Tag: medicaid
FEMA

Blue States That Finance Government Need Less Federal Help

"Move it back to the states," Donald Trump says about education, about FEMA and, as will probably happen, about Medicaid. What that would mean to Americans depends on what state they live in. As the federal government moves forward on this, it's a good bet that high-income states can handle the changes better than low-income ones.

Yes, it's true: Taxpayers in high-income states, largely blue ones, have been subsidizing residents of less wealthy red states.

A few years ago, there was an interesting feud between Joe Manchin, senator from West Virginia, and Mikie Sherrill, who represents a well-heeled congressional district in New Jersey. Funds for a federal child care subsidy were to be cut, and Manchin wanted the plan rejiggered to send a bigger chunk to the many low-income families of West Virginia. That would have meant less help for suburban parents in New Jersey.

Sherrill responded: "New Jersey already pays more than $10 billion in taxes than we receive in federal spending, and I will not let another federal program pay less to New Jersey taxpayers than it does to all other Americans."

According to Trump's vision of New Federalism, services provided by the federal government would be better handled by states. But the bills for these services would also largely go to the states. Obviously, states with high incomes and high taxes are better equipped to replace Washington dollars.

Florida may have attracted a lot of rich people seeking low taxes, but if the Federal Emergency Management Agency stopped showering money for hurricane relief every time a big blow tears up the coastline — forcing Floridians to bear more of the cost — well, good luck with that.

FEMA's core principle for disaster relief has been "locally executed, state managed and federally supported." Home insurance costs have already skyrocketed in Florida. Add to that the economic fallout of making the people living there pay more for building back?

Public schools are mostly funded by state and local taxpayers. The Department of Education does give money to schools with high percentages of low-income students, many in rural areas, and pays for special education. Over 23% of Mississippi's school district revenue comes from federal funding. By contrast, the feds account for only about 7% of New York state's.

Meanwhile, look at outcomes. The top state for test scores is Massachusetts, followed by New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and New York. These states would probably do OK without a Department of Education.

The House budget resolution targets cuts to Medicaid of up to $880 billion or more over 10 years. Medicaid is jointly financed by states and the federal government but administered by the states. If a state wants to make up for lost Medicaid funds, it can raise taxes. Or it could cover fewer people, cut benefits or pay doctors less.

Despite a much-publicized movement of rich people from high-tax places like New York and California to lower-tax Florida and Texas, the big money has largely remained in the urban centers where it was originally made.

"The Ultra-Rich are Flourishing and Sticking Around in California," Bloomberg News reports. Despite mesospheric housing prices, some corporate departures and high taxes, Bloomberg writes, "it remains one of the most popular places for global wealth."

And the state is run by Democrats. Texas may be a red state, but its economic engines are the blue cities of Austin, Dallas and Houston.

Trump's 2017 tax cuts overwhelmingly went to the upper incomes. Extending them now would do more of the same. Where do those upper incomes live? (See above.)

I may be the thousandth pundit to note that Trump-o-nomics hurts working people most, that is, his voters. What can you say except that elections have consequences.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Trump, CDC, public health threat

How Trump's Health Care Layoffs Will Hasten A National Recession

As the news about the Trump regime’s purge at every Health and Human Services agency poured in, it dawned on me that this could be the beginning of the next great recession.

Beyond the massive cuts already underway, there is more to come in Medicaid and possibly even Medicare as the GOP advances legislation to extend corporate tax breaks. This will lead to a sharp reduction in household spending, which drives the economy. Health care represents 18 percent of that economy.

I have consistently advocated for reducing the medical industrial complex’s draw on national income. But this isn’t the way to do it. Cutting Medicaid and premium support for individual insurance plans will undermine public health, make America sicker and increase demand for ameliorative care, which will increasingly be provided free of charge as the ranks of the uninsured swell. That will force those still insured to pay higher rates, which in turn will exacerbate the decline in consumer spending as households prioritize basics like food, housing, heat, and health care over discretionary spending.

This is in addition to the havoc raised by the president’s broad and irrational tariffs announced yesterday. Unless every economist except those working for Trump is wrong, this will drive prices for every imported good higher: from food and clothes to cars and computers.

The ostensible goal — bringing manufacturing jobs home — is a decades-long project. Those who honestly believe Hamiltonian-style protectionism can work in the 21st century understand that industrial policy must be 1) strategically targeted; and 2) accompanied by policies that promote the protected industries. That’s exactly what President Biden included in his Build Back Better program, partially enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Trump regime is eliminating many of those provisions.

Is it safe? Will it be there?

The press did an admirable job over the past two days cataloging the effects of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s purge of 10,000 HHS workers (on top of the 10,000 who jumped ship during the earlier buyouts). Here are some of the more pernicious cuts:

  • The Food and Drug Administration eliminated 170 staff from its inspections department. Most were support staff for the people who visit facilities in the U.S. and around the world to ensure there are no impurities in drugs and no bacteria in food. The backlog of uninspected facilities will grow as “front-line investigators will now be spending significant time processing their own travel and related administrative requirements,” rather than spending that time inspecting firms to ensure the American consumer is protected, one FDA official told CBS News.

The staff cuts at FDA included veterinarians monitoring the bird flu outbreak, which has led to egg shortages and emboldened producers to price gouge. The laid-off scientists included vets who designed studies showing pasteurization killed viruses found in milk, according to the Washington Post. Drinking raw milk is among the many quackeries embraced by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

  • The vaccine advisory panel at FDA lost the four staffers who run the meetings and monitor conflicts of interest, according to Bloomberg News. Meanwhile,Politico reports Sara Brenner, the FDA’s principal deputy commissioner, has asked for more data about the Novovax vaccine for Covid-19, the only non-mRNA vaccine on the market. Its approval was expected by April 1.
  • The HHS layoffs announced Tuesday included more than half of the 150 staff at the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, which evaluates policy alternatives for the HHS secretary. More than third of the 300 staffers at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality received pink slips this week, according to Stat. AHRQ conducts or supports most of the research aimed at improving patient safety at the nations hospitals, where drug-resistant infections remain a major threat.
  • About two-thirds of the 1,200 people working at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health are being laid off, according to CBS News. They include the entire staff at the National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, which is responsible for ensuring respirators and other personal protective equipment work properly.

This will effect not just hospital and medical personnel but mineworkers, construction workers and others routinely exposed to dangerous air, chemicals and other hazards at work. The layoffs will take effect on June 30, American Federation of Government Employees union representatives told Modern Healthcare. "Everybody in NPPTL is being RIF'ed," said Brendan Demich, chief steward of the AFGE Local 1916.

  • It is unlikely the public will get many details about the effects of the personnel cuts. Most staff in the offices that respond to Freedom of Information Act requests at HHS have been put on administrative leave. Those offices at the CDC, NIH and the FDA were entirely eliminated. Journalists, lawyers and patient advocacy groups depend on FOIA requests to gain insight into internal deliberations and lobbyist interactions behind government decions.

An HHS spokesman told NPR that “the FOIA offices throughout the Department were previously siloed, and did not communicate with one another. Under Secretary Kennedy's vision for a more efficient HHS, these offices will be streamlined, and the work will continue.” Only there will be fewer people, longer delays, and centralized control over what gets released.

A better way to cut spending

Here’s another news story that caught my eye this week. Employment at the nation’s largest health insurance companies dipped 4.6% in the fourth quarter of last year, according to a review of SEC filings by Modern Healthcare reporters. Even if one excludes UnitedHealth Group’s overseas divestitures, the seven largest insurers cut 1.4 percent of their workers at a time when total jobs in the economy grew by 1.2 percent.

Slower spending growth by both Medicare and Medicaid is shrinking insurer margins. Seniors opting for private Medicare Advantage plans, which now cover more than half of beneficiaries, is slowing dramatically, up just 3.1 percent to 34.4 million people this year, according to a STAT report in late February. Medicare pays MA plans about 22 percent more on average than those beneficiaries would cost if they had remained in the traditional program.

Why? Medicare pays insurers a risk-adjusted monthly premium to cover seniors who choose an MA plan. The “risk” is determined by how sick people are, which insurers can game by coding for illnesses they never treat. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission estimates Medicare loses over $80 billion a year from insurer upcoding — and that’s after slapping an across-the-board 5.9 percent reduction in payments to insurers.

