Parkway, Suite 350
Dallas, TX 75254
972.386.6272
www.ncpa.org
Washington Office:
600 Pennsylvania SE, #400
Washington, DC 20003
202.830.0177
ISBN #1-56808-246-0
www.ncpa.org/pub/st363
■■ Exchange enrollees are getting a subsidy that, on average, is roughly
50 percent greater than the value of Medicaid coverage ($9,000
versus $6,000).
■■ In the exchange, an individual or family earning at the federal poverty
level is required to pay (at most) 2 percent of their income toward a
private health plan that might otherwise cost a family of four $14,500
or more annually outside the exchange.
■■ However, there are no exchange subsidies for people earning below
100 percent of the poverty level — because they are expected to
enroll in Medicaid — and families earning from 100 percent to 138
percent of poverty are not eligible for subsidies if they are eligible for
coverage under their state Medicaid program.
On paper, Medicaid coverage appears far better than the private health
coverage most Americans enjoy, with little or no cost-sharing and unlimited
benefits. However, nearly one-third of Texas physicians do not accept new
Medicaid patients. If more people are added to the Medicaid rolls and new
patients flood doctors with requests for appointments, access to care for
existing (and future) Medicaid enrollees would likely decrease even more.
Proponents of Medicaid expansion often tout the “economic benefits”
that additional federal Medicaid funds might create within states. A study
by economist Robert Book found that rather than stimulating the economy,
Medicaid expansion is a drain on employment and slows economic growth.
Medicaid Expansion: Texas Should Chart Its Own Course
If all states expanded Medicaid, his analysis shows Texas
would suffer a $46 billion negative economic impact over
10 years. Moreover, Texas employment losses would
amount to 54,445 work-years from 2014 to 2017.
In states which expand Medicaid eligibility to all legal
residents earning from 100 percent to 138 percent of
poverty, many of the new enrollees will be individuals
who previously had private coverage. Crowd-out (or
substitution) occurs when people who are already covered
by employer or individual insurance drop that coverage
to take advantage of the public option. An analysis of past
Medicaid expansions to mothers and children in the early
1990s by recent Obama administration advisers David
Cutler and Jonathan Gruber found that when Medicaid
eligibility was expanded, 50 percent to 75 percent of the
newly enrolled dropped private coverage. A conservative
estimate is that Medicaid rolls might have to rise by 1.4
people in order to reduce the uninsured by 1 person.
Furthermore, private insurers pay much higher
physician fees than state Medicaid programs. If more
Texas residents were privately insured, the Texas health
care economy — local doctors and hospitals — could
expect far more generous reimbursements from private
insurers than under Medicaid. A rule of thumb is that
private insurers generally pay fees at least 50 percent
higher — and often double — what Medicaid pays.
Certainly, not all who qualify would enroll. But if merely
600,000 uninsured Texans with incomes above 100
percent of poverty enrolled in private coverage in the
exchange rather than in an expanded Medicaid program,
health care providers will receive roughly $25 billion more
over 10 years than Medicaid would have paid them.
In Texas, stakeholders composed primarily of hospitals
and other providers have proposed a compromise solution
they claim would cover the nearly one million individuals
that fall in the coverage gap. The proposal, promoted under
the banner “The Texas Way,” includes: 1) sliding-scale
subsidies for low-income individuals to obtain coverage in
the private market; 2) cost-sharing to encourage wellness
and penalize inappropriate or unnecessary medical
utilization; 3) chronic disease management; and 4) small
business subsidies. Supporters claim their proposal
shares ideas with the Healthy Indiana plan, often touted
by conservatives as a better alternative to traditional
Medicaid.
Though it depends on how the program is implemented,
some of the goals of the Texas Way are consistent with
those of conservative Texans who oppose Medicaid
expansion. The outgoing governor’s office backed a
proposal for a federal block grant that would allow
Texas greater flexibility in its Medicaid program (and
county indigent health care programs). A block grant
might include some of the provisions in the Texas Way
proposal. However, much work needs to be done to align
the disparate stakeholders’ goals. Certainly, Congressional
Budget Office projections following the 2012 Supreme
Court decision assumed many states would negotiate with
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to
innovate state Medicaid programs.
Texas made the wise choice to forgo cookie-cutter
Medicaid expansion in favor of a tailored program that
would maximize the availability of private coverage for
low-income residents. The states should work toward a
program that meets its unique needs.
About the Author
Devon M. Herrick is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis. He concentrates on such health
care issues as Internet-based medicine, health insurance and the uninsured, and pharmaceutical drug issues. His
research interests also include managed care, patient empowerment, medical privacy and technology-related issues.
Herrick is past Chair of the Health Economics Roundtable of the National Association for Business
Economics.
Herrick received a Doctor of Philosophy in Political Economy degree and a Master of Public Affairs degree from
the University of Texas at Dallas with a concentration in economic development. He also holds a Master of Business
Administration degree with a concentration in finance from Oklahoma City University and an M.B.A. from Amber
University, as well as a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting from the University of Central Oklahoma.
2
Introduction
A well-known provision of
the 2010 Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (ACA) required
states to expand Medicaid eligibility
to individuals with incomes up to
138 percent of the federal poverty
level (FPL) or face the loss of
matching funds for the joint federalstate health program for the poor.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that provision of Obamacare
unconstitutional.1 As a result, a
number of states have opted not to
expand Medicaid eligibility or, as
Wisconsin has done, have reduced
eligibility to the federal poverty level,
allowing many low-income residents
earning above poverty to access
private coverage rather than be forced
into Medicaid.2
For states choosing to expand
Medicaid eligibility to 138 percent of
the FPL, the federal government will
pay 100 percent of the cost of benefits
for newly eligible enrollees through
2016.3 The enhanced federal match
will drop to 90 percent by the end of
the decade and thereafter.4 However,
states that choose not to expand
eligibility to 138 percent of poverty
will receive their historic matching
rate for new enrollees, rather than
the enhanced rate.5 (The Federal
Medical Assistance Percentage for
states ranges from 50 percent to 73
percent.)6 In addition to enhanced
federal matching for Medicaid
expansion, other provisions of the
ACA provide generous, sliding-scale
subsidies for low- to middle-income
individuals to purchase private
health coverage in a health insurance
exchange operated by the state or
federal government.
Exchange Subsidies Are More
Generous than Medicaid. The ACA
requires individuals with incomes
below 138 percent ($15,556) of
poverty to enroll in Medicaid if it is
available in their state. Individuals
and families who are legal residents,
who lack access to an employerprovided health plan and are
ineligible for Medicaid may purchase
coverage in the exchange.7 In the
exchange, subsidies are available
to individuals and families with
incomes below 400 percent of the
FPL — just over $95,400 for a family
of four in 2014. However, there are
no exchange subsidies for people
earning below 100 percent of poverty
because they are expected to enroll in
Medicaid.
The subsidies in the exchange
are very generous. At most, a lowincome individual or family earning
at the federal poverty level will be
required to pay 2 percent of income
toward a private health plan that
would otherwise cost a family of four
$14,500 or more annually. Consider
what this means [see Figure I]:8
■■ Two percent of annual income
is $233 for an individual at the
poverty level.
■■ Two percent of annual income
is $310 for someone earning
133 percent of a poverty-level
income.
■■ For a family of four, 2 percent
of a poverty-level income is
$477, while 2 percent of income
for families earning 133 percent
of poverty is $634.
Certainly, this represents a
significant amount of money for lowincome families. For instance, a $477
premium payment by a family of four
at 100 percent of the federal poverty
level is $119 per year per family
member, while a family of four at 133
percent of the federal poverty level
would pay $159.
However, exchange enrollees are
getting a subsidy that, on average, is
roughly 50 percent greater ($9,000
versus $6,000) than the value of
Medicaid.9 Indeed, the Congressional
Budget Office initially projected that
about half of the potential newly
eligible Medicaid population would
reside in states that would only
partially expand Medicaid, choosing
not to expand eligibility above 100
percent of poverty.10
Benefits to Health Care
Providers. If Texas residents were
privately insured, they would have
easier access to doctors willing to
treat them. That is because the Texas
health care economy — local doctors
and hospitals — could expect far
more generous reimbursements from
private insurers than Medicaid. How
much more? Although it varies by
state (and insurer), a rule of thumb
is that private insurers generally pay
fees at least 50 percent higher —
and often double — what Medicaid
pays.11 Texas Medicaid physician fees
are about 53 percent of what a private
insurer would pay for the same
service.12
Because of the greater subsidy in
the exchange and the contributions
toward their premiums by the
individuals covered, there will
3
Medicaid Expansion: Texas Should Chart Its Own Course
Figure I
Maximum Cost for Coverage in the Exchange
(Second-Lowest Cost Silver Plan)
$634
Individual
Family of
Four
$477
$310
$233
100% of Poverty
133% of Poverty
Source: Author's calculations.
be more funds available for the
health care of individuals in the
exchange than if they were covered
by Medicaid. Certainly, not all who
would be eligible would enroll—
take-up of public programs varies
from one state to another. But, if
600,000 uninsured Texans with
incomes above 100 percent of
poverty enroll in private coverage
in the exchange rather than in an
expanded Medicaid program, health
care providers will receive roughly
$25 billion more over 10 years than
Medicaid would have paid them.13
Why Not Expand Medicaid? On
paper, Medicaid coverage appears far
better than the private health coverage
most Americans enjoy, with lower
cost-sharing and unlimited benefits.14
However, Medicaid enrollees fare
worse than similar patients with
private insurance.15 They tend to be
4
in poorer health and face barriers to
care.
