Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 14, 2023

Medicaid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Medicaid administrator) logo

In the United States, Medicaid is a government program that provides health insurance for adults and children with limited income and resources. The program is partially funded and primarily managed by state governments, which also have wide latitude in determining eligibility and benefits, but the federal government sets baseline standards for state Medicaid programs and provides a significant portion of their funding.

Medicaid was established in 1965 and was significantly expanded by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was passed in 2010. In most states, anyone with income up to 138% of the federal poverty line qualifies for Medicaid coverage under the provisions of the ACA. A 2012 Supreme Court decision established that states may continue to use pre-ACA Medicaid eligibility standards and receive previously established levels of federal Medicaid funding; in states that make that choice, income limits may be significantly lower, and able-bodied adults may not be eligible for Medicaid at all.

Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with low income in the United States, providing free health insurance to 85 million low-income and disabled people as of 2022; in 2019, the program paid for half of all U.S. births. As of 2017, the total annual cost of Medicaid was just over $600 billion, of which the federal government contributed $375 billion and states an additional $230 billion. States are not required to participate in the program, although all have since 1982. In general, Medicaid recipients must be U.S. citizens or qualified non-citizens, and may include low-income adults, their children, and people with certain disabilities. As of 2022 45% of those receiving Medicaid or CHIP were children.

Medicaid also covers long-term services and supports, including both nursing home care and home- and community-based services, for those with low incomes and minimal assets; the exact qualifications vary by state. Medicaid spent $215 billion on such care in 2020, over half of the total $402 billion spent on such services. Of the 7.7 million Americans who used long-term services and supports in 2020, about 5.6 million were covered by Medicaid, including 1.6 million of the 1.9 million in institutional settings.

Medicaid covers healthcare costs for people with low incomes, while Medicare is a universal program providing health coverage for the elderly. Medicaid offers elder care benefits not normally covered by Medicare, including nursing home care and personal care services. There are also dual health plans for people who have both Medicaid and Medicare. Along with Medicare, Tricare, and ChampVA, Medicaid is one of the four government-sponsored medical insurance programs in the United States. The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in Baltimore, Maryland provides federal oversight.

Research shows that existence of the Medicaid program improves health outcomes, health insurance coverage, access to health care, and recipients' financial security and provides economic benefits to states and health providers.

Features

Beginning in the 1980s, many states received waivers from the federal government to create Medicaid managed care programs. Under managed care, Medicaid recipients are enrolled in a private health plan, which receives a fixed monthly premium from the state. The health plan is then responsible for providing for all or most of the recipient's healthcare needs. Today, all but a few states use managed care to provide coverage to a significant proportion of Medicaid enrollees. As of 2014, 26 states have contracts with managed care organizations (MCOs) to deliver long-term care for the elderly and individuals with disabilities. The states pay a monthly capitated rate per member to the MCOs, which in turn provide comprehensive care and accept the risk of managing total costs. Nationwide, roughly 80% of Medicaid enrollees are enrolled in managed care plans. Core eligibility groups of low-income families are most likely to be enrolled in managed care, while the "aged" and "disabled" eligibility groups more often remain in traditional "fee for service" Medicaid.

Because service level costs vary depending on the care and needs of the enrolled, a cost per person average is only a rough measure of actual cost of care. The annual cost of care will vary state to state depending on state approved Medicaid benefits, as well as the state specific care costs. A 2014 Kaiser Family Foundation report estimates the national average per capita annual cost of Medicaid services for children to be $2,577, adults to be $3,278, persons with disabilities to be $16,859, aged persons (65+) to be $13,063, and all Medicaid enrollees to be $5,736.

History

The Social Security Amendments of 1965 created Medicaid by adding Title XIX to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 et seq. Under the program, the federal government provided matching funds to states to enable them to provide Medical Assistance to residents who met certain eligibility requirements. The objective was to help states assist residents whose income and resources were insufficient to pay the costs of traditional commercial health insurance plans.

By 1982, all states were participating. The last state to do so was Arizona.

The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and the Health Insurance Premium Payment Program (HIPP) were created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90). This act helped to add Section 1927 to the Social Security Act of 1935 and became effective on January 1, 1991. This program was formed due to the costs that Medicaid programs were paying for discount price outpatient drugs.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA-93) amended Section 1927 of the Act, bringing changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. It requires states to implement a Medicaid estate recovery program to recover from the estate of deceased beneficiaries the long-term-care-related costs paid by Medicaid, and gives states the option of recovering all non-long-term-care costs, including full medical costs.

Medicaid also offers a Fee for Service (Direct Service) Program to schools throughout the United States for the reimbursement of costs associated with the services delivered to students with special education needs. Federal law mandates that children with disabilities receive a "free appropriate public education" under Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Decisions by the United States Supreme Court and subsequent changes in federal law require states to reimburse part or all of the cost of some services provided by schools for Medicaid-eligible disabled children.

Expansion under the Affordable Care Act

ACA Medicaid expansion by state.
  Not adopted
  Adopted
  Implemented
States that expanded Medicaid under ACA had a lower uninsured rate in 2018 at various income levels.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), passed in 2010, substantially expanded the Medicaid program. Before the law was passed, some states did not allow able-bodied adults to participate in Medicaid, and many set income eligibility far below the Federal poverty level. Under the provisions of the law, any state that participated in Medicaid would need to expand coverage to include anyone earning up to 138% of the Federal poverty level beginning in 2014. The costs of the newly covered population would initially be covered in full by the Federal government, although states would need to pay for 10% of those costs by 2020.

However, in 2012, the Supreme Court held in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that withdrawing all Medicaid funding from states that refused to expand eligibility was unconstitutionally coercive. States could choose to maintain pre-existing levels of Medicaid funding and eligibility, and some did; over half the national uninsured population lives in those states. As of March 2023, 40 states have accepted the Affordable Care Act Medicaid extension, as has the District of Columbia, which has its own Medicaid program; 10 states have not. Among adults aged 18 to 64, states that expanded Medicaid had an uninsured rate of 7.3% in the first quarter of 2016, while non-expansion states had a 14.1% uninsured rate.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimated that the cost of expansion was $6,366 per person for 2015, about 49 percent above previous estimates. An estimated 9 to 10 million people had gained Medicaid coverage, mostly low-income adults. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated in October 2015 that 3.1 million additional people were not covered in states that rejected the Medicaid expansion.

In some states that chose not to expand Medicaid, income eligibility thresholds are significantly below 133% of the poverty line. Some of these states do not make Medicaid available to non-pregnant adults without disabilities or dependent children, no matter their income. Because subsidies on commercial insurance plans are not available to such individuals, most have few options for obtaining any medical insurance. For example, in Kansas, where only non-disabled adults with children and with an income below 32% of the poverty line were eligible for Medicaid, those with incomes from 32% to 100% of the poverty level ($6,250 to $19,530 for a family of three) were ineligible for both Medicaid and federal subsidies to buy insurance.

Studies of the impact of Medicaid expansion rejections calculated that up to 6.4 million people would have too much income for Medicaid but not qualify for exchange subsidies. Several states argued that they could not afford the 10% contribution in 2020. Some studies suggested that rejecting the expansion would cost more due to increased spending on uncompensated emergency care that otherwise would have been partially paid for by Medicaid coverage.

A 2016 study found that residents of Kentucky and Arkansas, which both expanded Medicaid, were more likely to receive health care services and less likely to incur emergency room costs or have trouble paying their medical bills. Residents of Texas, which did not accept the Medicaid expansion, did not see a similar improvement during the same period. Kentucky opted for increased managed care, while Arkansas subsidized private insurance. Later, Arkansas and Kentucky governors proposed reducing or modifying their programs. From 2013 to 2015, the uninsured rate dropped from 42% to 14% in Arkansas and from 40% to 9% in Kentucky, compared with 39% to 32% in Texas.

A 2016 DHHS study found that states that expanded Medicaid had lower premiums on exchange policies because they had fewer low-income enrollees, whose health, on average, is worse than that of people with higher income.

The Census Bureau reported in September 2019 that states that expanded Medicaid under ACA had considerably lower uninsured rates than states that did not. For example, for adults between 100% and 399% of poverty level, the uninsured rate in 2018 was 12.7% in expansion states and 21.2% in non-expansion states. Of the 14 states with uninsured rates of 10% or greater, 11 had not expanded Medicaid. A July 2019 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) indicated that states enacting Medicaid expansion exhibited statistically significant reductions in mortality rates.

The ACA was structured with the assumption that Medicaid would cover anyone making less than 133% of the Federal poverty level throughout the United States; as a result, premium tax credits are only available to individuals buying private health insurance through exchanges if they make more than that amount. This has given rise to the so-called Medicaid coverage gap in states that have not expanded Medicaid: there are people whose income is too high to qualify for Medicaid in those states, but too low to receive assistance in paying for private health insurance, which is therefore unaffordable to them.

State implementations

States may bundle together the administration of Medicaid with other programs such as the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), so the same organization that handles Medicaid in a state may also manage the additional programs. Separate programs may also exist in some localities that are funded by the states or their political subdivisions to provide health coverage for indigents and minors.

