States Rejecting Medicaid Expansion Forgo Billions in Federal Funds
Collins says the study may actually be low-balling the costs to residents of states that reject the Medicaid expansion, because it does not factor in the value of cost-shifting as a hidden tax to pay for uncompensated care. "It actually is an underestimate in some ways because local tax dollars finance uncompensated care at hospitals," she says. "To the extent that those federal dollars would replace that, those local expenditures that local taxpayers are still financing would otherwise be covered were people to have health insurance coverage."
Collins says there are signs that some states are beginning to reconsider their rejection of Medicaid expansion, now that they face the loss of billions of dollars in federal aid.
"Over time, states are going to look at the costs both in terms of lost health insurance coverage for residents but also the significant economic impact on their states and on their safety net hospitals, who will continue to have to serve people who are uninsured even though there is federal funding available for them," she says. "The argument and rationale for expanding Medicaid is pretty strong on multiple counts. We may see a similar trend that we saw in the original Medicaid program, that all states eventually participated in the program just as they did eventually with the Children's Health Insurance Program."
John Commins is a senior editor with HealthLeaders Media.
- 12 Hires to Keep Your Hospital Out of Trouble
- Ratcheting Up Patient Experience Has a Downside
- Meaningful Use Payment Adjustments Begin
- HL20: Lee Aase—Who's Behind @MayoClinic
- 'Mega Boards' Could be Rural Healthcare Disruptor
- Taming Time and Moving Healthcare Data
- 1 in 5 Eligible Hospitals Penalized for HACs
- A Christmas Wish List for US Healthcare
- HL20: Sam Foote, MD—The Courage to Speak Up
- HL20: Derek Angus, MD—An Intense Focus on Care