Poor Access to Care. Studies
across the United States show it is
easier for the uninsured to make
doctors’ appointments than it is for
Medicaid enrollees.16 [See Figure II.]
■■ Nearly one-third of physicians
do not accept new Medicaid
patients.17
■■ This is nearly double the
portion of doctors who have
closed their practices to new
Medicare patients (17 percent)
and to new privately insured
patients (18 percent).18
■■ Physicians are four times
more likely to turn away new
Medicaid patients as they are
to refuse the uninsured who
pay out-of-pocket (31 percent
versus 8 percent).19
According to a 2011 survey, nearly
one-third of Texas physicians are
not accepting new Medicaid patients
— similar to the national average.
However, according to a more recent
survey, the proportion of specialty
physicians who accept Medicaid
in large urban areas is much lower.
Texas-based physician recruiter
Merritt Hawkins surveyed specialty
physicians in 15 major American
cities, including Dallas and Houston.
Across the specialties surveyed,
Merritt Hawkins found the average
Medicaid acceptance rate was only
23 percent in Dallas and 56 percent
in Houston. This means that just over
three-quarters of Dallas specialty
physicians and 44 percent of Houston
specialists surveyed do not accept
Medicaid patients.20
In addition, the Health and Human
Services Office of Inspector General
recently found that half the doctors
listed as affiliated providers for
Medicaid managed care plans were
not in a position to provide care to
enrollees who called seeking an
appointment. More than one-third of
listed physicians were no longer at the
listed location, while 8 percent did not
participate in the plan. An additional
8 percent were participating in the
plan but were not accepting new
Medicaid enrollees.21 If more people
are added to the Medicaid rolls and
new patients flood doctors with
requests for appointments, access to
care for Medicaid enrollees would
likely decrease even more.
Low Medicaid Provider Fees.
Low reimbursement rates are one
of several factors contributing to
the shortage of physicians willing
to treat Medicaid enrollees.22 On
average, Medicare pays 81 percent
— and Medicaid 53 percent — of
what private insurers pay physicians.
[See Figure III.] For primary care,
Texas Medicaid only pays just under
half (49 percent) as much as private
insurers for the same service.23
As with low Medicare
reimbursements, Medicaid fees often
do not cover the cost to physicians
of treating enrollees. Physicians
must have more highly reimbursed,
privately-insured patients to offset the
lower fees paid by Medicaid. Low
provider reimbursement rates make it
more difficult for Medicaid enrollees
to find physicians willing to treat
them, limiting their access to care. If
more people are placed in Medicaid,
many more physicians will balk at
accepting them.
Nonexistent Stimulus. Proponents
of Medicaid expansion often
tout the “economic benefits” that
additional federal Medicaid funds
might create within states.24 A
common argument stakeholders use
to encourage state policymakers to
expand Medicaid is that an influx
of federal money is a stimulus that
creates jobs. For instance, one Texas
economist estimates that Medicaid
expansion could create 300,000
jobs in Texas. Another consultant
claims it would generate nearly
$68 billion in “economic output.”25
Implausibly, one group even argued
Medicaid expansion would prevent
the untimely death of nearly 6,000
Texans in 2014.26 And one advocacy
group contended Medicaid expansion
would generate productivity gains
from workers taking “fewer sick
days.”27
There is little evidence to support
predictions that Medicaid dollars
boost job growth beyond the industry
that experiences the influx. Indeed,
analysis by Altarum, a health
consultancy, found that health care
employment growth was actually
greater in states that did not expand
Medicaid.28 A study by economist
Robert Book found that rather than
stimulating the economy, Medicaid
expansion is a drain on employment
and slows economic growth.29 If
all states expanded Medicaid, his
analysis shows Texas would suffer
a $46 billion negative impact on
economic activity from 2014 to 2023.
Moreover, employment losses would
number 54,445 work-years from
2014 to 2017.30
In reality, economists have always
found it difficult to identify the
economic value of activities that are
generally assumed to have beneficial
spillover effects in industries far
removed from the initial spending.
For instance, a macroeconomic study
published by the National Bureau of
Economic Research indicates that,
since 1950, government defense
spending has actually reduced
national economic output below what
it would have been otherwise.31
Economist Lauren Cohen and
her colleagues also found that the
multiplier from additional federal
spending might be negative.
Increased government spending
also crowds out the private sector
by competing with it for labor and
reducing private investment in
research and development.32
The ACA includes substantial
tax increases that potentially reduce
federal and state revenues needed
to finance both existing Medicaid
and any Medicaid expansion. State
officials should keep in mind that
models predicting large economic
Figure II
Physicians Not Accepting New Patients
(by Type of Insurance)
31%
18%
17%
8%
Medicaid
Private
Medicare
Uninsured
Source: Sandra L. Decker, “In 2011 Nearly One-Third Of Physicians Said They Would Not Accept New Medicaid Patients, But Rising Fees
May Help,” Health Affairs, Vol. 31, No. 8, August 2012, pages 1,673-1,679.