State participation in Medicaid is voluntary; however, all states have participated since 1982. In some states Medicaid is subcontracted to private health insurance companies, while other states pay providers (i.e., doctors, clinics and hospitals) directly. There are many services that can fall under Medicaid and some states support more services than other states. The most provided services are intermediate care for mentally disabled, prescription drugs and nursing facility care for under 21-year-olds. The least provided services include institutional religious (non-medical) health care, respiratory care for ventilator dependent and PACE (inclusive elderly care).

Most states administer Medicaid through their own programs. A few of those programs are listed below:

As of January 2012, Medicaid and/or CHIP funds could be obtained to help pay employer health care premiums in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Georgia.

Differences by state

States must comply with federal law, under which each participating state administers its own Medicaid program, establishes eligibility standards, determines the scope and types of services it will cover, and sets the rate of reimbursement physicians and care providers. Differences between states are often influenced by the political ideologies of the state and cultural beliefs of the general population. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) closely monitors each state's program and establishes requirements for service delivery, quality, funding, and eligibility standards.

Medicaid estate recovery regulations also vary by state. (Federal law gives options as to whether non-long-term-care-related expenses, such as normal health-insurance-type medical expenses are to be recovered, as well as on whether the recovery is limited to probate estates or extends beyond.)

Political influences

Several political factors influence the cost and eligibility of tax-funded health care. According to a study conducted by Gideon Lukens, factors significantly affecting eligibility included "party control, the ideology of state citizens, the prevalence of women in legislatures, the line-item veto, and physician interest group size". Lukens' study supported the generalized hypothesis that Democrats favor generous eligibility policies while Republicans do not. When the Supreme Court allowed states to decide whether to expand Medicaid or not in 2012, northern states, in which Democrat legislators predominated, disproportionately did so, often also extending existing eligibility.

Certain states in which there is a Republican-controlled legislature may be forced to expand Medicaid in ways extending beyond increasing existing eligibility in the form of waivers for certain Medicaid requirements so long as they follow certain objectives. In its implementation, this has meant using Medicaid funds to pay for low-income citizens' health insurance; this private-option was originally carried out in Arkansas but was adopted by other Republican-led states. However, private coverage is more expensive than Medicaid and the states would not have to contribute as much to the cost of private coverage.

Certain groups of people, such as migrants, face more barriers to health care than others due to factors besides policy, such as status, transportation and knowledge of the healthcare system (including eligibility).

Eligibility and coverage

Medicaid eligibility policies are very complicated. In general, a person's Medicaid eligibility is linked to their eligibility for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which provides aid to children whose families have low or no income, and to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program for the aged, blind and disabled. States are required under federal law to provide all AFDC and SSI recipients with Medicaid coverage. Because eligibility for AFDC and SSI essentially guarantees Medicaid coverage, examining eligibility/coverage differences per state in AFDC and SSI is an accurate way to assess Medicaid differences as well. SSI coverage is largely consistent by state, and requirements on how to qualify or what benefits are provided are standard. However AFDC has differing eligibility standards that depend on:

  1. The Low-Income Wage Rate: State welfare programs base the level of assistance they provide on some concept of what is minimally necessary.
  2. Perceived Incentive for Welfare Migration. Not only do social norms within the state affect its determination of AFDC payment levels, but regional norms will affect a state's perception of need as well.

Reimbursement for care providers

Beyond the variance in eligibility and coverage between states, there is a large variance in the reimbursements Medicaid offers to care providers; the clearest examples of this are common orthopedic procedures. For instance, in 2013, the average difference in reimbursement for 10 common orthopedic procedures in the states of New Jersey and Delaware was $3,047. The discrepancy in the reimbursements Medicaid offers may affect the type of care provided to patients.

In general, Medicaid plans pay providers significantly less than commercial insurers or Medicare would pay for the same care, paying around 67% as much as Medicare would for primary care and 78% as much for other services. This disparity has been linked to lower provider rates of participation in Medicaid programs vs Medicare or commercial insurance, and thus decreased access to care for Medicaid patients. One component of the Affordable Care Act was a federally-funded increase in 2013 and 2014 in Medicaid payments to bring them up to 100% of equivalent Medicare payments, in an effort to increase provider participation. Most states did not subsequently continue this provision.

Enrollment

In 2002, Medicaid enrollees numbered 39.9 million Americans, with the largest group being children (18.4 million or 46%). From 2000 to 2012, the proportion of hospital stays for children paid by Medicaid increased by 33% and the proportion paid by private insurance decreased by 21%. Some 43 million Americans were enrolled in 2004 (19.7 million of them children) at a total cost of $295 billion. In 2008, Medicaid provided health coverage and services to approximately 49 million low-income children, pregnant women, elderly people, and disabled people. In 2009, 62.9 million Americans were enrolled in Medicaid for at least one month, with an average enrollment of 50.1 million. In California, about 23% of the population was enrolled in Medi-Cal for at least 1 month in 2009–10. As of 2017, the total annual cost of Medicaid was just over $600 billion, of which the federal government contributed $375 billion and states an additional $230 billion. According to CMS, the Medicaid program provided health care services to more than 92 million people in 2022.

Loss of income and medical insurance coverage during the 2008–2009 recession resulted in a substantial increase in Medicaid enrollment in 2009. Nine U.S. states showed an increase in enrollment of 15% or more, putting a heavy strain on state budgets.

The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that for 2013, Medicaid recipients were 40% white, 21% black, 25% Hispanic, and 14% other races.

Comparisons with Medicare

Unlike Medicaid, Medicare is a social insurance program funded at the federal level and focuses primarily on the older population. Medicare is a health insurance program for people age 65 or older, people under age 65 with certain disabilities, and (through the End Stage Renal Disease Program) people of all ages with end-stage renal disease. The Medicare Program provides a Medicare part A covering hospital bills, Medicare Part B covering medical insurance coverage, and Medicare Part D covering purchase of prescription drugs.

Medicaid is a program that is not solely funded at the federal level. States provide up to half of the funding for Medicaid. In some states, counties also contribute funds. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid is a means-tested, needs-based social welfare or social protection program rather than a social insurance program. Eligibility is determined largely by income. The main criterion for Medicaid eligibility is limited income and financial resources, a criterion which plays no role in determining Medicare coverage. Medicaid covers a wider range of health care services than Medicare.

Some people are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare and are known as Medicare dual eligible or medi-medi's. In 2001, about 6.5 million people were enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid. In 2013, approximately 9 million people qualified for Medicare and Medicaid.

Benefits

There are two general types of Medicaid coverage. "Community Medicaid" helps people who have little or no medical insurance. Medicaid nursing home coverage helps pay for the cost of living in a nursing home for those who are eligible; the recipient also pays most of his/her income toward the nursing home costs, usually keeping only $66.00 a month for expenses other than the nursing home.

Some states operate a program known as the Health Insurance Premium Payment Program (HIPP). This program allows a Medicaid recipient to have private health insurance paid for by Medicaid. As of 2008 relatively few states had premium assistance programs and enrollment was relatively low. Interest in this approach remained high, however.

Included in the Social Security program under Medicaid are dental services. Registration for dental services is optional for people older than 21 years but required for people eligible for Medicaid and younger than 21. Minimum services include pain relief, restoration of teeth and maintenance for dental health. Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) is a mandatory Medicaid program for children that focuses on prevention, early diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. Oral screenings are not required for EPSDT recipients, and they do not suffice as a direct dental referral. If a condition requiring treatment is discovered during an oral screening, the state is responsible for paying for this service, regardless of whether or not it is covered on that particular Medicaid plan.

Dental

Children enrolled in Medicaid are individually entitled under the law to comprehensive preventive and restorative dental services, but dental care utilization for this population is low. The reasons for low use are many, but a lack of dental providers who participate in Medicaid is a key factor. Few dentists participate in Medicaid – less than half of all active private dentists in some areas. Cited reasons for not participating are low reimbursement rates, complex forms and burdensome administrative requirements. In Washington state, a program called Access to Baby and Child Dentistry (ABCD) has helped increase access to dental services by providing dentists higher reimbursements for oral health education and preventive and restorative services for children. After the passing of the Affordable Care Act, many dental practices began using dental service organizations to provide business management and support, allowing practices to minimize costs and pass the saving on to patients currently without adequate dental care.

Eligibility

While Congress and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) set out the general rules under which Medicaid operates, each state runs its own program. Under certain circumstances, an applicant may be denied coverage. As a result, the eligibility rules differ significantly from state to state, although all states must follow the same basic framework.

As of 2013, Medicaid is a program intended for those with low income, but a low income is not the only requirement to enroll in the program. Eligibility is categorical—that is, to enroll one must be a member of a category defined by statute; some of these categories are: low-income children below a certain wage, pregnant women, parents of Medicaid-eligible children who meet certain income requirements, low-income disabled people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and/or Social Security Disability (SSD), and low-income seniors 65 and older. The details of how each category is defined vary from state to state.

