Filling the Medicaid coverage gap has become a contentious political issue. How many people know what it is and how it originated?
The ACA originally envisioned a seamless system of health coverage eligibility.
States were required to expand Medicaid to everyone with incomes up to 138% of the poverty level.
People with incomes 138-400% of the poverty level were eligible for premium subsidies.
In 2012 the Supreme Court threw a massive curveball at the ACA's seamless coverage system.
Even though the federal government was initially covering 100% of the cost of the Medicaid expansion, phasing down to 90%, the court ruled that it had to be voluntary.
39 states (including DC) have expanded Medicaid under the ACA. 12 states have not.
Medicaid programs exist in the 12 states that have not expanded eligibility under the ACA. But, coverage is often quite limited for adults.
A parent in a family of 3 in TX can make no more than $3,733 per year to qualify for Medicaid.
Adults without kids are ineligible, period.
Because the ACA, before the Supreme Court curveball, envisioned people up to 138% of the poverty level being eligible for Medicaid, there was no reason to make them eligible for premium subsidies.
But through a drafting quirk, premium subsidies actually start at 100% of poverty.
Because ACA premium subsidies begin at 100% of the poverty level, some people in states that have not expanded Medicaid -- those with incomes 100-138% of poverty -- get premium subsidies. Those with incomes below poverty are out of luck.
2.2 million people are in the Medicaid coverage gap.
They have incomes below poverty, live in the 12 states that have not expanded Medicaid under the ACA, are uninsured, and have no health coverage options.
A leading approach in Congress for filling the Medicaid coverage gap would be to make people with incomes below poverty eligible for ACA premium and cost-sharing help if they're not otherwise eligible for Medicaid.
Why is filling the Medicaid coverage gap hard?
1. Competing priorities and limited funds. 2. States that have expanded Medicaid and are covering 10% of the cost will be resentful, and some may drop the expansion. 3. Few Democrats represent states that have not expanded Medicaid.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A big reason why the public overwhelmingly supports government negotiation of drug prices is that they don't buy the drug industry's arguments against it.
93% of people believe drug companies would still make enough to invest in research, even if prices in the U.S. were lower.
So much of the debate over the Build Back Better package has been on new spending and the overall price tag.
The provision that could prove to be among the most popular -- negotiation of drug prices -- saves money for both the government and patients.
As sweeping as the Democrats' budget measure is, its goal in health care is to fill in gaps, not overhaul the system.
Cover poor people in 12 states not expanding Medicaid.
Expand community-based care.
Address ACA affordability.
Add dental, hearing, and vision to Medicare.
Filling in these health care gaps would be paid for primarily by negotiating drug prices in Medicare and limiting price increases to inflation.
While that would be a big deal, Medicare has for years controlled prices for hospital and physician care.
The more unprecedented part of the Democrats' health agenda is giving privately-insured patients access to government-negotiated drug prices. That's quite common in other countries, but does not happen here for drug prices or any other type of health care.
Key details about the House plan to cover poor people in states not expanding Medicaid:
ACA marketplace coverage 2022-2024 with nominal cost-sharing.
Coverage in a new federal Medicaid plan starting in 2025.
States that drop the expansion have to continue paying their share.
Here are links to the proposed legislative language from the House Energy and Commerce Committee to cover poor people in states that have not expanded Medicaid under the ACA.
COVID vaccines are widely available and free to people whether they have insurance or not.
Now, under President Biden's plan, workers at businesses with 100+ employees will also get paid time off to get vaccinated and recover from any side effects.
It's sort of remarkable that your ability to work, attend many entertainment events, and go to certain restaurants and bars is still going to depend on proving vaccination using a flimsy, oddly-sized CDC card with no electronic verification.
A vaccine mandate means unvaccinated workers lose their jobs. A health insurance surcharge for unvaccinated workers is less coercive and likely less effective. It also opens up a hornet's nest of issues around whether people's behavior should affect what they pay for health care.
If Democrats are able to accomplish all these goals in the budget resolution released today, it would be the biggest reform of the health care system since the Affordable Care Act passed more than a decade ago.
The policy guidelines that accompany the budget resolution are not binding. It's up to Congressional committees to match expansions with new revenues and savings to solve a complex jigsaw puzzle that matches budget targets.
The cost of these health care expansions can be dialed up or down to fit within available revenues.
One key way to lower the budgetary cost of a health care expansion: Give it an expiration date.