5
Medicaid Expansion: Texas Should Chart Its Own Course
Healthy Indiana
Healthy Indiana is a Medicaid pilot project that has been in limited
use since 2008. An updated version, Healthy Indiana 2.0, is currently
awaiting approval from the U.S Department of Health and Human
Services. The original version coupled high-deductible plans with a type
of personal health account called a Power Account. Indiana deposits
$1,100 into the account for enrollees to use toward their deductibles.
Enrollees are also required to make monthly contributions into their
Power Accounts. Contributions range from $3 to $25, to use toward costsharing under the deductible. Thus, enrollees have an incentive to use
medical services carefully, because unnecessary care would deplete their
Power Accounts and require additional out-of-pocket costs. The insurer
that administers the Medicaid plan reports reduced Emergency Room
utilization — a persistent problem in traditional Medicaid programs.
The insurer also pays higher reimbursements, which improves enrollees’
access to care.41 HHS has extended the original Healthy Indiana program
until December 31, 2015.42
increases from reallocated federal
spending generally ignore the fact
that the money must come from
somewhere. Economic impact
studies tend to overlook the fact that
additional federal spending crowds
out private activity and depends on
additional government revenues
extracted from the private sector.
For instance, an additional $1.00 of
federal spending to Texas is financed
by equal tax liabilities on all states.
Such results suggest the net effect of
the new health law will be a decline
in national gross domestic product
as the federal government consumes
a larger share of national income to
fund its programs. Basically, people
will cut their other consumption to
pay the increased tax burden.
Displaces Private Insurance.
In states which expand Medicaid
eligibility to all legal residents earning
from 100 percent to 138 percent of
poverty, many of the new enrollees
6
will be individuals who previously
had private coverage. Crowd-out (or
substitution) occurs when people
who are already covered by employer
or individual insurance drop that
coverage to take advantage of the
public option. Crowd-out is likely to
be a significant problem for states that
expand Medicaid eligibility to adults
who are not disabled. Estimates of
crowd-out are controversial among
analysts. Some researchers predict
a high rate of Medicaid substitution
for private coverage, while others
believe the effect will be negligible.
Estimates of crowd-out for diverse
populations vary:
■■ An analysis of past Medicaid
expansions to mothers and
children in the early 1990s
by economists and Obama
administration advisers David
Cutler and Jonathan Gruber
found that when Medicaid
eligibility was expanded, 50
percent to 75 percent of the
newly enrolled dropped private
coverage.33
■■ A recent analysis by Gruber and
Kosali Simon estimated crowdout for the Children’s Health
Insurance Program averages
about 60 percent.34
■■ Academic researchers Steven
Pizer, Austin Frakt and Lisa
Iezzoni estimated the crowd-out
of working adults (the target of
Medicaid expansion under the
ACA) could reach 82 percent.35
■■ Thus, a conservative estimate is
that Medicaid rolls might have
to rise by 1.4 people in order
to reduce the uninsured by one
person.36
Who Is Left Out? Estimates
vary, but maybe 5.3 million adults
and children lack health coverage in
Texas. More than 1 million of those
are thought to be undocumented
immigrants who are ineligible
for either exchange subsidies or
Medicaid. Approximately 3.8 million
have incomes above 100 percent of
the poverty level.37 Many of these
likely qualify for exchange subsidies.
The so-called coverage gap applies
to those with incomes above the state
Medicaid eligibility level but below
the poverty level (where eligibility
for exchange subsidies begins).
According to the Kaiser Family
Foundation, 948,000 Texas adults fall
into the coverage gap.38
Stakeholders’ Proposals.
Stakeholders composed primarily of
hospitals and other providers have
proposed a compromise solution they
claim would cover the nearly one
million individuals who fall in the
coverage gap.39 Those who fall into
the coverage gap are mostly lowincome adults — about two-thirds of
whom don’t have dependent children.
The compromise proposal, promoted
under the banner “The Texas Way,”
includes: 1) sliding-scale subsidies
that allow low-income individuals to
obtain coverage in the private market;
2) use of cost-sharing to encourage
wellness and penalize inappropriate
or unnecessary medical utilization; 3)
chronic disease management; and 4)
small business subsidies. Supporters
claim their proposal shares ideas
with the Healthy Indiana plan often
touted by conservatives as a better
alternative to traditional Medicaid.40
[See the sidebar, “Healthy Indiana.”]
