Expansion Of Medicaid Expansion : The Affordable Care Act

Critically analyze the implications of the state’s decision to opt out of Medicaid expansion on the citizens of the state.

Texas, which currently has a large uninsured population and limited Medicaid eligibility, forfeits billions of dollars from the federal government every year by not expanding its Medicaid program as implemented in the Affordable Care Act. In contrast, Medicaid expansion could benefit the state exponentially and give its citizens the fullest potential of what this country offers. A substantial amount of federal funding that could increase uninsured coverage, improve healthcare costs, and provide economic stimulus is left on the table. Additionally, the nation benefits when each state participates, contributing to the success of the healthcare reform.

One of the states that have not participated in the Medicaid expansion is Florida. States that are opting out in the Medicaid expansion can leave several citizens uninsured and their health will be at risk. Currently, since the America’s Supreme Court has given the states more flexibility relating to the Affordable Care Act, some states are opting out of the Medicaid expansion plan that is intended to give low-income citizens in the state dependable healthcare. To reasons the state of Florida opting out the Medicaid expansion, the governor of Florida stated, that Floridians are more interested in economic growth and employment, better quality of education for their children, and that they keep the cost of their living low. Florida State is

Expanding Medicaid was supposed to to be a main element in the states wide acceptance of the Affordable Care Act, because Medicaid’s sole purpose is to provide coverage for all uninsured adults. Medicaid is mainly used by the working poor or those who don 't make enough money to pay for health insurance on their own. The expansion, however, is part of ObamaCare and Texans hate it, despite the numerous money problems that not accepting it causes. An example would be, the 100 billion dollars that the federal government has set aside for Medicaid over the course of ten years. Even though it seems that the insurance is doing good for many states, Texas Governor Rick Perry could not opt out fast enough. His reasoning behind the

In a traditionalist state, such as Texas, the financial toll that Medicaid would have on its taxpayers was on the frontlines. The Texas legislature was worried about whether or not its taxpayers would face a tax increase to cover the increased cost of those covered by Medicaid. These taxpayers would inadvertently pay for the hospital bills of those who are uninsured in Texas through an average $1,800 rise in the cost of their premiums (Rapoport, 2012). In support of expanding Medicaid, Texas would receive federal funds in order to ease the cost that accompany the expansion. Since Texas decided not to expand Medicaid, Texas “would be leaving billions and billions of federal dollars on the table” according to Anne Dunkelberg (Rapoport, 2012). Not only does this monetary incentive give Texas an extra push to participate towards expanding Medicaid but it would also help the residents of the state to get insured. Texas legislators understood that this monetary incentive would not fully cover the cost of the newly enrolled Medicaid recipients. In the end, they would have to rework the annual budget and increase taxes in order to cover these extra recipients.

Medicaid initially established that each state is responsible for designing their medical costs to pay medical care for the poor. Also, Medicaid created as a voluntary program for each state; they have to have the choice to participate. For one thing, because of the rising costs of healthcare, it has been difficult to bring Medicaid recipients into the “mainstream” of United States (U.S.) medical care. Donald R. Barr notes, “between 1975 and 1989, the cost of the Medicaid program increased by an average of 11.9 percent per year before adjusting for inflation” (172). The rising costs of healthcare are necessary for each state to determine if it is beneficial for them to participate in the Medicaid program. As the government level of payment is determined by each state economic condition. For instance, a state with lower per capita income will receive more government funding. A state with higher per capita income receives less reimbursement for program costs. Therefore, on December 31, 2010, many states continued to experience budget cuts. As a result on August 2010, Congress increased reimbursement rates through June 2011.

Medicaid financing has become an increasing issue for most states throughout the years. The Government Accountability Office (2010) reported that forty-seven of the states as well as the District of Columbia had concerns regarding the sustainability of their program. Around 16% of the state budgets go towards Medicaid each year, totaling around $183 billion (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2015). A significant share of vulnerable populations relies on Medicaid for medical coverage. Rocco, Gellad, & Donohue (2015) estimated that of the

So far Gov. Nikki Haley is unmoved. Haley and the state’s conservative legislature have refused to accept the $13.3 billion in federal funds, arguing that the state will be unable to pay the state’s Medicaid bill once full federal subsidies end in 2020 (Haley, 2014). Their working assumption is that Washington will renege on its 90-percent pledge and cut subsidies further, leaving poor states like South Carolina to shoulder more and more of the costs.