PPACA income test standardization

As of 2019, when Medicaid has been expanded under the PPACA, eligibility is determined by an income test using Modified Adjusted Gross Income, with no state-specific variations and a prohibition on asset or resource tests.

Non-PPACA eligibility

While Medicaid expansion available to adults under the PPACA mandates a standard income-based test without asset or resource tests, other eligibility criteria such as assets may apply when eligible outside of the PPACA expansion, including coverage for eligible seniors or disabled. These other requirements include, but are not limited to, assets, age, pregnancy, disability, blindness, income, and resources, and one's status as a U.S. citizen or a lawfully admitted immigrant.

As of 2015, asset tests varied; for example, eight states did not have an asset test for a buy-in available to working people with disabilities, and one state had no asset test for the aged/blind/disabled pathway up to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level.

More recently, many states have authorized financial requirements that will make it more difficult for working-poor adults to access coverage. In Wisconsin, nearly a quarter of Medicaid patients were dropped after the state government imposed premiums of 3% of household income. A survey in Minnesota found that more than half of those covered by Medicaid were unable to obtain prescription medications because of co-payments.

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) requires anyone seeking Medicaid to produce documents to prove that he is a United States citizen or resident alien. An exception is made for Emergency Medicaid where payments are allowed for the pregnant and disabled regardless of immigration status. Special rules exist for those living in a nursing home and disabled children living at home.

Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries

Once someone is approved as a beneficiary in the Supplemental Security Income program, they may automatically be eligible for Medicaid coverage (depending on the laws of the state they reside in).

Five year "look-back"

The DRA has created a five-year "look-back period". This means that any transfers without fair market value (gifts of any kind) made by the Medicaid applicant during the preceding five years are penalizable.

The penalty is determined by dividing the average monthly cost of nursing home care in the area or State into the amount of assets gifted. Therefore, if a person gifted $60,000 and the average monthly cost of a nursing home was $6,000, one would divide $6000 into $60,000 and come up with 10. 10 represents the number of months the applicant would not be eligible for Medicaid.

All transfers made during the five-year look-back period are totaled, and the applicant is penalized based on that amount after having already dropped below the Medicaid asset limit. This means that after dropping below the asset level ($2,000 limit in most states), the Medicaid applicant will be ineligible for a period of time. The penalty period does not begin until the person is eligible for Medicaid.

Elders who gift or transfer assets can be caught in the situation of having no money but still not being eligible for Medicaid.

Immigration status

Legal permanent residents (LPRs) with a substantial work history (defined as 40 quarters of Social Security covered earnings) or military connection are eligible for the full range of major federal means-tested benefit programs, including Medicaid (Medi-Cal). LPRs entering after August 22, 1996, are barred from Medicaid for five years, after which their coverage becomes a state option, and states have the option to cover LPRs who are children or who are pregnant during the first five years. Noncitizen SSI recipients are eligible for (and required to be covered under) Medicaid. Refugees and asylees are eligible for Medicaid for seven years after arrival; after this term, they may be eligible at state option.

Nonimmigrants and unauthorized aliens are not eligible for most federal benefits, regardless of whether they are means tested, with notable exceptions for emergency services (e.g., Medicaid for emergency medical care), but states have the option to cover nonimmigrant and unauthorized aliens who are pregnant or who are children, and can meet the definition of "lawfully residing" in the United States. Special rules apply to several limited noncitizen categories: certain "cross-border" American Indians, Hmong/Highland Laotians, parolees and conditional entrants, and cases of abuse.

Aliens outside the United States who seek to obtain visas at U.S. consulates overseas or admission at U.S. ports of entry are generally denied entry if they are deemed "likely at any time to become a public charge". Aliens within the United States who seek to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent resident (LPR), or who entered the United States without inspection, are also generally subject to exclusion and deportation on public charge grounds. Similarly, LPRs and other aliens who have been admitted to the United States are removable if they become a public charge within five years after the date of their entry due to causes that preexisted their entry.

A 1999 policy letter from immigration officials defined "public charge" and identified which benefits are considered in public charge determinations, and the policy letter underlies current regulations and other guidance on the public charge grounds of inadmissibility and deportability. Collectively, the various sources addressing the meaning of public charge have historically suggested that an alien's receipt of public benefits, per se, is unlikely to result in the alien being deemed to be removable on public charge grounds.

Children and SCHIP

A child may be eligible for Medicaid regardless of the eligibility status of his parents. Thus, a child may be covered by Medicaid based on his individual status even if his parents are not eligible. Similarly, if a child lives with someone other than a parent, he may still be eligible based on its individual status.

One-third of children and over half (59%) of low-income children are insured through Medicaid or SCHIP. The insurance provides them with access to preventive and primary services which are used at a much higher rate than for the uninsured, but still below the utilization of privately insured patients. As of 2014, rate of uninsured children was reduced to 6% (5 million children remain uninsured).

HIV

Medicaid provided the largest portion of federal money spent on health care for people living with HIV/AIDS until the implementation of Medicare Part D, when the cost of prescription drugs for those eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid was shifted to Medicare. Unless low income people who are HIV positive meet some other eligibility category, they are not eligible for Medicaid assistance unless they can qualify under the "disabled" category to receive Medicaid assistance — for example, if they progress to AIDS (T-cell count drops below 200). The Medicaid eligibility policy differs from Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) guidelines, which recommend therapy for all patients with T-cell counts of 350 or less and even certain patients with a higher T-cell count. Due to the high costs associated with HIV medications, many patients are not able to begin antiretroviral treatment without Medicaid help. It is estimated that more than half of people living with AIDS in the United States receive Medicaid payments. Two other programs that provide financial assistance to people living with HIV/AIDS are the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and the Supplemental Security Income programs.

Utilization

During 2003–2012, the share of hospital stays billed to Medicaid increased by 2.5%, or 0.8 million stays. As of 2019, Medicaid paid for half of all births in the United States.

Medicaid super utilizers (defined as Medicaid patients with four or more admissions in one year) account for more hospital stays (5.9 vs.1.3 stays), longer lengths of stay (6.1 vs. 4.5 days), and higher hospital costs per stay ($11,766 vs. $9,032). Medicaid super-utilizers were more likely than other Medicaid patients to be male and to be aged 45–64 years. Common conditions among super-utilizers include mood disorders and psychiatric disorders, as well as diabetes, cancer treatment, sickle cell anemia, sepsis, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and complications of devices, implants, and grafts.

Budget and financing

Medicaid spending as part of total U.S. healthcare spending (public and private). Percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Congressional Budget Office chart.

Unlike Medicare, which is solely a federal program, Medicaid is a joint federal-state program. Each state administers its own Medicaid system that must conform to federal guidelines for the state to receive Federal matching funds. Financing of Medicaid in the American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands is instead implemented through a block grant. The Federal government matches state funding according to the Federal Medical Assistance Percentages. The wealthiest states only receive a federal match of 50% while poorer states receive a larger match.

Medicaid funding has become a major budgetary issue for many states over the last few years, with states, on average, spending 16.8% of state general funds on the program. If the federal match expenditure is also counted, the program, on average, takes up 22% of each state's budget. Some 43 million Americans were enrolled in 2004 (19.7 million of them children) at a total cost of $295 billion. In 2008, Medicaid provided health coverage and services to approximately 49 million low-income children, pregnant women, elderly people, and disabled people. Federal Medicaid outlays were estimated to be $204 billion in 2008. In 2011, there were 7.6 million hospital stays billed to Medicaid, representing 15.6% (approximately $60.2 billion) of total aggregate inpatient hospital costs in the United States. At $8,000, the mean cost per stay billed to Medicaid was $2,000 less than the average cost for all stays.

Medicaid does not pay benefits to individuals directly; Medicaid sends benefit payments to health care providers. In some states Medicaid beneficiaries are required to pay a small fee (co-payment) for medical services. Medicaid is limited by federal law to the coverage of "medically necessary services".

Since the Medicaid program was established in 1965, "states have been permitted to recover from the estates of deceased Medicaid recipients who were over age 65 when they received benefits and who had no surviving spouse, minor child, or adult disabled child". In 1993, Congress enacted the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which required states to attempt to recoup "the expense of long-term care and related costs for deceased Medicaid recipients 55 or older." The Act allowed states to recover other Medicaid expenses for deceased Medicaid recipients 55 or older, at each state's choice. However, states were prohibited from estate recovery when "there is a surviving spouse, a child under the age of 21 or a child of any age who is blind or disabled". The Act also carved out other exceptions for adult children who have served as caretakers in the homes of the deceased, property owned jointly by siblings, and income-producing property, such as farms". Each state now maintains a Medicaid Estate Recovery Program, although the sum of money collected significantly varies from state to state, "depending on how the state structures its program and how vigorously it pursues collections."