The Texas Way also bears some
resemblance to a two-year pilot
project in Tennessee. Tennessee has
received approval for a waiver that
would allow it to use federal funds
to subsidize low-income individuals’
contributions to employer-sponsored
health insurance. Some other
individuals would have access to a
special program called TennCare,
which features cost-sharing and
incentives for individuals to take
preventive measures. Income
eligibility for the Tennessee program
would be capped at about the same
level as under the ACA.43
Depending on how the Texas Way
program were implemented, some
of its goals could be consistent with
the aims of conservative Texans who
oppose expanding Medicaid under the
ACA provisions. Outgoing Governor
Rick Perry backed a proposal for a
federal block grant that would allow
Texas greater
flexibility to tailor
its Medicaid
(and county
indigent health
care) programs.44
The block grant
request could
include some of
the provisions
in the Texas
Way proposal.45
However, much
work needs to
be done to align
the disparate
stakeholders’
goals.
Figure III
Physician Reimbursement
(as % of Private Insurer Fees)
81%
53%
Medicare
Medicaid
Source: Author’s calculations using data from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Lewin Group. See “Medicaid-to-
Medicare Fee Index, 2012,” Kaiser Family Foundation.
Hospital
groups arguably
want to boost
patients with private insurance and
federal reimbursements to hospitals
often experience worse health issues
— not more efficiently manage the
than patients with no insurance. Texas
funds already spent on poor Texans.
made a wise choice when it decided
As more states hold out, the
U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services may entertain
novel programs that afford states
more control — and responsibility
for cost overruns. Certainly, the
Congressional Budget Office
assumed the 2012 Supreme Court
decision allowing states to opt out of
Medicaid expansion would result in
more negotiated experiments between
HHS and state Medicaid programs.46
Conclusion
On paper, Medicaid coverage
appears far better than what most
Americans enjoy — with lower costsharing and unlimited benefits. But
by almost all measures, Medicaid
enrollees fare worse than similar
to forgo a cookie-cutter Medicaid
expansion in favor of a tailored
program that would maximize the
availability of private coverage
for Texas’ low-income residents.
Individuals earning above the federal
poverty level are better off having
access to subsidized private coverage
in the federal exchange.
For uninsured individuals living
below the poverty level, Texas needs
a unique solution. Much remains to
be done. However, Texans should not
be tempted to go after the cash grab
of Medicaid expansion. Rather, the
state should work toward a program
that meets its unique needs.
7
Medicaid Expansion: Texas Should Chart Its Own Course
Notes
MaryBeth Musumeci, “A Guide to the Supreme Court’s Affordable Care Act Decision,” Kaiser Family Foundation, July 2012. Available
at http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8332.pdf. Also see I. Glenn Cohen and James F. Blumstein, “The Constitutionality of the ACA’s
Medicaid-Expansion Mandate,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 366, No. 2, January 12, 2012, pages 103-104.
1.
Devon M. Herrick, “Medicaid Expansion: Wisconsin Got It Right,” National Center for Policy Analysis, Issue Brief No. 151, October 7, 2014.
Available at http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ib151.
2.
Eligibility is technically cut off at 133 percent of the FPL, but individuals with incomes up to 138 percent of poverty may be eligible, due to a 5
percent income disregard.
3.
4.
Future Congresses have the right to renew, alter or cancel the federal match.
Robin Rudowitz, Samantha Artiga and MaryBeth Musumeci, “The ACA and Recent Section 1115 Medicaid Demonstration Waivers,” Kaiser
Family Foundation, February 5, 2014. Available at http://kff.org/report-section/the-aca-and-recent-section-1115-medicaid-demonstration-waiversissue-brief/.
5.
“Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for Medicaid and Multiplier,” Kaiser Family Foundation, FY 2015. Available at http://kff.org/
medicaid/state-indicator/federal-matching-rate-and-multiplier/.
6.
7.
MaryBeth Musumeci, “A Guide to the Supreme Court’s Affordable Care Act Decision.”
“Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines,” Federal Register, January 22, 2014. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/
articles/2014/01/22/2014-01303/annual-update-of-the-hhs-poverty-guidelines.
8.
Charles Blahous, “Medicaid Under the Affordable Care Act,” in Jason J. Fichtner, ed., The Economics of Medicaid: Assessing the Cost and
Consequences (Arlington, Va.: Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 2014), pages 83-97. Also see “Estimates for the Insurance Coverage
Provisions of the Affordable Care Act Updated for the Recent Supreme Court Decision,” Congressional Budget Office, July 2012, page 4.
Available at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/43472-07-24-2012-CoverageEstimates.pdf.
9.
10.
“Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act Updated for the Recent Supreme Court Decision.”
The two exceptions are Alaska and Wyoming. Texas Medicaid fee-for-service physician fees are only about 65 cents on the dollar of what
Medicare reimburses a physician for the same service. Medicare reimburses physicians about 81 percent of what a private insurer reimburses
physicians for the same service. See “Medicaid-to-Medicare Fee Index, 2012,” StateHealthFacts.org, Kaiser Family Foundation. Available at
http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/medicaid-to-medicare-fee-index/.
