Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, tick; tock---Kaboom!
Topic Started: Dec 10 2013, 12:47 AM (402 Views)
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ObamaCare created a Medicaid time bomb

By Michael D. Tanner

December 7, 2013 | 9:15pm

The good news, if you want to call it that, is that roughly 1.6 million Americans have enrolled in ObamaCare so far.

The not-so-good news is that 1.46 million of them actually signed up for Medicaid. If that trend continues, it could bankrupt both federal and state governments.

Medicaid is already America’s third-largest government program, trailing only Social Security and Medicare, as a proportion of the federal budget. Almost 8 cents out of every dollar that the federal government spends goes to Medicaid. That’s more than $265 billion per year.

Indeed, already Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for 48% of federal spending. Within the next few years, those three programs will eat up more than half of federal expenditures.

And it’s going to get worse. Congress has shown no ability to reform Social Security or Medicare. With ObamaCare adding to Medicare spending, we are picking up speed on the road to insolvency.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that, in part because of ObamaCare, Medicaid spending will more than double over the next 10 years, topping $554 billion by 2023.

And that is just federal spending.

State governments pay another $160 billion for Medicaid today. For most states, Medicaid is the single-largest cost of government, crowding out education, transportation and everything else.

New York spent more than $15 billion on Medicaid last year, roughly 30% of all state expenditures. The Kaiser Foundation projects that over the next 10 years, New York taxpayers will shell out some $433 billion for the program.

But none of these projections foresaw that so many of ObamaCare’s enrollees would be Medicaid eligible.

To be sure, the health-care law’s designers saw the expansion of Medicaid as an important feature of their plan to expand coverage for the uninsured. Still, they expected most of those enrolling in ObamaCare to qualify for private (albeit subsidized) insurance.

It’s beginning to look like that was just another miscalculation, one that could have very serious consequences for the program’s costs.

Moreover, any projection of Medicaid’s future cost to New York taxpayers assumes that the federal government keeps its promise to pay 100% of the cost for Medicaid’s expansion over the next three years and 90% thereafter. But given the growing burden that Medicare will put on a federal budget already facing high debt levels, how likely is it that changes in the federal share of Medicaid will stay off the table?

In fact, as part if last December’s fiscal-cliff negotiations, the Obama administration briefly considered changing to a “blended” reimbursement rate, somewhere between the current and promised rates. The administration quickly backed away from the offer, but it’s likely to come back in the future. If it does, it would cost New York tens of millions of dollars.

Every bit as bad as the cost is the fact that for all this money, recipients are going to get pretty lousy health care.

Of course, one might say that even bad health care is better than no health care. But, unfortunately, for Medicaid, that’s not true.

The Oregon Health Insurance Exchange study, the first randomized controlled study of Medicaid outcomes, recently concluded that, while Medicaid increased medical spending increased from $3,300 to $4,400 per person, “Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical-health outcomes.”

Other studies show that, in some cases, Medicaid patients actually wait longer and receive worse care than the uninsured.

While Medicaid costs taxpayers a lot of money, it pays doctors very little. On average, Medicaid only reimburses doctors 72 cents out of each dollar of costs. ObamaCare does attempt to address this by temporarily increasing Medicaid reimbursements for primary-care doctors, but that increase expires at the end of next year.

Because of the low reimbursement, and the red tape that accompanies any government program, many doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients they serve, or even refuse to take Medicaid patients at all. An analysis published in Health Affairs found that only 69% of physicians accept Medicaid patients. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that individuals posing as mothers of children with serious medical conditions were denied an appointment 66% of the time if they said that their child was on Medicaid (or the related CHIP), compared with 11% for private insurance — a ratio of 6 to 1.

Even when doctors do still treat Medicaid patients, they often have a harder time getting appointments and face longer wait times. One study found that among clinics that accepted both privately insured children and those enrolled in Medicaid, the average wait time for an appointment was 42 days for Medicaid compared to just 20 days for the privately insured. One study found that among clinics that accepted both privately insured children and those enrolled in Medicaid, the average wait time for an appointment was 42 days for Medicaid compared to just 20 days for the privately insured.

That’s one reason why so many Medicaid patients show up at the emergency room for treatment. They can’t find a doctor to treat them otherwise.

This not only increases the strain on already overburdened emergency room doctors, but increases the wait for those who arrive with real emergencies.

As bad as this is now, ObamaCare will make it worse by increasing the number of people on Medicaid without doing anything to increase the number of doctors treating them.

We don’t know yet whether the rush to Medicaid will continue. It may be that the troubles with the ObamaCare website might have skewed the early signups. But if ObamaCare really does lead to a massive expansion of this costly and inefficient program, that’s bad news for taxpayers, providers and patients.

Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Come on, Pat, do you REALLY believe an op-ed piece from the CATO Institute? I have witnessed so much of their extreme bias in the past, that I do not
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Yes Colo, I have no reason to believe that the facts and figures are lying since similar studies are being published. We have read reports nationwide that those signing up for Obamacare are the uninsured and those uninsurable. Those are the ones who now in great numbers, qualify for Medicaid. I think at this point the conversation need to center on what the hell are we going to do to pay for it? We meaning all of America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

It is a mess. You should have opted for single payer in one fell swoop. This appears to be typical American psychology. I remember what happened with metrification. You decided to do ti in dribs & drabs and it ended up going nowhere. In Canada we just bit the bullet and did it all at once. Sometimes that is the best way. You get all the squawking over with quick.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Okay, Pat. I just know that the CATO Institute has played fast and loose with facts and figures for some years. But,you believe what you want to believe. I will not object.
Edited by colo_crawdad, Dec 10 2013, 01:09 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Dec 10 2013, 01:04 AM
Yes Colo, I have no reason to believe that the facts and figures are lying since similar studies are being published. We have read reports nationwide that those signing up for Obamacare are the uninsured and those uninsurable. Those are the ones who now in great numbers, qualify for Medicaid. I think at this point the conversation need to center on what the hell are we going to do to pay for it? We meaning all of America.
Another case of, imo, needing more information. Are those people signing up for Medicaid already on Medicaid? If they weren't why weren't they, if they qualified for it and why complain about it now? Obama didn't have anything to do with Medicaid passage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
telcoman
Dec 10 2013, 01:08 AM
It is a mess. You should have opted for single payer in one fell swoop. This appears to be typical American psychology. I remember what happened with metrification. You decided to do ti in dribs & drabs and it ended up going nowhere. In Canada we just bit the bullet and did it all at once. Sometimes that is the best way. You get all the squawking over with quick.
Quote:
 
Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities.
Winston Churchill
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Yes those are the facts about medicaid and Brew should have read this before starting that thread about how people are finding out Obicare is good for them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
You have to look at the whole picture. Having the ability to see a primary care physician for preventative care should cut down on the uncompensated ER visits. Staying healthier because of healthcare access means less apt to become disabled etc. etc.

Every country that has universal health coverage spends a lot less than we do per capita. But, the right wing short sighted blinders don't want to see it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Everyone except the useful idiots admit only insuring those who have pre existing conditions and those on Medicaid won't work.
Really, how dumb do you have to be to even think so? Someone has to pay and not use it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis