3

Alabama on the fence about taking money for Medicaid

U.S. prosecutors have filed their biggest-ever case of insider trading, involving a hedge fund that allegedly got an early warning about the failure of an Alzheimer's drug in clinical trials.

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

Kai Ryssdal: We're gonna take a minute now and talk about health care policy; the financing of health care, to be specific. One of the key parts of Obamacare is an expansion of Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor. Under the health care law, it's gonna get a whole lot bigger than it already is. Millions more people will become eligible -- millions of people who'll largely be paid for by the Feds.

At least five governors have already said 'No, thanks' -- to both the money and the expansion.  

Some, like Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, are taking months to make up their minds.

From Birmingham, Gigi Douban explains why. 


Gigi Doubon: To understand why anyone would turn this money down, you kind of have to know how Medicaid works in a state budget. And that's no simple task. Don Williamson oversees Alabama's Medicaid office. Recently, he showed me just one of the charts he's trying to decipher.

Don Williamson: This is the funding chart, for how the money flows in hospitals. And it looks like a Rube Goldberg-developed mouse trap. It is extraordinarily complicated and it has words like 'UPL-based payment' on it.

Williamson is one of those calm, deliberate types. He skips lunch most days, and he seems a little worn down. Understandable, considering that after months on the job, he's still trying to get his head around the intricacies of Medicaid.

Here's, generally, how it works in Alabama. Whatever Medicaid costs the state, the Feds kick in 68 percent. Different states have different federal matches. So, in wealthier states, it might be as low as 50 percent. To come up with the rest, states pull in money from all kinds of sources. In Alabama, it comes from things like taxes health care providers' pay and rebates from drug manufacturers who provide Medicaid drugs.

The math gets fuzzy really quickly.

Williamson: You're not using simple dollars. I mean, you're not using money that the legislature gave you and said, 'This is all you need to run your program.'

If that doesn't make it hard enough to manage costs, here's another problem: the state has no incentive to bring costs down, because the more sick people there are in hospitals and other facilities, the more money the state brings in. Take nursing homes. They're providers, so they pay taxes to the state for every Medicaid patient there.

That means it helps the state Medicaid fund to have more people in nursing homes.

Williamson: So, if you suddenly reduced average occupancy from 87 percent to 84 percent, you may not have the effect of saving money. You may have the effect of costing the agency money, because of a reduction in the provider taxes.

Williamson says it's the same with hospital admissions. The more there are, the more Medicaid money flows to the state. So, you'd think Alabama would be all over health care reform because remember, the feds are going to cover 100 percent of the cost to expand Medicaid at first.

But then it drops to 90 percent. For Alabama, that could mean an extra $500 to $700 million out of the budget.

Williamson: It's hard to imagine right now where Alabama would get the money to fund a Medicaid expansion.

Usually when states scrape the barrel, they look to areas that eat up the biggest chunks of the budget -- like education and transportation. And prisons.

About 22 percent of Alabama's budget goes to correctional facilities. Should be able to grab some cash there. Yet, most of the prisons here are over-capacity.

This women's work release program near downtown Birmingham is close to capacity, and like a lot of other agency's drawing from the state's general fund, it's already underfunded and understaffed. Brian Corbett is a spokesman for the Department of Corrections.

Brian Corbett: We're already operating on a bare bones budget and a bare bones staff. For public safety reasons, especially with the number of inmates we have state-wide, we certainly can't afford to be losing staff.

OK, that rules out jails. And education has already been stripped bare.

But some experts say expanding Medicaid doesn't have to decimate a state budget. Rachel Garfield is senior researcher with the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. In fact, she says, it's not a huge jump compared to what states are already spending.

Rachel Garfield: What seems like a large dollar amount, in the context for what is baseline state budget for Medicaid, it's a relatively small share. There's a common saying that a lot of people who work in Medicaid policy say, which is that there's not one Medicaid program, there are 50 Medicaid programs. And if you understand one of them, you understand one of them. Because each is unique.

But no matter how you cut it, a bigger Medicaid program means an influx of federal dollars; it also means more jobs and tax revenue. All those new patients have to go somewhere, says Don Williamson of Alabama's Medicaid program. He says in Alabama, that could bring more than $10 billion into the state over several years. And, he says, that boost just might be enough to pay for an expansion.

In Birmingham, I'm Gigi Douban for Marketplace.

Craig O'Connor's picture
Craig O'Connor - Sep 21, 2012

Any state saying no to Medicaid expansion is a very stupid thing. I apologize for being blunt, but it really is just plain dumb to not do this. For Alabama, they would spend an additional $500 million (over five years, from 2014-2019, a fact this Marketplace story neglects to point out), and receive in return about $10 billion in federal funds (according to Kaiser Family Foundation reports, which also inform statistics below). That represents about $20 from the federal government for every $1 is spending by the state. That is a 2000% ROI, something no one in their right mind would say no too. How many jobs will be created by $10 billion? How many jobs saved? Not mention the 250,000 people who will gain health care coverage and not live in fear of every sneeze or headache.

If one wants to look at the next 5 years, 2020-2025, when the, match become $9 for every $1 the state puts in, an ROI of 900%. Again, it seems literally foolish to not make this investment on purely financial terms, not to mention the moral dimension of helping improve the lives of so many people.

A third thing to note - Medicaid spending generates indirect economic activity, which is different in all states. A conservative estimate is an additional $3 per $1 in state money. This means the ROI goes up to $23 for every $1, and then $12 for every $1.

Finally, estimates place job creation by Medicaid spending at 1 job per $30,000 spent (though this varies quite substantially by state, it seems). So, even if we take that and make it way conservative and say a job for every $200,000 spent, it means Alabama would see over 50,000 jobs created or maintained by Medicaid expansion.

So to summarize - 250,000 people gain coverage, ROI of 2300%, and 50,000 jobs.

Why the heck would Alabama (or any state) say no?

Dwayne73's picture
Dwayne73 - Sep 19, 2012

I get it but the reporter here missed the point. If the Feds drop funding down to 90% then the State has to make up the other 10%. The ideal that the more patients you have the more taxes the provider pays will make up the difference in the funding short fall to the state is nuts. Is the provider going to import patients from out of state to generate more income from the Feds 90% share? This really means that the provider will charge 10% more to cover the extra taxes thus raising the overall cost of the program or the state taxpayers end up being taxed an extra 10% to cover the state added share. Assuming that all taxpayers pay an equal amount that means that 1 out 10 taxpayers now has to pay taxes just for the expanded medicare program which robs money from other important state expenses such as roads and schools. There is only so much of the money pie. We the people, are not allow to just print money like the Feds. Those of us with jobs can only make so much money and the more the government takes from us the more depended on the government we become for the everyday basic things.

coffee_break's picture
coffee_break - Sep 18, 2012

Please refer to the Afordable Care Act as such, "ObamaCare" is not a law. The prase "ObamaCare" shows a bias.