The Medicaid revisions and expansion under the ACA, exhibited the federal government overstepping their power as they tried to penalize any state governments in opposition of the expansion, consequently, taking away states’ power. The Medicaid Expansion Mandate would’ve compelled states to join due to the loss of federal funding towards Medicaid if they did not adhere to (Phi Le, par.40). The Supreme Court hearing allowed states to have a choice whether or not to participate in the expansion without a total loss of their Medicaid funding. In return, states who didn't participate wouldn’t receive additional funding that coupled with this mandate that required inclusion, extending coverage of those who were at “Income below or ar 133% federal

Medicaid has grown exponentially after healthcare was expanded under the Affordable Care Act. However, this did not guarantee an increase in access to health care services, as many providers do not accept Medicaid beneficiaries, one of many reasons being low reimbursement rates. This discrepancy in rate reimbursement is further underscored when compared to those

With the implementation of the ACA, many states have expanded their Medicaid programs to include a larger population of low income individuals and families that were not able to obtain health insurance prior to the law. Some of the issues that state legislators struggle with are the overall cost of providing services for the additional recipients, staying within budget, determining an adequate approach of offering quality care, and providing adequate coverage for each recipient. Even though the cost of Medicaid expansion within each state has increased the budget for the program, new appraisals has shown that Medicaid programs spend less per enrollee than commercial health insurance and much of the increase in Medicaid expenses originate from the increase in enrollment in the programs (Coughlin, Long, Clemens-Cope, & Resnick, 2013).

In 2010 the American government passed new health care legislation, called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), in order to reform the United States health care system. This health care reform opens the door for some Americans who have never been eligible for affordable health care insurance to obtain it beginning in 2014 (Sparer, 2011). All the states will enact this legislation but some will limit the provision provided to their citizens (Kaiser Commission, 2013). North Carolina is one of the states that have chosen not to enact all of the ACA’s provisions (Kaiser Commission, 2013). In this paper, I will look at health care

The following analysis will explore the current health insurance problem under the ACA. It will discuss the proposed policy of Medicaid Expansion and the impact of States not cooperating with the implementation of such provision. Moreover, a recommendation on strategies to alleviate the health

The United States (US) is distinguished for its medical advances, leading technology and astonishing discoveries in various science fields. These advancements in the health care ground have impacted and improved the health care delivery of several in the nation. The US is found among the wealthiest, most developed countries around the world; however, it is the only developed country that fails to provide universal health care to its people. Health care in the US is described as fragmented, inaccessible, and expensive. Diebel (2015) compared the health system in the US to other nations and supported that it is extremely overpriced, yet the end result does not always support its cost. Lack of coverage, high copayments plus deductibles force Americans to postpone seeking medical attention resulting in undiagnosed health conditions and complications of current diseases. In 2010, under President Obama’s mandate, Americans witnessed the birth of a controversial legislation, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The goal of the PPACA is to improve just about every aspect of the system such the health of Americans, health care access and quality, while reversing the health care expenditure (Hahn and Sheingold, 2014). The aim of this paper is to discuss the PPACA and the Medicaid Expansion under the PPACA including its risks and benefits; as well as, the impact of the expansion in the healthcare delivery

Looking at the different readings which analyzed and discussed the different ways that states are handling the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, it seems that each state has their own unique prospective on the expansion, dependent on the political leanings and wealth of the state. For example, one of the article describes Kentucky opting to traditional Medicaid, while Arkansas opted to buy coverage for the poor through the federal marketplace. The states that have limited the expansion of Medicaid seems to be typically Republican states, which obviously has an issue with not only the costs associated with the expansion but also the ideological issues that seems to be in conflict with