On November 25, 2008, a new federal rule was passed that allows states to charge premiums and higher co-payments to Medicaid participants. This rule enabled states to take in greater revenues, limiting financial losses associated with the program. Estimates figure that states will save $1.1 billion while the federal government will save nearly $1.4 billion. However, this meant that the burden of financial responsibility would be placed on 13 million Medicaid recipients who faced a $1.3 billion increase in co-payments over 5 years. The major concern is that this rule will create a disincentive for low-income people to seek healthcare. It is possible that this will force only the sickest participants to pay the increased premiums and it is unclear what long-term effect this will have on the program.

A 2019 study found that Medicaid expansion in Michigan had net positive fiscal effects for the state.

Effects

Coverage gains

A 2019 review by Kaiser Family Foundation of 324 studies on Medicaid expansion concluded that "expansion is linked to gains in coverage; improvements in access, financial security, and some measures of health status/outcomes; and economic benefits for states and providers."

Mortality and disability reduction

A 2021 study found that Medicaid expansion as part of the Affordable Care Act led to a substantial reduction in mortality, primarily driven by reductions in disease-related deaths. A 2018 study in the Journal of Political Economy found that upon its introduction, Medicaid reduced infant and child mortality in the 1960s and 1970s. The decline in the mortality rate for nonwhite children was particularly steep. A 2018 study in the American Journal of Public Health found that the infant mortality rate declined in states that had Medicaid expansions (as part of the Affordable Care Act) whereas the rate rose in states that declined Medicaid expansion. A 2020 JAMA study found that Medicaid expansion under the ACA was associated with reduced incidence of advanced-stage breast cancer, indicating that Medicaid accessibility led to early detection of breast cancer and higher survival rates. A 2020 study found no evidence that Medicaid expansion adversely affected the quality of health care given to Medicare recipients. A 2018 study found that Medicaid expansions in New York, Arizona, and Maine in the early 2000s caused a 6% decline in the mortality rate: "HIV-related mortality (affected by the recent introduction of antiretrovirals) accounted for 20% of the effect. Mortality changes were closely linked to county-level coverage gains, with one life saved annually for every 239 to 316 adults gaining insurance. The results imply a cost per life saved ranging from $327,000 to $867,000 which compares favorably with most estimates of the value of a statistical life."

A 2016 paper found that Medicaid has substantial positive long-term effects on the health of recipients: "Early childhood Medicaid eligibility reduces mortality and disability and, for whites, increases extensive margin labor supply, and reduces receipt of disability transfer programs and public health insurance up to 50 years later. Total income does not change because earnings replace disability benefits." The government recoups its investment in Medicaid through savings on benefit payments later in life and greater payment of taxes because recipients of Medicaid are healthier: "The government earns a discounted annual return of between 2% and 7% on the original cost of childhood coverage for these cohorts, most of which comes from lower cash transfer payments". A 2019 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that when Hawaii stopped allowing Compact of Free Association (COFA) migrants to be covered by the state's Medicaid program that Medicaid-funded hospitalizations declined by 69% and emergency room visits declined by 42% for this population, but that uninsured ER visits increased and that Medicaid-funded ER visits by infants substantially increased. Another NBER paper found that Medicaid expansion reduced mortality.

A 2021 American Economic Review study found that early childhood access to Medicaid "reduces mortality and disability, increases employment, and reduces receipt of disability transfer programs up to 50 years later. Medicaid has saved the government more than its original cost and saved more than 10 million quality adjusted life years."

Rural hospitals boosted revenue

A 2020 study found that Medicaid expansion boosted the revenue and operating margins of rural hospitals, had no impact on small urban hospitals, and led to declines in revenue for large urban hospitals. A 2021 study found that expansions of adult Medicaid dental coverage increasingly led dentists to locate to poor, previously underserved areas. A 2019 paper by Stanford University and Wharton School of Business economists found that Medicaid expansion "produced a substantial increase in hospital revenue and profitability, with larger gains for government hospitals. On the benefits side, we do not detect significant improvements in patient health, although the expansion led to substantially greater hospital and emergency room use, and a reallocation of care from public to private and better-quality hospitals."

Financial and health security increase

A 2017 survey of the academic research on Medicaid found it improved recipients' health and financial security. Studies have linked Medicaid expansion with increases in employment levels and student status among enrollees. A 2017 paper found that Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act "reduced unpaid medical bills sent to collection by $3.4 billion in its first two years, prevented new delinquencies, and improved credit scores. Using data on credit offers and pricing, we document that improvements in households' financial health led to better terms for available credit valued at $520 million per year. We calculate that the financial benefits of Medicaid double when considering these indirect benefits in addition to the direct reduction in out-of-pocket expenditures." Studies have found that Medicaid expansion reduced rates of poverty and severe food insecurity in certain states. Studies on the implementation of work requirements for Medicaid in Arkansas found that it led to an increase in uninsured individuals, medical debt, and delays in seeking care and taking medications, without any significant impact on employment. A 2021 study in the American Journal of Public Health found that Medicaid expansion in Louisiana led to reductions in medical debt.

Political participation increase

A 2017 study found that Medicaid enrollment increases political participation (measured in terms of voter registration and turnout).

Crime reduction

Studies have found that Medicaid expansion reduced crime. The proposed mechanisms for the reduction were that Medicaid increased the economic security of individuals and provided greater access to treatment for substance abuse or behavioral disorders. A 2022 study found that Medicaid eligibility during childhood reduced the likelihood of criminality during early adulthood.

Oregon Medicaid health experiment and controversy

In 2008, Oregon decided to hold a randomized lottery for the provision of Medicaid insurance in which 10,000 lower-income people eligible for Medicaid were chosen by a randomized system. The lottery enabled studies to accurately measure the impact of health insurance on an individual's health and eliminate potential selection bias in the population enrolling in Medicaid.

A sequence of two high-profile studies by a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Harvard School of Public Health found that "Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years", but did "increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain."

The study found that in the first year:

  1. Hospital use increased by 30% for those with insurance, with the length of hospital stays increasing by 30% and the number of procedures increasing by 45% for the population with insurance;
  2. Medicaid recipients proved more likely to seek preventive care. Women were 60% more likely to have mammograms and recipients overall were 20% more likely to have their cholesterol checked;
  3. In terms of self-reported health outcomes, having insurance was associated with an increased probability of reporting one's health as "good", "very good", or "excellent"—overall, about 25% higher than the average;
  4. Those with insurance were about 10% less likely to report a diagnosis of depression.
  5. Patients with catastrophic health spending (with costs that were greater than 30% of income) dropped.
  6. Medicaid patients had cut in half the probability of requiring loans or forgoing other bills to pay for medical costs.

The studies spurred a debate between proponents of expanding Medicaid coverage and fiscal conservatives challenging the value of this expansive government program.

Medicare fraud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States, Medicare fraud is the claiming of Medicare health care reimbursement to which the claimant is not entitled. There are many different types of Medicare fraud, all of which have the same goal: to collect money from the Medicare program illegitimately.

The total amount of Medicare fraud is difficult to track, because not all fraud is detected and not all suspicious claims turn out to be fraudulent. According to the Office of Management and Budget, Medicare "improper payments" were $47.9 billion in 2010, but some of these payments later turned out to be valid. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that total Medicare spending was $528 billion in 2010.

Types

Medicare fraud is typically seen in the following ways:

  1. Phantom billing: The medical provider bills Medicare for unnecessary procedures, or procedures that are never performed; for unnecessary medical tests or tests never performed; for unnecessary equipment; or equipment that is billed as new but is, in fact, used.
  2. Patient billing: A patient who is in on the scam provides his or her Medicare number in exchange for kickbacks. The provider bills Medicare for any reason and the patient is told to admit that he or she indeed received the medical treatment.
  3. Upcoding scheme and unbundling: Inflating bills by using a billing code that indicates the patient needs expensive procedures.

A 2011 crackdown on fraud charged "111 defendants in nine cities, including doctors, nurses, health care company owners and executives" of fraud schemes involving "various medical treatments and services such as home health care, physical and occupational therapy, nerve conduction tests and durable medical equipment."

The Affordable Care Act of 2009 provides an additional $350 million to pursue physicians who are involved in both intentional/unintentional Medicare fraud through inappropriate billing. Strategies for prevention and apprehension include increased scrutiny of billing patterns, and the use of data analytics. The healthcare reform law also provides for stricter penalties; for instance, requiring physicians to return any overpayments to CMS within 60 days time.

As of 2012, regulatory requirements tightened and law enforcement has stepped up.

However, in 2018, a CMS rule intended to limit upcoding was vacated by a judge; it was later appealed in 2019.

Law enforcement and prosecution

Jimmy Carter signs Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendments into law

The Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as mandated by Public Law 95-452 (as amended), is to protect the integrity of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) programs, to include Medicare and Medicaid programs, as well as the health and welfare of the beneficiaries of those programs. The Office of Investigations for the HHS, OIG collaboratively works with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to combat Medicare Fraud.

Defendants convicted of Medicare fraud face stiff penalties according to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and disbarment from HHS programs. The sentence depends on the amount of the fraud. Defendants can expect to face substantial prison time, deportation (if not a US citizen), fines, and restitution or have their sentence commuted.

