NYAPRS Note: One analysis finds that GOP proposals to move to state Medicaid block grants will cut federal share by $150 billion by 2022. Another concluded that “the House Republican budget plan for fiscal year 2017 (if it had passed) would have led to a reduction in Medicaid spending by $1 trillion over a decade. By 2026, federal funding for Medicaid would be one-third less than under current law.”
Yesterday, NYS Medicaid Director said that NY “has $245 million set aside in the 2018-19 budget, which could be repurposed to make up for federal cuts.”
Study: Medicaid Block Grants Would Save Feds $150 Billion
By Jesse Hellman The Hill February 6, 2017
A Republican proposal to fund Medicaid through block grants could save the federal government more than $100 billion over five years, according to a new analysis released Monday.
Theanalysisfrom healthcare firm Avalere Health shows that if Medicaid were funded through block grants instead of through the open-ended commitment the program receives now, the federal government would save $150 billion by 2022.
Similarly, shifting to per capita caps, in which states would receive a set amount of money per beneficiary, would save $110 billion over five years.
“Medicaid block grants and per capita caps serve as vehicles to control federal spending on the program and put more of the decision-making on things like covered services and program eligibility in the hands of the states,” said Avalere president Dan Mendelson.
Congressional Republicans argue that changing Medicaid’s funding mechanism would give states more control over their programs. Democrats say that beneficiaries would face slashed benefits under either proposal, while states would face more costs.
According to the study, only one state – North Dakota — would see increased funding under the block grant model.
The remaining states and Washington, D.C. would face a reduction in federal funding.
Through per capita funding, 26 states and D.C. would see decreases in federal funding while 24 would get an increase.
The proposals are also opposed by AARP.
“AARP opposes Medicaid block grants and per capita caps because we are concerned that such proposals will endanger the health, safety, and care of millions of individuals who depend on the essential services provided through Medicaid,” Joyce Rogers, AARP’s senior vice president for government affairs, wrote in a letter to lawmakers last week.
How Would Republican Plans for Medicaid Block Grants Actually Work?
Aaron E. Carroll New York Times February 6, 2017
There are only so many ways to cut Medicaid spending.
You can reduce the number of people covered. You can reduce the benefit coverage. You can also pay less for those benefits and get doctors and hospitals to accept less in reimbursement. Or you can ask beneficiaries to pay more.
None of those are attractive options, which is why Medicaid reform is so hard. Medicaid already reimburses providers at lower rates than other insurance programs. How do you reduce the number of beneficiaries when the vast majority of people covered are poor children, poor pregnant women, the disabled, and poor older people? Which of those would you cut?
Reducing benefit coverage has always been difficult because most of the spending has been on the disabled and poor older people, who need a lot of care. Beneficiaries don’t have much disposable income, so asking them to pick up more of the bill is almost impossible.
That doesn’t mean that states haven’t tried. As I’ve discussed in past columns, a number are attempting to increase cost sharing. But this isn’t really a solution because it doesn’t change overall spending much at all.
Part of the challenge lies in the way Medicaid was set up in the first place. The federal government picks up between 50 percent and 100 percent (depending on the population and the per-person income) of whatever it costs to provide health care to a state’s population. Many, if not most, Republican plans would like to change that.
They are pushing for what many refer to as a block grant program. The federal government would give a set amount of money to each state for Medicaid; it would be up to the states to spend it however they like. These block grants could be set based on overall past state needs or based on the number of beneficiaries in the state, referred to as a “per capita” block grant. Some per-capita block grants function more like “ceilings” than outright grants, allowing the state to be paid at normal Medicaid rates, but with a maximum each state could get based on the per-capita calculation.
The supporters of such plans have a point. Medicaid has all kinds of complicated rules, which can create perverse incentives throughout the system. It’s possible that the needs of one state are different from another, and that with more leeway in how Medicaid is administered on a local level, states could improve how they manage health care for the poor. It’s also true that the needs of the beneficiaries are widely different (children and the disabled, for example), and that treating them under one large program is inefficient.
The fiscal magic behind a block-grants approach is that the federal government can then set how quickly the amount they’re responsible for will increase over time, regardless of how quickly medical spending grows. If a gap develops between how much a state needs to spend, and how much the block grant provides, it’s up to the state to make up the difference. Those who support such a plan argue it gives states greater flexibility to make their own Medicaid programs work better.
A recent New England Journal of Medicine article provides some perspective on how this might work by looking at what happened before Medicaid was created in 1965. Care for the poor in the 1950s was done through direct reimbursements to providers. It was calculated on a per-capita basis — the average cash and medical needs of those the programs covered. Those amounts were capped, based on age and demographics. This is quite similar to how many Republican proposals might function.
When these capped amounts weren’t enough to pay for the programs, states had to make cuts. They began to restrict who would be covered, what would be covered and how much care beneficiaries could use. Some states refused to cover children at all. Others didn’t cover doctors’ visits or drugs.
In the early 1960s, the programs had only 3.4 million beneficiaries nationwide.
The 1965 Medicaid law removed these caps, and today Medicaid covers about 81 million people, or about one in four Americans. By 1980, spending in the program had grown by a factor of 10, and many politicians began to panic about the cost. This rise appears to have come not as much from a rise in benefits or payments as a huge increase in enrollees.
Andrew Goodman-Bacon, an economist at Vanderbilt University and one of the authors of the article, told me: “From the time Medicaid began until 1980, the amount spent per Medicaid recipient went up about 68 percent. The number of enrollees, however, went up almost 700 percent. Moreover, since 1980, the amount spent per Medicaid beneficiary has been almost flat, at just under about $5,800.”
Given that the growth in Medicaid spending seems mostly because of increases in the number of people benefiting from the program, it seems logical that one of the few ways to cut spending is by reducing that number.
The fact that so much of the discussion about Medicaid block grants centers on cuts points to most policy makers’ assumptions that cuts will need to be made. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the House Republican budget plan for fiscal year 2017 (if it had passed) would have led to a reduction in Medicaid spending by $1 trillion over a decade. By 2026, federal funding for Medicaid would be one-third less than under current law.
From states’ point of view, whether they are reimbursed by a block grant or a percentage of coverage doesn’t really matter as long as the amount is enough. Almost no block grant plan allows for this, though. Planned cuts are how block grants make future federal budget projections look so good.
There’s no magic in how Congress reduces spending under a block grant mechanism. It just says it will do so, and leaves the hard decisions to others. It’s possible that some states will come up with solutions we haven’t been able to see before, and find a way to reduce spending without causing problems. If they can’t, though, they will have to make do with less, make the hard choices and face the brunt of the blame.