11.
Ibid. For all services, Texas physician fees are about 65 percent of what Medicare pays for the same service. Medicare pays about 81 percent of
what private insurers pay [0.65*0.81=0.53].
12.
Author’s calculations based on 600,000 new exchange enrollees earning above 100 percent of poverty. Medicaid take-up varies from state-tostate. Estimated take up ranges from 55 percent to 75 percent. Private insurers tend to pay fees that are often double the physician fees paid by feefor-service Medicaid. Thus, the amount of funds spent on care should be higher under private coverage than if that individual was on Medicaid.
13.
Evelyne P. Baumrucker and Bernadette Fernandez, “Comparing Medicaid and Exchanges: Benefits and Costs for Individuals and Families,”
Congressional Research Service, February 28, 2013. Available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42978.pdf.
14.
Kevin Dayaratna, “Studies Show: Medicaid Patients Have Worse Access and Outcomes than the Privately Insured,” Heritage Foundation,
November 7, 2012. Available at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/11/studies-show-medicaid-patients-have-worse-access-andoutcomes-than-the-privately-insured.
15.
Brent R. Asplin et al., “Insurance Status and Access to Urgent Ambulatory Care Follow-up Appointments,” Journal of the American Medical
Association, Vol. 294, No. 10, September 14, 2005. Available at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/10/1248.
16.
17.
8
Sandra L. Decker, “In 2011 Nearly One-Third Of Physicians Said They Would Not Accept New Medicaid Patients, But Rising Fees May
Help,” Health Affairs, Vol. 31, No. 8, August 2012, pages 1,673-1,679.
18.
Ibid.
19.
Ibid.
“Physician Appointment Wait Times and Medicaid and Medicare Acceptance Rates,” 2014 Survey, Merritt Hawkins, 2014. Available at http://
www.merritthawkins.com/uploadedFiles/MerrittHawkings/Surveys/mha2014waitsurvPDF.pdf.
20.
Vincent Greiber et al., “Access to Care: Provider Availability in Medicaid Managed Care,” Office of Inspector General, Department of Health
and Human Services, Publication OEI-02-13-00670, December 2014. Available at http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-02-13-00670.pdf.
21.
Peter J. Cunningham and Len M. Nichols, “The Effects of Medicaid Reimbursement on the Access to Care of Medicaid Enrollees: A
Community Perspective,” Medical Care Research and Review, Vol. 62, No. 6, December 2005.
22.
Author’s calculations using data from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Lewin Group. See “Medicaid-to-Medicare Fee Index, 2012,”
Kaiser Family Foundation. Available at http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/medicaid-to-medicare-fee-index/.
23.
For instance, the argument follows that federal money is a multiplier of state spending. The effect ripples throughout the economy from
health care providers to their vendors and employees. See “The Role of Medicaid in State Economies: A Look at the Research,” Kaiser Family
Foundation, January 2009.
24.
Anne Dunkelberg, “Medicaid Expansion Resource Guide: All the Latest on the Costs and Benefits for Texas,” Center for Public Policy
Priorities, February 2013. Available at http://forabettertexas.org/images/HC_2013_02_PP_MedicaidExpansion.pdf.
25.
“Lives and Livelihoods Lost: The High Cost of Rejecting Medicaid Expansion,” Health Care for America Now, December 2013. Available at
http://usaction.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/4/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Medicaid10.pdf.
26.
27.
Families USA, February 2013.
28.
Melanie Evans, “Economists Find No Evidence that Medicaid Expansion Adds Healthcare Jobs,” Modern Healthcare, November 26, 2014.
Robert Book, “Expanding Medicaid Will Not Stimulate the Economy or Create Jobs,” American Action Forum, December 11, 2014. Available
at http://americanactionforum.org/research/expanding-medicaid-will-not-stimulate-the-economy-or-create-jobs.
29.
Ibid. Table 1 and Table 2. In an email, Dr. Book explained that using methodology similar to the President’s Council of Economic Advisor’s
economic model implies that this negative economic impact would amount to 54,445 work-years from 2014 to 2017.
30.
Robert J. Barro and Charles J. Redlick, “Macroeconomic Effects from Government Purchases and Taxes,” National Bureau of Economic
Research, Working Paper No. 15369, September 2009. Available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w15369.
31.
Lauren Cohen, Joshua Coval and Christopher Malloy, “Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?” National Bureau of Economic
Research, Working Paper No. 15839, March 2010. Available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w15839.
32.
David Cutler and Jonathan Gruber, “Does Public Insurance Crowd Out Private Insurance?” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 111, No. 2,
May 1996, pages 391-430.
33.
The actual rate varied depending on the conditions governing expansion and the populations covered. Jonathan Gruber and Kosali Simon,
“Crowd-Out 10 Years Later: Have Recent Public Insurance Expansions Crowded Out Private Health Insurance?” Journal of Health Economics,
Vol. 27, 2008, pages 201-217.
