Bitter with the sweet on Medicaid expansion
It seems no legislative session is complete without a debate over Medicaid expansion. Only this year, there's another idea that isn't just being proposed, but implemented.
The Trump administration approved Kemp's plan in 2020, only for the Biden administration to rescind the agreement. A federal judge rebuked that decision last August, opening the door for Georgia Pathways to take eŽ ect. (Kemp's second waiver, modifying how the ACA works in
Critics of Kemp's plan maintain the state would be better oŽ with a broader expansion of Medicaid, as the ACA envisioned. They claim it would cover more people for the same or less money. But they leave out some pertinent facts. The first is that a broader Medicaid expansion wouldn't be limited to the uninsured. A study last year by the
That means almost 40 percent of the new enrollees would have already been insured. It also means that more than two-thirds of uninsured Georgians - almost 1 million people - would still lack coverage.
How does it make sense to replace the coverage of hundreds of thousands of people, while leaving almost a million people uninsured? The added cost of covering those alreadycovered Georgians pushes the price tag of Medicaid expansion far higher than proponents usually allow.
It's true that Kemp's plan would cover far fewer people, about 50, 000 at any given time. But that doesn't account for people who would be eligible for a time and then rise out of eligibility by earning more money, meaning a larger number of people would be covered over time.
The second thing proponents usually omit is that Georgians pay federal taxes, too - meaning there is no "free" money involved in Medicaid expansion. The total bill for full expansion, including federal dollars and all of those people who already had coverage anyway, comes to nearly
If you pay state and federal taxes, then it doesn't matter which bureaucrat takes the money. It's still your money. And to the extent that the money would be borrowed, it would be
The third thing proponents fail to mention is that Medicaid isn't a particularly good kind of insurance to have. In fact, if you actually want to use it to see a doctor, it's probably the worst kind to have, because it is accepted by the fewest doctors. That's because it reimburses doctors less than other insurance for the services they provide. So, you might receive health insurance, but it doesn't necessarily mean you will have access to healthcare.
That not only is bad news for patients. It also is bad for taxpayers, because the next demand after expansion will be to increase Medicaid's reimbursement rates so that more doctors will accept Medicaid. That can't be done only for new enrollees, so it will cost
Kemp's plan is better on both counts because many new enrollees will use the funds to join their employer's plan. That should mean better access to care and lower financial risk for taxpayers.
These points are often overlooked because proponents of Medicaid expansion are ultimately trying to build toward government-run healthcare for all. The rest of us, who think there is a better way to ensure everyone gets the healthcare they need, must understand these hidden factors.
Safety net hospitals hope to block billions in cuts to Medicaid
Mississippi Senate passes postpartum Medicaid extension
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News