Increase that reduction to 20% — making MA reimbursement about equal to FFS Medicare — would save Medicare $1.0 trillion over the next decade. This could lead to higher cost sharing, higher premiums and fewer supplemental benefits for MA enrollees (so those plans looked more like traditional Medicare). Or MA insurers could take a profit haircut. But it would also eliminate any need to cut Medicaid to pay for tax breaks.

Here’s the popular slogan I offered last month: Don’t throw people off Medicaid to pay for your tax breaks for big corporations and the wealthy. Stop private insurers from ripping off Medicare.

Merrill Goozner, the former editor of Modern Healthcare, writes about health and politics at GoozNews.substack.com, where this column first appeared. Please consider subscribing to support his work.

Reprinted with permission from Gooz News.


Why Medicaid Patients May Not Know Their Health Care Is At Risk

Why Medicaid Patients May Not Know Their Health Care Is At Risk

They go by different names in different states. In Tennessee, it is TennCare. In Ohio it is the Buckeye Health Plan. In California, it is Medi-Cal.

In Florida, it “sounds like an orange juice brand: Simply Healthcare,” wrote N. Adam Brown, an emergency room physician and professor at the University of North Carolina business school, in a commentary posted earlier this week on the MedPage Today website.

What they have in common is that they are Medicaid plans run by private insurance companies. Over the past several decades, 41 states and the District of Columbia have turned over their low-income health insurance programs to what industry jargon refers to as Medicaid managed care organizations or MCOs.

The nation’s 280-plus MCO plans cover an estimated 75 percent of the 85 million people (as of March 2024) on Medicaid, the joint federal-state program targeted for massive cuts by the GOP-run Congress. While many are run by non-profits or government agencies (like CountyCare in Chicago where I live), five for-profit private insurers (Centene, UnitedHealth Group, Elevance, Molina and Aetna/CVS) account for more than half of all Medicaid MCO enrollment, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

While the websites of most of these firms indicate their plans are connected to Medicaid, a significant share of their clientele have no idea they are covered by a government-financed program. A recent study published in JAMA found that between 2019 and 2022 when enrollment increased by 5.2 percentage points, surveys that asked where people obtained their health insurance showed only a 1.3 percentage point growth in Medicaid.

“Because Medicaid is not branded as Medicaid, if you tell a patient in South Carolina they might lose Medicaid, their eyes may glaze over,” Brown wrote. “Tell them Healthy Connections is at risk? You have their attention.”

His solution? “In every state, we need to call Medicaid by its real name,” he wrote. Instead of saying “‘Republicans want to reduce Medicaid by $880 billion,’ try ‘If Republicans' Medicaid plans come to fruition, you could lose your Buckeye Health Plan health insurance.’”

Where are the lobbyists?

No one is in better position to call Medicaid by its real name than the private insurers in charge of the program. Yet with the sole exception of Centene, the largest MCO operator, most companies have remained silent in the face of the GOP’s assault on the program.

For instance, I can’t find a single press release or public statement by a private insurer that counters claims contained in a specious hit piece released earlier this month by conservative think tanks that estimated Medicaid made $1.1 trillion in improper payments over the past decade. Since they’re managing at least half the money that flows through Medicaid, they ought to be offended.

The Paragon Health Institute and Economic Policy Innovation Center paper based its claims on eligibility reviews conducted during the last two years of the first Trump administration. It then applied that percentage to all Medicaid spending. However, the government estimated just a five percent improper payment rate or about $31 billion in 2024, which, if eliminated in every year over the next decade, would only save half of what conservatives claim.

Nor have those insurers risen to defend the the 92 percent of adults under 65 who are on Medicaid despite working full or part-time. More than a quarter of all workers in the private sector are not offered health insurance as a benefit, most whom are earning poverty- or near-poverty wages and are eligible for Medicaid, especially in the 41 states that have expanded the program (with 90% federal funding) to cover people earning up to 138 percent of poverty wages.

Even among those offered health insurance on the job, only three-quarters purchase plans. Why? Most can’t afford the premiums being taken out of their paltry paychecks.

So let’s begin describing Medicaid for what it is: A massive subsidy for employers who rely on low-wage labor. This subsidization is necessary because we have what, theoretically at least, is an employment-based health insurance system. Yet the government doesn’t require all employers provide and pay for health insurance.

Of course that’s not what you hearing from Republicans like Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO). During hearing held earlier this month, he, like the president he slavishly follows, said there would be no cuts to Medicaid. “My definition of cutting does not include getting people who are fraudsters and getting people who are not supposed to be on the list as recipients.”

Democrats should answer with the following: “When we make Florida’s orange growers pay for their orange pickers’ health insurance, we’ll be able to shrink ‘Simply Health’ as much as they shrank the amount of juice put in each bottle.”

Reprinted with permission from Gooz News.

Poll: Massive Voter Rejection Of Medicaid And Food Stamp Cuts

Poll: Massive Voter Rejection Of Medicaid And Food Stamp Cuts

A new Civiqs poll conducted for Daily Kos should give Republicans a serious case of heartburn.

The survey, which was fielded February 28 to March 3, finds that 63 percent of registered voters oppose the idea of cutting programs like Medicaid and food stamps that help low-income Americans. Those are the same two programs Republican lawmakers plan to slash in order to pay for President Donald Trump's tax cuts for the rich. Half of voters (50 percent) strongly oppose cutting those programs.

The GOP budget blueprint, which passed the House last week with only Republican votes, would require hundreds of billions in cuts to Medicaid and food stamps in order to just partly pay for the GOP's plan to extend the tax cuts they passed in 2017, which overwhelmingly benefit the highest-earning taxpayers.

The new poll finds that nearly every demographic group opposes making cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, which help 72 million Americans afford health care and 42 million Americans put food on the table, respectively.

The cuts are opposed by an overwhelming share of female voters (68 percent), male voters (57 percent), non-college-educated voters (60 percent), college-educated voters (67 percent), urban voters (74 percent), suburban voters (62 percent), rural voters (56 percent), and every age group.

The only major group surveyed that supports the cuts are Republicans, 55 percent of whom support making cuts to those programs. However, that is weak support from a group that usually eats up everything Trump wants.

The poll's results provide insight into why Republicans are lying about the kind of cuts their budget necessitates.

“The word Medicaid is not even in this bill,” Republican Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana said at a news conference on Capitol Hill last week, as he sought to convince his own members to support the budget. “Democrats are lying about … what’s in the bill.”

But Democrats are not lying about the fact that the budget would make steep cuts to Medicaid.

"Their resolution calls for at least, as a floor, $880 billion to be cut by what is under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee,” Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, ranking member of the House Budget Committee, explained. “If Energy and Commerce Committee said, 'We don't want to cut Medicaid. Instead, we will cut literally everything else we possibly can, 100 percent,' that only gets you about halfway to the $880 billion. So by definition, they have to, at a minimum, cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid.”

Experts say cuts that steep would leave many at risk of losing their Medicaid coverage.

Indeed, heavily Republican states such as West Virginia, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Arkansas have some of the highest percentages of state residents on Medicaid, according to data from KFF, a nonpartisan organization focused on health policy.

“Everyone who relies on Medicaid would be at risk,” Edwin Park, a research professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University, told NBC News. “Specifics of the proposal will matter—each state will be hit, and how hard they’ll be hit will vary—but certainly they’re all at risk.”

Protests have cropped up across the country as voters try to convince Republicans not to slash the programs. Over the weekend, people in Alaska, Colorado, New York, and Wisconsin gathered to slam their Republican lawmakers for voting for the bill that necessitates cuts to Medicaid.

Republicans were also met at town halls by angry constituents who oppose Medicaid cuts.

But whether Republicans will listen to voters is another story.

Trump has blessed the GOP proposal with his endorsement, saying, "We need both Chambers to pass the House Budget to ‘kickstart’ the Reconciliation process, and move all of our priorities to the concept of, 'ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL.' It will, without question, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

And Republicans have shown time and again that if Trump says jump, they say how high.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World