Medicaid Expansion Plans Provide Novel Approaches for Healthcare Coverage
Published Online: Monday, December 23, 2013
While Republicans oppose healthcare reform more often than Democrats, having a Republican in the state house has not always doomed Medicaid expansion. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who famously wagged her finger at Obama on an airport tarmac, nonetheless stared down legislators in her own party until they added 300,000 people to the rolls. For New Jersey’s Chris Christie, having a Democratic legislature made Medicaid expansion easier. However, neither Arizona nor New Jersey set up a state-run exchange to enroll people in health plans.
But in other states, philosophical opposition to expanding a government program and concerns about long-term costs forced full-blown rejection of Medicaid Expansion or, in the case of places like Arkansas, Iowa, and Pennsylvania, attempts at hybrid plans. Waivers would allow states to craft their own versions of Medicaid, most with elements of privatization and one, in Pennsylvania, that would require, for the first time, that most new recipients look for work.
Arkansas Opens the DoorOn Friday, September 27, Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe received a phone call from US Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that his state would be the first granted a waiver to pursue a so-called “private option,” which will allow state residents to use Medicaid dollars to subsidize coverage obtained through private insurance. Up to six states may pursue some form of Arkansas’ plan with two, Iowa and Pennsylvania, filing waiver requests.
Beebe, a Democrat, said the waiver would allow about 218,000 Arkansans to receive private coverage. “Our actions have drawn positive attention from across the country, and now we will focus on getting this insurance to the Arkansans who need it to lead healthier, more productive lives,” he said in a statement.2
The Arkansas, Iowa, and Pennsylvania plans all feature free-market aspects to the expansion of coverage—a unique “hybrid” strategy palatable to Republican or conservative Democratic legislators in their own states, and perhaps to conservative lawmakers elsewhere who have resisted expanding any government program.3 Indeed, at the recent Medicare-Medicaid conference sponsored by America’s Health Insurance Plans, Daniel Crippen, executive director of the National Governors Association, said absent the willingness of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to approve hybrid plans, he did not foresee additional Medicaid expansion until after the 2016 election cycle. “If there’s more flexibility, the sooner the expansion will occur,” he said.
Lack of expansion translates directly into lack of coverage. In June, researchers estimated that if 14 states opted out of Medicaid expansion, as allowed by the 2012 Supreme Court ruling, 3.6 million fewer people would be insured than if all of the states participated. These states would lose out on $8.4 billion in federal transfer payments. Furthermore, uncompensated care could cost these states another $1 billion by 2016.4 In most instances, the states’ healthcare industries have been arguing loudly in favor of Medicaid expansion, based on the forecasts for greater revenues resulting from larger populations having coverage and seeking care. This has been putting state governments at odds with major local and regional businesses in largely Republican areas, an uncomfortable position for businessfriendly elected officials.
Most Popular Right Now