In 1997, the federal government dedicated $100 million to federal law enforcement to combat Medicare fraud. That money pays over 400 FBI agents who investigate Medicare fraud claims. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Attorney's Office, and the U.S. Department of Justice created the Medicare Fraud Strike Force in Miami, Florida. This group of anti-fraud agents has been duplicated in other cities where Medicare fraud is widespread. In Miami alone, over two dozen agents from various federal agencies investigate solely Medicare fraud. In May 2009, Attorney General Holder and HHS Secretary Sebelius Announce New Interagency Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) to combat Medicare fraud. FBI Director Robert Mueller stated that the FBI and HHS OIG has over 2,400 open health care fraud investigations.

On January 28, 2010, the first "National Summit on Health Care Fraud" was held to bring together leaders from the public and private sectors to identify and discuss innovative ways to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse in the U.S. health care system. The summit was part of the Obama Administration's effort to fight health care fraud.

From January 2009 to June 2012, the Justice Department used the False Claims Act to recover more than $7.7 billion in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.

Reporting by whistleblowers

The DOJ Medicare fraud enforcement efforts rely heavily on healthcare professionals coming forward with information about Medicare fraud. Federal law allows individuals reporting Medicare fraud to receive full protection from retaliation from their employer and collect up to 30% of the fines that the government collects as a result of the whistleblower's information. According to US Department of Justice figures, whistleblower activities contributed to over $13 billion in total civil settlements in over 3,660 cases stemming from Medicare fraud in the 20-year period from 1987 to 2007.

International Medical Centers HMO and Jeb Bush

In 1985, Miguel G. Recarey, Jr., CEO of International Medical Centers (IMC), a Florida-based health maintenance organization (HMO) was charged with bribing a Medicare officer, bribing a potential federal grand jury witness, and illegal wiretapping in U.S. District Court in Florida. He failed to appear for a hearing. Recarey received US$ 781 million in Medicare payments for 197 000 enrollees but did not pay doctors and hospitals for their care. Recarey had "employed" Jeb Bush as a real estate consultant and paid him a US$75,000 fee for finding IMC a new location, although the move never took place. Bush lobbied the Reagan administration successfully on behalf of Recarey and IMC to waive a rule of maximum 50% Medicare enrollee proportion. As of 2015, Recarey was a fugitive living in Spain. The IMC fraud was then one of the largest in Medicare history.

Columbia/HCA fraud case, 1996-2004

The Columbia/HCA fraud case is one of the largest examples of Medicare fraud in U.S. history. Numerous New York Times stories, beginning in 1996, began scrutinizing Columbia/HCA's business and Medicare billing practices. These culminated in the company being raided by Federal agents searching for documents and eventually the ousting of the corporation's CEO, Rick Scott, by the board of directors. Among the crimes uncovered were doctors being offered financial incentives to bring in patients, falsifying diagnostic codes to increase reimbursements from Medicare and other government programs, and billing the government for unnecessary lab tests, though Scott personally was never charged with any wrongdoing. HCA wound up pleading guilty to more than a dozen criminal and civil charges and paying fines totaling $1.7 billion. In 1999, Columbia/HCA changed its name back to HCA, Inc.

In 2001, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) reached a plea agreement with the U.S. government that avoided criminal charges against the company and included $95 million in fines. In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims. In all, civil lawsuits cost HCA more than $1.7 billion to settle, including more than $500 million paid in 2003 to two whistleblowers.

Omnicare fraud, 1999-2010

From 1999 to 2004, Omnicare a major supplier of drugs to nursing homes, solicited and received kickbacks from Johnson & Johnson for recommending that physicians prescribe Risperdal, a Johnson & Johnson antipsychotic drug to nursing home patients. During this time Omnicare increased its annual drug purchases from $100 million to more than $280 million.

Starting in 2006, healthcare entrepreneur Adam B. Resnick sued Omnicare, under the False Claims Act, as well as the parties to the company's illegal kickback schemes. Omnicare allegedly paid kickbacks to nursing home operators in order to secure business, which constitutes Medicare fraud and Medicaid fraud. Omnicare allegedly had paid $50 million to the owners of the Mariner Health Care Inc. and SavaSeniorCare Administrative Services LLC nursing home chains in exchange for the right to continue providing pharmacy services to the nursing homes.

In November 2009, Omnicare paid $98 million to the federal government to settle five qui tam lawsuits brought under the False Claims Act and government charges that the company had paid or solicited a variety of kickbacks. The company admitted no wrongdoing.

In 2010, Omnicare settled Resnick's False Claims Act suit that had been taken up by the U.S. Department of Justice by paying $19.8 million to the federal government, while Mariner and SavaSeniorCare settled for $14 million.

Michigan Hematology-Oncology fraud

In 2013, Dr. Farid T. Fata was arrested on charges of providing chemotherapy treatments to patients who did not have cancer. Over a period of at least six years, Fata submitted $34 million USD in fraudulent charges to private health practices and Medicare. At the time of his arrest, Fata owned Michigan Hematology-Oncology, one of Michigan's largest cancer practices. In September 2014, Fata pled guilty to sixteen federal charges: thirteen counts of healthcare fraud, two counts of money laundering, and one count of conspiring to pay and receive kickbacks and cash payments for referring patients to a particular hospice and home health care company. In addition to chemotherapy malpractice, the court found Fata guilty of mistreating patients with inappropriate octreotide, potent antiemetics, and parenteral vitamins.

Fata's fraud scheme was discovered after one of his patients suffered an injury unrelated to his treatment. After beginning a lifelong chemotherapy treatment prescribed by Fata, patient Monica Flagg broke her leg and was seen by another physician at his practice, Dr. Soe Maunglay. Maunglay realized that Flagg did not have cancer and advised her to switch doctors immediately. Although he was already due to leave Fata's practice over ethical concerns, Maunglay brought his concerns to the clinic's business manager, George Karadsheh. Karadsheh filed a successful False Claims Act suit against Fata, leading to his arrest. Barbara McQuade, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan at the time, called the case "the most egregious case of fraud that [she had] ever seen in [her] life."

2010 Medicare Fraud Strike Task Force Charges

  • In July 2010, the Medicare Fraud Strike Task Force announced its largest fraud discovery up until then, when charging 94 people nationwide for allegedly submitting a total of $251 million in fraudulent Medicare claims. The 94 people charged included doctors, medical assistants, and health care firm owners, and 36 of them have been found and arrested. Charges were filed in Baton Rouge (31 defendants charged), Miami (24 charged) Brooklyn, (21 charged), Detroit (11 charged) and Houston (four charged). By value, nearly half of the false claims were made in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Medicare claims covered HIV treatment, medical equipment, physical therapy and other unnecessary services or items, or those not provided.
  • In October 2010, network of Armenian gangsters and their associates used phantom healthcare clinics and other means to try to cheat Medicare out of $163 million, the largest fraud by one criminal enterprise in the program's history up until then according to U.S. authorities The operation was under the protection of an Armenian crime boss, known in the former Soviet Union as a "vor," Armen Kazarian. Of the 73 individuals indicted for this scheme, more than 50 people were arrested on October 13, 2010, in New York, California, New Mexico, Ohio and Georgia.

2011 Medicare Fraud Strike Task Force Charges

In September 2011, a nationwide takedown by Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in eight cities resulted in charges against 91 defendants for their alleged participation in Medicare fraud schemes involving approximately $295 million in false billing.

2012 Medicare Fraud Strike Task Force Charges

In 2012, Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in Detroit resulted in convictions against 2 defendants for their participation in Medicare fraud schemes involving approximately $1.9 million in false billing.

Victor Jayasundera, a physical therapist, pleaded guilty on January 18, 2012, and was sentenced in the Eastern District of Michigan. In addition to his 30-month prison term, he was sentenced to three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay $855,484 in restitution, joint and several with his co-defendants.

Fatima Hassan, co-owned a company known as Jos Campau Physical Therapy with Javasundera, pleaded guilty on August 25, 2011, for her role in the Medicare fraud schemes and on May 17, 2012, was sentenced to 48 months in prison.

2013 Medicare Fraud Strike Task Force Charges

In May 2013, Federal officials charged 89 people including doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals in eight U.S. cities with Medicare fraud schemes that the government said totaled over $223 million in false billings. The bust took more than 400 law enforcement officers including FBI agents in Miami, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York and other cities to make the arrests.

2015 Medicare Fraud Strike Task Force Charges

In June 2015, Federal officials charged 243 people including 46 doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals with Medicare fraud schemes. The government said the fraudulent schemes netted approximately $712 million in false billings in what is the largest crackdown undertaken by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force. The defendants were charged in the Southern District of Florida, Eastern District of Michigan, Eastern District of New York, Southern District of Texas, Central District of California, Eastern District of Louisiana, Northern District of Texas, Northern District of Illinois and the Middle District of Florida.