34.
Steven D. Pizer, Austin B. Frakt and Lisa I. Iezzoni, “The Effect of Health Reform on Public and Private Insurance in the Long Run,” Health
Care Financing & Economics, Working Paper No. 2011-03, February 17, 2011. Available at http://www.hcfe.research.va.gov/docs/ wp_2011_03.
pdf.
35.
A ratio of 1.4 new Medicaid enrollees to reduce the uninsured by 1 assumes a crowd-out rate of 29 percent [1– (1/1.4)]. One analysis found
about one-quarter of the newly insured children in families earning less than 200 percent of poverty had substituted public coverage for private
36.
9
Medicaid Expansion: Texas Should Chart Its Own Course
coverage. See Peter J. Cunningham, James D. Reschovsky and Jack Hadley, “SCHIP, Medicaid Expansions Lead to Shifts in Children’s
Coverage,” Center for Studying Health System Change, Issue Brief 59, December 2002, page 4. Available at http://www.hschange.com/
CONTENT/508/508.pdf.
“Distribution of the Nonelderly Uninsured by Federal Poverty Level (FPL),” Kaiser Family Foundation, 2013. Available at http://kff.org/
uninsured/state-indicator/distribution-by-fpl-2/.
37.
Rachel Garfield and Anthony Damico and Jessica Stephens and Saman Rouhani, “The Coverage Gap: Uninsured Poor Adults in States that
Do Not Expand Medicaid – An Update,” Kaiser Family Foundation, November 12, 2014. Available at http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/thecoverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid-an-update/.
38.
39.
See “The Texas Way.” Available at http://texasway.org/.
Jim Landers, “Hospitals seek a Texas Way to expand Medicaid,” Dallas Morning News, November 17, 2014. Available at http://www.
dallasnews.com/business/columnists/jim-landers/20141117-hospitals-seek-a-texas-way-to-expand-medicaid.ece.
40.
Maureen Groppe, “From support to outrage, Hoosiers speak out on Healthy Indiana Plan,” Indianapolis Star, September 28, 2014. Available at
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/26/support-outrage-hoosiers-speak-healthy-indiana-plan/16262971/.
41.
“Feds OK extension of original Healthy Indiana Plan,” Associated Press, November 17, 2014. Available at http://wishtv.com/2014/11/17/fedsok-extension-of-original-healthy-indiana-plan/.
42.
Loise Radnofsky, “Tennessee Moves to Expand Medicaid,” Wall Street Journal, December 15, 2014. Available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/
tennessee-moves-to-expand-medicaid-1418666256
43.
Becca Aaronson, “Perry Directs HHSC to Pursue Medicaid Block Grant,” Texas Tribune, September 16, 2013. Available at http://www.
texastribune.org/2013/09/16/perry-directs-hhsc-pursue-medicaid-block-grant/.
44.
For example, see James Capretta, Arlene Wohlgemuth and John Davidson, “Save Texas Medicaid: A Proposal for Fundamental Reform,”
Texas Public Policy Foundation, March 2013. Available at http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2013-03-RR05MedicaidBlockGrants-Final.pdf.
45.
“Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act Updated for the Recent Supreme Court Decision,” Congressional
Budget Office, July 2012. Available at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/43472-07-24-2012-CoverageEstimates.pdf.
46.
10
The NCPA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization established in
1983. Its aim is to examine public policies in areas that have a
significant impact on the lives of all Americans — retirement, health
care, education, taxes, the economy, the environment — and to
propose innovative, market-driven solutions. The NCPA seeks to
unleash the power of ideas for positive change by identifying,
encouraging and aggressively marketing the best scholarly research.
Health Care Policy.
The NCPA is probably best known
for developing the concept of
Health Savings Accounts (HSAs),
previously known as Medical
Savings Accounts (MSAs). NCPA
research, public education and
briefings for members of Congress
and the White House staff helped
lead Congress to approve a pilot
MSA program for small businesses
and the self-employed in 1996 and
to vote in 1997 to allow Medicare
beneficiaries to have MSAs. In
2003, as part of Medicare reform,
Congress and the President made
HSAs available to all nonseniors,
potentially revolutionizing the entire
health care industry. HSAs now are
potentially available to 250 million
nonelderly Americans.
The NCPA outlined the concept of
using federal tax credits to
encourage private health insurance
and helped formulate bipartisan
proposals in both the Senate and the
House. The NCPA and BlueCross
BlueShield of Texas developed a
plan to use money that federal, state
and local governments now spend
on indigent health care to help the
poor purchase health insurance. The
SPN Medicaid Exchange, an
initiative of the NCPA for the State
Policy Network, is identifying and
sharing the best ideas for health care
reform with researchers and
policymakers in every state.
