OP ed: Medicaid vs Waivers

Looking at Medicaid expansion versus waivers

Op-ed in Gwinnett Daily Post April 19, 2019

We’ve all heard the old saying: Charity begins at home. Sometimes clarity does, too.

As a freshman Democrat in the Georgia House of Representatives, I am writing to make clear the critical advantages of a Medicaid bill filed by my party over recent legislation supported by elected Republicans.

Let’s first take a good look at theirs, Senate Bill 106. It’s the Medicaid Waiver legislation that Gov. Brian Kemp signed into law late last month.

 

Beyond underlining the state’s politically motivated refusal to accept federal funds to expand Medicaid — as Democrats want to do — it grants the governor broad powers in establishing a Medicaid waiver for Georgia. Under the program, explains the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “ … a state can waive certain Medicaid program requirements, allowing the state to provide care for people who might not otherwise be eligible … .”

Gov. Kemp, who has until June 30, 2020, to apply for the waiver, has indicated that his administration is likely to follow steps — such as work requirements and high-risk pools — laid out by other states with waiver programs. The pools currently are legal, but work requirements in Kentucky and Arkansas were struck down by a federal judge; the issue probably will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. In Arkansas, more than 18,000 people lost access to Medicaid last year, and once it’s lost, it takes a calendar year to regain it, even if work requirements are met.

And what about Georgia’s waiver program under SB106? It’s certainly not a good solution for the nearly 500,000 Georgians who are now uninsured; it would actually cover far fewer people than a full Medicaid expansion.

The Senate bill proposes coverage for Georgians up to 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. That would be about 240,000, leaving behind at least another 220,000 who could be insured if we upped coverage to only 138 percent at the FPL.

And how, you ask, would covering more people save the state money? Well, the federal government would pay 90% of the cost of coverage up to 138% of FPL, but only 67 percent of it below that level, requiring substantially more money directly out of taxpayers’ pockets.

Now for a much brighter scenario: In response to SB106, Georgia House Democrats have filed the Expand Medicaid Now Act.

As one of 14 states that haven’t expanded Medicaid, Georgia misses out on up to $3 billion a year in federal funding that could cover Georgians and stabilize our rural hospitals. Medicaid expansion could produce 56,000 new jobs in healthcare and cover 32,000 veterans and their spouses.

 

Committing to Medicaid expansion would mean an estimated $2.3 billion to $2.8 billion in federal funds in fiscal 2022. State agencies would save about $67.6 million in fiscal 2020 and $68.1 million in fiscal 2022. And between 485,000 and 598,000 Georgians would have affordable healthcare by fiscal 2022.

So, a summary clarifying the differences between our legislation: Waivers lead to coverage of 240,000 and cost Georgia $1,583 per enrollee; Expansion covers 460,000 (at 138 percent FPL) and would cost the state $475 per enrollee (and it would start on July 1, this year!) Simply put, the Democrats’ bill would help many more people much sooner and cost Georgia a lot less.

My Republican colleagues would have you believe that Medicare waivers are a step in the right direction, but the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is still the law, and expanding Medicaid is a part of it. Their distaste for President Barack Obama is what motivates their support of SB106. And speaking of clarity, as we were, it seems painfully clear to me that they’re willing to put party above people and play politics with our health care.