2019 Medicare Fraud Strike Task Force Charges

In April 2019, Federal officials charged Philip Esformes, 48 years old, of paying and receiving kickbacks and bribes in the then largest Medicare fraud case in U.S. history. The fraud took place between 2007 until 2016 and involved about $1.3 billion worth of fraudulent claims. Esformes was described as "a man driven by almost unbounded greed,". Esformes owned more than 20 assisted living facilities and skilled nursing homes. Former Hospital Executive Odette Barcha, 50, was Esformes’ accomplice along with Arnaldo Carmouze, 57, a physical assistant in the Palmetto Bay, Florida area. These three constructed a team of corrupt physicians, hospitals, and private practices in South Florida. The scheme worked as follows: bribes and kickbacks where paid to physicians, hospitals, and practices to refer patients to the facilities owned and controlled by Esformes. The assisted living and skilled nursing facilities would admit the patients and bill Medicare and Medicaid for unnecessary, fabricated and sometimes harmful procedures. Some of the charges to Medicare and Medicaid included prescription narcotics prescribed to patients addicted to opioids to entice the patients to stay at the facility in order for the bill to increase. Another technique was to move patients in and out of facilities when the patients had reached the maximum number of days allowed by Medicare and Medicaid. This was accomplished by using one of the corrupt physicians to see the patients and coordinate for readmission in the same or a different facility owned by Esformes. Per Medicare and Medicaid guidelines, a patient is allowed 100 days at a skilled nursing facility after a hospital stay. The patient is given an additional 100 days if the he/she spends 6 days outside of a facility or is readmitted to a hospital for 3 additional days. The facilities not only fabricated medical documents to show treatment was done to a patient, they also hiked up the prices to equipment and medications that were never consumed or used. Barcha as the Director of the Outreach program expanded the group of corrupt physicians and practices. She would advise the community physicians and hospitals to refer patients to the facilities owned by Esformes in exchange for monetary gifts. The law against kickbacks is called the Anti-Kickback Statute or Stark Law, which makes it illegal for medical providers to refer patients to a facility owned by the physician or a family member for services billable to Medicare and Medicaid. It also prohibits providers to receive bribes for patient referrals. Carmouze prescribed unnecessary prescription drugs to patients who may or may not have needed the medications. He also facilitated community physicians to visit the patient in the assisted living facilities owned by Esformes in order for the physician to bill Medicare and Medicaid, for which Esformes received kickbacks. Carmouze also assisted in falsifying medical documentation to represent proof of medical necessity for many of the medications, procedures, visits, and equipment charged to the government. Esformes has been detained since 2016. In 2019, he was convicted to 20 years in prison.

On December 22, 2020, President Donald Trump commuted his sentence, upon suggestion by his son in law Jared Kushner and the Aleph Institute.

Capital gains tax in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States

In the United States, individuals and corporations pay a tax on the net total of all their capital gains. The tax rate depends on both the investor's tax bracket and the amount of time the investment was held. Short-term capital gains are taxed at the investor's ordinary income tax rate and are defined as investments held for a year or less before being sold. Long-term capital gains, on dispositions of assets held for more than one year, are taxed at a lower rate.

Current law

The United States taxes short-term capital gains at the same rate as it taxes ordinary income.

Long-term capital gains are taxed at lower rates shown in the table below. (Qualified dividends receive the same preference.)

Filing status and total long-term gains and qualified dividends – 2022 Tax
rate
Single Married filing jointly or qualified widow(er) Married filing separately Head of household Trusts and estates
$0–$41,675 $0–$83,350 $0–$41,675 $0–$55,800 $0–$2,700 0%
$41,676–$459,750 $83,351–$517,200 $41,676–$258,600 $55,801–$488,500 $2,701–$13,250 15%
Over $459,750 Over $517,200 Over $258,600 Over $488,500 Over $13,250 20%

However, taxpayers pay no tax on income covered by deductions: the standard deduction (for 2022: $12,950 for an individual return, $19,400 for heads of households, and $25,900 for a joint return), or more if the taxpayer has over that amount in itemized deductions. Amounts in excess of this are taxed at the rates in the above table.

Separately, the tax on collectibles and certain small business stock is capped at 28%. The tax on unrecaptured Section 1250 gain — the portion of gains on depreciable real estate (structures used for business purposes) that has been or could have been claimed as depreciation — is capped at 25%.

The income amounts ("tax brackets") were reset by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 for the 2018 tax year to equal the amount that would have been due under prior law. They are adjusted each year based on the Chained CPI measure of inflation.

Additional taxes

There may be taxes in addition to the tax rates shown in the above table.

  • Taxpayers earning income above certain thresholds ($200,000 for singles and heads of household, $250,000 for married couples filing jointly and qualifying widowers with dependent children, and $125,000 for married couples filing separately) pay an additional 3.8% tax, known as the net investment income tax, on investment income above their threshold, with additional limitations. Therefore, the top federal tax rate on long-term capital gains is 23.8%.
  • State and local taxes often apply to capital gains. In a state whose tax is stated as a percentage of the federal tax liability, the percentage is easy to calculate. Some states structure their taxes differently. In this case, the treatment of long-term and short-term gains does not necessarily correspond to the federal treatment.

Capital gains do not push ordinary income into a higher income bracket. The Capital Gains and Qualified Dividends Worksheet in the Form 1040 instructions specifies a calculation that treats both long-term capital gains and qualified dividends as though they were the last income received, then applies the preferential tax rate as shown in the above table. Conversely, however, this means an increase in ordinary income will withdraw the 0% and 15% brackets for capital gains taxes.

Cost basis

The capital gain that is taxed is the excess of the sale price over the cost basis of the asset. The taxpayer reduces the sale price and increases the cost basis (reducing the capital gain on which tax is due) to reflect transaction costs such as brokerage fees, certain legal fees, and the transaction tax on sales.

Depreciation

In contrast, when a business is entitled to a depreciation deduction on an asset used in the business (such as for each year's wear on a piece of machinery), it reduces the cost basis of that asset by that amount, potentially to zero. The reduction in basis occurs whether or not the business claims the depreciation.

If the business then sells the asset for a gain (that is, for more than its adjusted cost basis), this part of the gain is called depreciation recapture. When selling certain real estate, it may be treated as capital gain. When selling equipment, however, depreciation recapture is generally taxed as ordinary income, not capital gain. Further, when selling some kinds of assets, none of the gain qualifies as capital gain.

Other gains in the course of business

If a business develops and sells properties, gains are taxed as business income rather than investment income. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Byram v. United States (1983), set out criteria for making this decision and determining whether income qualifies for treatment as a capital gain.

Inherited property

Under the stepped-up basis rule, for an individual who inherits a capital asset, the cost basis is "stepped up" to its fair market value of the property at the time of the inheritance. When eventually sold, the capital gain or loss is only the difference in value from this stepped-up basis. Increase in value that occurred before the inheritance (such as during the life of the decedent) is never taxed.

Capital losses

If a taxpayer realizes both capital gains and capital losses in the same year, the losses offset (cancel out) the gains. The amount remaining after offsetting is the net gain or net loss used in the calculation of taxable gains.

For individuals, a net loss can be claimed as a tax deduction against ordinary income, up to $3,000 per year ($1,500 in the case of a married individual filing separately). Any remaining net loss can be carried over and applied against gains in future years. However, losses from the sale of personal property, including a residence, do not qualify for this treatment.

Corporations with net losses of any size can re-file their tax forms for the previous three years and use the losses to offset gains reported in those years. This results in a refund of capital gains taxes paid previously. After the carryback, a corporation can carry any unused portion of the loss forward for five years to offset future gains.

Return of capital

Corporations may declare that a payment to shareholders is a return of capital rather than a dividend. Dividends are taxable in the year that they are paid, while returns of capital work by decreasing the cost basis by the amount of the payment, and thus increasing the shareholder's eventual capital gain. Although most qualified dividends receive the same favorable tax treatment as long-term capital gains, the shareholder can defer taxation of a return of capital indefinitely by declining to sell the stock.

History

US Capital Gains Taxes history chart

From 1913 to 1921, capital gains were taxed at ordinary rates, initially up to a maximum rate of 7%. The Revenue Act of 1921 allowed a tax rate of 12.5% gain for assets held at least two years. From 1934 to 1941, taxpayers could exclude from taxation up to 70% of gains on assets held 1, 2, 5, and 10 years. Beginning in 1942, taxpayers could exclude 50% of capital gains on assets held at least six months or elect a 25% alternative tax rate if their ordinary tax rate exceeded 50%. From 1954 to 1967, the maximum capital gains tax rate was 25%. Capital gains tax rates were significantly increased in the 1969 and 1976 Tax Reform Acts. In 1978, Congress eliminated the minimum tax on excluded gains and increased the exclusion to 60%, reducing the maximum rate to 28%. The 1981 tax rate reductions further reduced capital gains rates to a maximum of 20%.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 repealed the exclusion of long-term gains, raising the maximum rate to 28% (33% for taxpayers subject to phaseouts). The 1990 and 1993 budget acts increased ordinary tax rates but re-established a lower rate of 28% for long-term gains, though effective tax rates sometimes exceeded 28% because of other tax provisions. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 reduced capital gains tax rates to 10% and 20% and created the exclusion for one's primary residence. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 reduced them further, to 8% and 18%, for assets held for five years or more. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 reduced the rates to 5% and 15%, and extended the preferential treatment to qualified dividends.