The NCPA developed the
concepts of Health Savings
Accounts and Roth IRAs.
completely undermines the claim by
proponents of the estate tax that it
prevents the concentration of wealth
in the hands of financial dynasties.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
(R-Tenn.) and Senator Jon Kyl
(R-Ariz.) distributed a letter to their
colleagues about the study. The
NCPA recently won the Templeton
Freedom Award for its study and
project on free market solutions to the
problems of the poor. The report
outlines an approach called Enterprise Programs that creates job
opportunities for those who face the
greatest challenges to employment.
Retirement Reform.
Taxes & Economic Growth.
The NCPA helped shape the
pro-growth approach to tax policy
during the 1990s. A package of tax
cuts designed by the NCPA and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce in
1991 became the core of the
Contract with America in 1994.
Three of the five proposals (capital
gains tax cut, Roth IRA and eliminating the Social Security earnings
penalty) became law. A fourth
proposal — rolling back the tax on
Social Security benefits — passed
the House of Representatives in
summer 2002. The NCPA’s proposal
for an across-the- board tax cut
became the centerpiece of President
Bush’s tax cut proposals.
NCPA research demonstrates the
benefits of shifting the tax burden
on work and productive investment
to consumption. An NCPA study by
Boston University economist
Laurence Kotlikoff analyzed three
versions of a consumption tax: a flat
tax, a value-added tax and a national
sales tax.
A major NCPA study, “Wealth,
Inheritance and the Estate Tax,”
With a grant from the NCPA,
economists at Texas A&M University
developed a model to evaluate the
future of Social Security and
Medicare, working under the
direction of Thomas R. Saving, who
for years was one of two
private-sector trustees of Social
Security and Medicare.
The NCPA study, “Ten Steps to
Baby Boomer Retirement,” shows
that as 77 million baby boomers
begin to retire, the nation’s institutions are totally unprepared. Promises
made under Social Security, Medicare
and Medicaid are inadequately
funded. State and local institutions
are not doing better — millions of
government workers are discovering
that their pensions are under-funded
and local governments are retrenching on post-retirement health care
promises.
Pension Reform.
Pension reforms signed into law
include ideas to improve 401(k)s
developed and proposed by the NCPA
and the Brookings Institution. Among
the NCPA/Brookings 401(k) reforms
are automatic enrollment of
11
Medicaid Expansion: Texas Should Chart Its Own Course
employees into companies’ 401(k) plans,
automatic contribution rate increases so
that workers’ contributions grow with
their wages, and better default investment
options for workers who do not make an
investment choice.
Environment & Energy.
The NCPA’s E-Team is one of the largest
collections of energy and environmental
policy experts and scientists who believe
that sound science, economic prosperity
and protecting the environment are
compatible. The team seeks to correct
misinformation and promote sensible
solutions to energy and environment
problems. A pathbreaking 2001 NCPA
study showed that the costs of the Kyoto
agreement to reduce carbon emissions in
developed countries would far exceed
any benefits.
Educating the Next Generation.
The NCPA’s Debate Central is the most
comprehensive online site for free information for 400,000 U.S. high school
debaters. In 2006, the site drew more than
one million hits per month. Debate
Central received the prestigious Templeton Freedom Prize for Student Outreach.
Promoting Ideas.
NCPA studies, ideas and experts are
quoted frequently in news stories
nationwide. Columns written by NCPA
scholars appear regularly in national
publications such as the Wall Street
Journal, the Washington Times, USA
Today and many other major-market
daily newspapers, as well as on radio talk
shows, on television public affairs
programs, and in public policy newsletters. According to media figures from
BurrellesLuce, more than 900,000 people
daily read or hear about NCPA ideas and
activities somewhere in the United States.
What Others Say About the NCPA
“The NCPA generates more analysis per
dollar than any think tank in the country.
It does an amazingly good job of going out
and finding the right things and talking about
them in intelligent ways.”
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the
U.S. House of Representatives
“We know what works. It’s what the NCPA
talks about: limited government, economic
freedom; things like Health Savings Accounts.
These things work, allowing people choices.
We’ve seen how this created America.”
John Stossel,
host of “Stossel,” Fox Business Network
“I don’t know of any organization in America
that produces better ideas with less money
than the NCPA.”
Phil Gramm,
former U.S. Senator
“Thank you . . . for advocating such radical
causes as balanced budgets, limited government
and tax reform, and to be able to try and bring
power back to the people.”
Tommy Thompson,
former Secretary of Health and Human Services
The NCPA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public policy organization. We depend entirely on the financial support of individuals, corporations and foundations that believe in private
sector solutions to public policy problems. You can contribute to our effort by mailing your donation to our Dallas headquarters at 12770 Coit Road, Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75251,
or visiting our Web site at www.ncpa.org and clicking “Support Us.”
12
×

Report this document