The 15% tax rate was extended through 2010 as a result of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, then through 2012. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 made qualified dividends a permanent part of the tax code but added a 20% rate on income in the new, highest tax bracket.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 caused the IRS to introduce Form 8949, and radically change Form 1099-B, so that brokers would report not just the amounts of sales proceeds but also the amounts of purchases to the IRS, enabling the IRS to verify reported capital gains.

The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 exempted taxes on capital gains for angel and venture capital investors on small business stock investments if held for 5 years. It was a temporary measure but was extended through 2011 by the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 as a jobs stimulus.

In 2013, provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obama-care") took effect that imposed the Medicare tax of 3.8% (formerly a payroll tax) on capital gains of high-income taxpayers.

Summary of recent history

From 1998 through 2017, tax law keyed the tax rate for long-term capital gains to the taxpayer's tax bracket for ordinary income, and set forth a lower rate for the capital gains. (Short-term capital gains have been taxed at the same rate as ordinary income for this entire period.) This approach was dropped by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, starting with tax year 2018.

July 1998 – 2000 2001 – May 2003 May 2003 – 2007 2008 – 2012 2013 – 2017
Ordinary income tax rate Long-term capital gains
tax rate
Ordinary income tax rate Long-term capital gains
tax rate**
Ordinary income tax rate Long-term capital gains
tax rate
Long-term capital gains
tax rate
Ordinary income tax rate Long-term capital gains
tax rate
15% 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 0% 10% 0%
15% 10% 15% 5% 0% 15% 0%
28% 20% 27%* 20% 25% 15% 15% 25% 15%
31% 20% 30%* 20% 28% 15% 15% 28% 15%
36% 20% 35%* 20% 33% 15% 15% 33% 15%***
39.6% 20% 38.6%* 20% 35% 15% 15% 35% 15%***
39.6% 20%***

* This rate was reduced one-half percentage point for 2001 and one-half percentage point for 2002 and beyond.
** There was a two percentage point reduction for capital gains from certain assets held for more than five years, resulting in 8% and 18% rates.
*** The gain may also be subject to the 3.8% Medicare tax.

State capital gains taxes

Most states tax capital gains as ordinary income. States that do not tax income (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming) do not tax capital gains either, nor do two (New Hampshire and Tennessee) that do or did tax only income from dividends and interest. Washington state does not collect income taxes but has passed a CG tax as an excise (rather than income or property) tax.

Rationale

Percent of personal income from capital gains and dividends for different income groups (2006).

Who pays it

Capital gains taxes are disproportionately paid by high-income households, since they are more likely to own assets that generate the taxable gains. While this supports the argument that payers of capital gains taxes have more "ability to pay", it also means that the payers are especially able to defer or avoid the tax, as it only comes due if and when the owner sells the asset.

Low-income taxpayers who do not pay capital gains taxes directly may wind up paying them through changed prices as the actual payers pass through the cost of paying the tax. Another factor complicating the use of capital gains taxes to address income inequality is that capital gains are usually not recurring income. A taxpayer may be "high-income" in the single year in which he or she sells an asset or invention.

Debate on tax rates is often partisan; the Republican Party tends to favor lower rates, whereas the Democratic Party tends to favor higher rates.

Existence of the tax

The existence of the capital gains tax is controversial. In 1995, to support the Contract with America legislative program of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Stephen Moore and John Silvia wrote a study for the Cato Institute. In the study, they proposed halving of capital gains taxes, arguing that this move would "substantially raise tax collections and increase tax payments by the rich" and that it would increase economic growth and job creation. They wrote that the tax "is so economically inefficient...that the optimal economic policy...would be to abolish the tax entirely." More recently, Moore has written that the capital gains tax constitutes double taxation. "First, most capital gains come from the sale of financial assets like stock. But publicly held companies have to pay corporate income tax....Capital gains is a second tax on that income when the stock is sold."

Richard Epstein says that the capital-gains tax "slows down the shift in wealth from less to more productive uses" by imposing a cost on the decision to shift assets. He favors repeal or a rollover provision to defer the tax on gains that are reinvested.

Preferential rate

The fact that the long-term capital gains rate is lower than the rate on ordinary income is regarded by the political left, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, as a "tax break" that excuses investors from paying their "fair share." The tax benefit for a long-term capital gain is sometimes referred to as a "tax expenditure" that government could elect to stop spending. By contrast, Republicans favor lowering the capital gain tax rate as an inducement to saving and investment. Also, the lower rate partly compensates for the fact that some capital gains are illusory and reflect nothing but inflation between the time the asset is bought and the time it is sold. Moore writes, "when inflation is high....the tax rate can even rise above 100 percent", as when a taxpayer owes tax on a capital gain that does not result in any increase in real wealth.

Holding period

The one-year threshold between short-term and long-term capital gains is arbitrary and has changed over time. Short-term gains are disparaged as speculation and are perceived as self-interested, myopic, and destabilizing, while long-term gains are characterized as investment, which supposedly reflects a more stable commitment that is in the nation's interest. Others call this a false dichotomy. The holding period to qualify for favorable tax treatment has varied from six months to ten years (see History above). There was special treatment of assets held for five years during the presidency of George W. Bush. In her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton advocated holding periods of up to six years with a sliding scale of tax rates.

Carried interest

Carried interest is the share of any profits that the general partners of private equity funds receive as compensation, despite not contributing any initial funds. The manager may also receive compensation that is a percentage of the assets under management. Tax law provides that when such managers take, as a fee, a portion of the gain realized in connection with the investments they manage, the manager's gain is afforded the same tax treatment as the client's gain. Thus, where the client realizes long-term capital gains, the manager's gain is a long-term capital gain—generally resulting in a lower tax rate for the manager than would be the case if the manager's income were not treated as a long-term capital gain. Under this treatment, the tax on a long-term gain does not depend on how investors and managers divide the gain.

This tax treatment is often called the "hedge-fund loophole", even though it is private equity funds that benefit from the treatment; hedge funds usually do not have long-term gains. It has been criticized as "indefensible" and a "gross unfairness", because it taxes management services at a preferential rate intended for long-term gains. Warren Buffett has used the term "coddling the super rich". One counterargument is that the preferential rate is warranted because a grant of carried interest is often deferred and contingent, making it less reliable than a regular salary.

The 2017 tax reform established a three-year holding period for these fund managers to qualify for the long-term capital-gains preference.

Effects

The capital gains tax raises money for government but penalizes investment (by reducing the final rate of return). Proposals to change the tax rate from the current rate are accompanied by predictions on how it will affect both results. For example, an increase of the tax rate would be more of a disincentive to invest in assets, but would seem to raise more money for government. However, the Laffer curve suggests that the revenue increase might not be linear and might even be a decrease, as Laffer's "economic effect" begins to outweigh the "arithmetic effect." For example, a 10% rate increase (such as from 20% to 22%) might raise less than 10% additional tax revenue by inhibiting some transactions. Laffer postulated that a 100% tax rate results in no tax revenue.

Another economic effect that might make receipts differ from those predicted is that the United States competes for capital with other countries. A change in the capital gains rate could attract more foreign investment, or drive United States investors to invest abroad.

Congress sometimes directs the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to estimate the effects of a bill to change the tax code. It is contentious on partisan grounds whether to direct the CBO to use dynamic scoring (to include economic effects), or static scoring that does not consider the bill's effect on the incentives of taxpayers. After failing to enact the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2014, Republicans mandated dynamic scoring in a rule change at the start of 2015, to apply to the Fiscal Year 2016 and subsequent budgets.

Measuring the effect on the economy

Supporters of cuts in capital gains tax rates may argue that the current rate is on the falling side of the Laffer curve (past a point of diminishing returns) — that it is so high that its disincentive effect is dominant, and thus that a rate cut would "pay for itself." Opponents of cutting the capital gains tax rate argue the correlation between top tax rate and total economic growth is inconclusive.

Mark LaRochelle wrote on the conservative website Human Events that cutting the capital gains rate increases employment. He presented a U.S. Treasury chart to assert that "in general, capital gains taxes and GDP have an inverse relationship: when the rate goes up, the economy goes down". He also cited statistical correlation based on tax rate changes during the presidencies of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan.

Top tax rates on long-term capital gains and real economic growth (measured as the percentage change in real GDP) from 1950 to 2011. Burman found low correlation (0.12) between low capital gains taxes and economic growth.

However, comparing capital gains tax rates and economic growth in America from 1950 to 2011, Brookings Institution economist Leonard Burman found "no statistically significant correlation between the two", even after using "lag times of five years." Burman's data are shown in the chart at right.

Economist Thomas L. Hungerford of the liberal Economic Policy Institute found "little or even a negative" correlation between capital gains tax reduction and rates of saving and investment, writing: "Saving rates have fallen over the past 30 years while the capital gains tax rate has fallen from 28% in 1987 to 15% today .... This suggests that changing capital gains tax rates have had little effect on private saving".

Factors that complicate measurement

Researchers usually use the top marginal tax rate to characterize policy as high-tax or low-tax. This figure measures the disincentive on the largest transactions per additional dollar of taxable income. However, this might not tell the complete story. The table Summary of recent history above shows that, although the marginal rate is higher now than at any time since 1998, there is also a substantial bracket on which the tax rate is 0%.

Another reason it is hard to prove correlation between the top capital gains rate and total economic output is that changes to the capital gains rate do not occur in isolation, but as part of a tax reform package. They may be accompanied by other measures to boost investment, and Congressional consensus to do so may derive from an economic shock, from which the economy may have been recovering independent of tax reform. A reform package may include increases and decreases in tax rates; the Tax Reform Act of 1986 increased the top capital gains rate, from 20% to 28%, as a compromise for reducing the top rate on ordinary income from 50% to 28%.

Tax avoidance strategies

Strategic losses

The ability to use capital losses to offset capital gains in the same year is discussed above. Toward the end of a tax year, some investors sell assets that are worth less than the investor paid for them to obtain this tax benefit.

A wash sale, in which the investor sells an asset and buys it (or a similar asset) right back, cannot be treated as a loss at all, although there are other potential tax benefits as consolation.

In January, a new tax year begins; if stock prices increase, analysts may attribute the increase to an absence of such end-of-year selling and say there is a January effect. A Santa Claus rally is an increase in stock prices at the end of the year, perhaps in anticipation of a January effect.

Versus purchase

A taxpayer can designate that a sale of corporate stock corresponds to a specified purchase. For example, the taxpayer holding 500 shares may have bought 100 shares each on five occasions, probably at a different price each time. The individual lots of 100 shares are typically not held separate; even in the days of physical stock certificates, there was no indication which stock was bought when. If the taxpayer sells 100 shares, then by designating which of the five lots is being sold, the taxpayer will realize one of five different capital gains or losses. The taxpayer can maximize or minimize the gain depending on an overall strategy, such as generating losses to offset gains, or keeping the total in the range that is taxed at a lower rate or not at all.

To use this strategy, the taxpayer must specify at the time of a sale which lot is being sold (creating a "contemporaneous record"). This "versus purchase" sale is versus (against) a specified purchase. On brokerage websites, a "Lot Selector" may let the taxpayer specify the purchase to which a sell order corresponds.

Primary residence

Section 121 lets an individual exclude from gross income up to $250,000 ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) of gains on the sale of real property if the owner owned and used it as primary residence for two of the five years before the date of sale. The two years of residency do not have to be continuous. An individual may meet the ownership and use tests during different 2-year periods. A taxpayer can move and claim the primary-residence exclusion every two years if living in an area where home prices are rising rapidly.

The tests may be waived for military service, disability, partial residence, unforeseen events, and other reasons. Moving to shorten one's commute to a new job is not an unforeseen event. Bankruptcy of an employer that induces a move to a different city is likely an unforeseen event, but the exclusion will be pro-rated if one has stayed in the home less than two years.

The amount of this exclusion is not increased for home ownership beyond five years. One is not able to deduct a loss on the sale of one's home.

The exclusion is calculated in a pro-rata manner, based on the number of years used as a residence and the number of years the house is rented-out. For example, if a house is purchased, then rented-out for 4 years, then lived-in for 3 years, then sold, the owner is entitled to 3/7 of the exclusion. This method of calculating the primary residence exclusion was implemented in 2008, aimed at eliminating a loophole where owners could rent out a house for many years, then move into it for two years and get the full exclusion.

Deferral strategies

Taxpayers can defer capital gains taxes to a future tax year using the following strategies:

  • Section 1031 exchange—If a business sells property but uses the proceeds to buy similar property, it may be treated as a "like kind" exchange. Tax is not due based on the sale; instead, the cost basis of the original property is applied to the new property.
  • Structured sales, such as the self-directed installment sale, are sales that use a third party, in the style of an annuity. They permit sellers to defer recognition of gains on the sale of a business or real estate to the tax year in which the proceeds are received. Fees and complications should be weighed against the tax savings.
  • Charitable trusts, set up to transfer assets to a charity upon death or after a term of years, normally avoid capital gains taxes on the appreciation of the assets, while allowing the original owner to benefit from the asset in the meantime.
  • Opportunity Zone—Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, investors who reinvest gains into a designated low-income "opportunity zone" can defer paying capital gains tax until 2026, or as long as they hold the reinvestment, and can reduce or eliminate capital gain liability depending on the number of years they own it.

Proposals

Simpson-Bowles

In 2011, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13531 establishing the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (the "Simpson-Bowles Commission") to identify "policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run". The Commission's final report took the same approach as the 1986 reform: eliminate the preferential tax rate for long-term capital gains in exchange for a lower top rate on ordinary income.

The tax change proposals made by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform were never introduced. Republicans supported the proposed fiscal policy changes, yet Obama failed to garner support among fellow Democrats; During the 2012 election, presidential candidate Mitt Romney faulted Obama for "missing the bus" on his own Commission.

In the 2016 campaign

Tax policy was a part of the 2016 presidential campaign, as candidates proposed changes to the tax code that affect the capital gains tax.

President Donald Trump's main proposed change to the capital gains tax was to repeal the 3.8% Medicare surtax that took effect in 2013. He also proposed to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, which would reduce tax liability for taxpayers with large incomes including capital gains. His maximum tax rate of 15% on businesses could result in lower capital gains taxes. However, as well as lowering tax rates on ordinary income, he would lower the dollar amounts for the remaining tax brackets, which would subject more individual capital gains to the top (20%) tax rate. Other Republican candidates proposed to lower the capital gains tax (Ted Cruz proposed a 10% rate), or eliminate it entirely (such as Marco Rubio).

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton proposed to increase the capital gains tax rate for high-income taxpayers by "creating several new, higher ordinary rates", and proposed a sliding scale for long-term capital gains, based on the time the asset was owned, up to 6 years. Gains on assets held from one to two years would be reclassified short-term and taxed as ordinary income, at an effective rate of up to 43.4%, and long-term assets not held for a full 6 years would also be taxed at a higher rate. Clinton also proposed to treat carried interest (see above) as ordinary income, increasing the tax on it, to impose a tax on "high-frequency" trading, and to take other steps. Bernie Sanders proposed to treat many capital gains as ordinary income, and increase the Medicare surtax to 6%, resulting in a top effective rate of 60% on some capital gains.

In the 115th Congress

The Republican Party introduced the American Health Care Act of 2017 (House Bill 1628), which would amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA" or "Obamacare") to repeal the 3.8% tax on all investment income for high-income taxpayers and the 2.5% "shared responsibility payment" ("individual mandate") for taxpayers who do not have an acceptable insurance policy, which applies to capital gains. The House passed this bill but the Senate did not.

2017 tax reform

House Bill 1 (the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017) was released on November 2, 2017, by Chairman Kevin Brady of the House Ways and Means Committee. Its treatment of capital gains was comparable to current law, but it roughly doubled the standard deduction, while dropping personal exemptions in favor of a larger child tax credit. President Trump advocated using the bill to also repeal the shared responsibility payment, but Rep. Brady believed doing so would complicate passage. The House passed H.B. 1 on November 16.

The Senate version of H.B. 1 passed on December 2. It zeroed out the shared responsibility payment, but only beginning in 2019. Attempts to repeal "versus purchase" sales of stock (see above), and to make it harder to exclude gains on the sale of one's personal residence, did not survive the conference committee. Regarding "carried interest" (see above), the conference committee raised the holding period from one year to three to qualify for long-term capital-gains treatment.

The tax bills were "scored" to ensure their cost in lower government revenue was small enough to qualify under the Senate's reconciliation procedure. The law required this to use dynamic scoring (see above), but Larry Kudlow claimed that the scoring underestimated economic incentives and inflow of capital from abroad. To improve the scoring, changes to the personal income tax expired at the end of 2025.

Both houses of Congress passed H.B. 1 on December 20 and President Trump signed it into law on December 22.

"Phase two"

In March 2018, Trump appointed Kudlow the assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council, replacing Gary Cohn. Kudlow supports indexing the cost basis of taxable investments to avoid taxing gains that are merely the result of inflation, and has suggested that the law lets Trump direct the IRS to do so without a vote of Congress. The Treasury confirmed it was investigating the idea, but a lead Democrat said it would be “legally dubious” and meet with “stiff and vocal opposition”. In August 2018, Trump said indexation of capital gains would be "very easy to do", though telling reporters the next day that it might be perceived as benefitting the wealthy.

Trump and Kudlow both announced a "phase two" of tax reform, suggesting a new bill that included a lower capital gains rate. However, prospects for a follow-on tax bill dimmed after the Democratic Party took the House of Representatives in the 2018 elections.

Introduction to entropy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduct...