Search This Blog

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Medicaid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Medicaid administrator) logo
 
Medicaid in the United States is a federal and state program that helps with medical costs for some people with limited income and resources. Medicaid also offers benefits not normally covered by Medicare, including nursing home care and personal care services. The Health Insurance Association of America describes Medicaid as "a government insurance program for persons of all ages whose income and resources are insufficient to pay for health care." 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 74 million low-income and disabled people (23% of Americans) as of 2017. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the state and federal governments and managed by the states, with each state currently having broad leeway to determine who is eligible for its implementation of the program. States are not required to participate in the program, although all have since 1982. Medicaid recipients must be U.S. citizens or qualified non-citizens, and may include low-income adults, their children, and people with certain disabilities. Poverty alone does not necessarily qualify someone for Medicaid. 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act significantly expanded both eligibility for and federal funding of Medicaid. Under the law as written, all U.S. citizens and qualified non-citizens with income up to 133% of the poverty line, including adults without dependent children, would qualify for coverage in any state that participated in the Medicaid program. However, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that states do not have to agree to this expansion in order to continue to receive previously established levels of Medicaid funding, and many states have chosen to continue with pre-ACA funding levels and eligibility standards.

Research suggests that Medicaid improves recipients' financial security. However, the evidence is mixed regarding whether Medicaid actually improves health outcomes, although "the best existing evidence says [having health insurance] improves health".

Medicaid and Medicare are the two government sponsored medical insurance programs in the United States and are administered by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, Maryland.

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 that provide comprehensive care and accept the risk of managing total costs. Nationwide, roughly 80% of enrollees are enrolled in managed care plans. Core eligibility groups of poor children and parents 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 the 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. 2008 average cost per senior was reported as $14,780 (in addition to Medicare), and a state by state listing was provided. In a 2010 national report for all age groups, the per enrolled average cost was calculated to $5,563 and a listing by state and by coverage age is provided.

Eligibility and benefits

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 include 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.

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. These dental services are optional for adults above the age of 21; however, this service is a requirement for those eligible for Medicaid and below the age of 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 aims to focus 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 taking care of this service, regardless of whether or not it is covered on that particular Medicaid plan.

History

Health care in the United States
Government Health Programs
Private health coverage
Health care reform law
State level reform
Municipal health coverage

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 provides matching funds to states to enable them to provide medical assistance to residents who meet certain eligibility requirements. The objective is to help states provide medical assistance to residents whose incomes and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary medical services. Medicaid serves as the nation's primary source of health insurance coverage for low-income populations.

States are not required to participate. Those that do must comply with federal Medicaid laws 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 payment. Benefits vary from state to state, and because someone qualifies for Medicaid in one state, it does not mean they will qualify in another. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) monitors the state-run programs and establishes requirements for service delivery, quality, funding, and eligibility standards. 

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 which became effective on January 1, 1991. This program was formed due to the costs that Medicaid programs were paying for outpatient drugs at their discounted prices.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA-93) amended Section 1927 of the Act as it brought changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, as well as requiring states to implement a Medicaid estate recovery program to sue the estate of decedents for medical care costs paid by Medicaid.

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 special education students. Federal law mandates that every disabled child in America receive a "free appropriate public education." Decisions by the United States Supreme Court and subsequent changes in federal law make it clear that Medicaid must pay for services provided for all Medicaid-eligible disabled children.

Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act

2018 Medicaid expansion by state.
  Expanding Medicaid
  Not expanding Medicaid

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, would have revised and expanded Medicaid eligibility starting in 2014. Under the law as written, states that wished to participate in the Medicaid program would be required to allow people with income up to 133% of the poverty line to qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children. The federal government would pay 100% of the cost of Medicaid eligibility expansion in 2014, 2015, and 2016; 95% in 2017, 94% in 2018, 93% in 2019, and 90% in 2020 and all subsequent years.

However, the Supreme Court ruled in NFIB v. Sebelius that this provision of the ACA was coercive, and that the federal government must allow states to continue at pre-ACA levels of funding and eligibility if they chose. Several states have opted to reject the expanded Medicaid coverage provided for by the act; over half of the nation's uninsured live in those states. They include Texas, Florida, Kansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. As of May 24, 2013 a number of states had not made final decisions, and lists of states which have opted out or were considering opting out varied, but Alaska, Idaho, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Maine, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Oklahoma seemed to have decided to reject expanded coverage.

A canvassing campaign, Medicaid for Idaho, to put Medicaid expansion on the ballot in early 2018; the Methodist Cathedral of the Rockies hosted the volunteers
 
Several factors are associated with states' decisions to accept or reject Medicaid expansion in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Partisan composition of state governments is the most significant factor, with states led primarily by Democrats tending to expand Medicaid and states led primarily by Republicans tending to reject expansion. Other important factors include the generosity of the Medicaid program in a given state prior to 2010, spending on elections by health care providers, and the attitudes people in a given state tend to have about the role of government and the perceived beneficiaries of expansion.

The federal government will pay 100 percent of defined costs for certain newly eligible adult Medicaid beneficiaries in "Medicaid Expansion" states. The NFIB v. Sebelius ruling, effective January 1, 2014, allows Non-Expansion states to retain the program as it was before January 2014.

As of January 2014, 20 states confirmed opting out, including Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia & Wisconsin. States opting in after 2014 are Indiana & Pennsylvania. On July 17, 2015, Governor Bill Walker sent a letter to the Alaskan state legislature, providing the required 45-day notice of his intention to accept the expansion of Medicaid in Alaska.. As of January 2019, confirmed opting out states have shrunk to 13 states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, & Wisconsin. 

Under 2017 American Health Care Act (AHCA) legislation under the House and Senate, both versions of proposed Republican bills have proposed cuts to Medicaid funding on differing timelines. Under both bills, the Congressional Budget Office has rated these as Medicaid coverage reductions, with the Senate bill reducing the costs of Medicaid by 26 percent by the year 2026, in comparison to projections of ACA subsidies. Additionally, CBO estimates have predicted the number of uninsured rising under AHCA from 28 million persons to 49 million (under the Senate bill) or to 51 (under the House Bill).

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 when Arizona formed its Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) program. 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 handicapped, 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.

Enrollment

According to CMS, the Medicaid program provided health care services to more than 46.0 million people in 2001. In 2002, Medicaid enrollees numbered 39.9 million Americans, the largest group being children (18.4 million or 46 percent). From 2000 to 2012, the proportion of hospital stays for children paid by Medicaid increased by 33 percent, and the proportion paid by private insurance decreased by 21 percent. 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.

Medicaid payments currently assist nearly 60 percent of all nursing home residents and about 37 percent of all childbirths in the United States. The federal government pays on average 57 percent of Medicaid expenses.

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, resulting in heavy pressure 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. As stated in the CMS website, 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 which covers hospital bills, Medicare Part B which covers medical insurance coverage, and Medicare Part D which covers prescription drugs. 

Medicaid is a program that is not solely funded at the federal level. States provide up to half of the funding for the Medicaid program. In some states, counties also contribute funds. Unlike the Medicare program, 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 Americans were enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid. In 2013, approximately 9 million people qualified for Medicare and Medicaid.

Eligibility

Medicaid is a joint federal-state program that provides health coverage or nursing home coverage to certain categories of low-asset people, including children, pregnant women, parents of eligible children, people with disabilities and elderly needing nursing home care. Medicaid was created to help low-asset people who fall into one of these eligibility categories "pay for some or all of their medical bills."

There are two general types of Medicaid coverage. "Community Medicaid" helps people who have little or no medical insurance. Medicaid nursing home coverage pays all of the costs of nursing homes for those who are eligible except that the recipient 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.
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.

Poverty

Having limited assets is one of the primary requirements for Medicaid eligibility, but poverty alone does not qualify people to receive Medicaid benefits unless they also fall into one of the defined eligibility categories. According to the CMS website, "Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups." In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid eligibility starting in 2014; people with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children. However, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government must make participation in the expanded Medicaid program voluntary, and several state governments have declared that they will not participate.

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.

Categories

There are a number of Medicaid eligibility categories; within each category there are requirements other than income that must be met. 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.

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 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. A child may be covered under Medicaid if he or she is a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. 

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.

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 US consulates overseas, or admission at US 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.

Coverage and use

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 February 2011, a record 90% of children have coverage. However, 8 million children remain uninsured, including 5 million who are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP but not enrolled.

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. Low reimbursement rates, complex forms and burdensome administrative requirements are commonly cited by dentists as reasons for not participating in Medicaid. In Washington state, a program known as 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.

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 prescription drug costs for those eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid 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 — as, for example, if they progress to AIDS (T-cell count drops below 200). The Medicaid eligibility policy contrasts with the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) guidelines which recommend therapy for all patients with T-cell counts of 350 or less, or in certain patients commencing at an even 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. More than half of people living with AIDS in the US are estimated to 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.

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).

Assets

Both the federal government and state governments have made changes to the eligibility requirements and restrictions over the years. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) significantly changed the rules governing the treatment of asset transfers and homes of nursing home residents. The implementation of these changes proceeded state-by-state over the next few years and has now been substantially completed.

Five year "look-back"

The DRA created a five-year "look-back period." That 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 but for the gift.

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

Utilization

During 2003–2012, the share of hospital stays billed to Medicaid increased by 2.5 percent, or 0.8 million stays.

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 length 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; septicemia; congestive heart failure; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and complications of devices, implants and grafts.

Budget

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 operates its own Medicaid system, but this system must conform to federal guidelines in order for the state to receive matching funds and grants. The matching rate provided to states is determined using a federal matching formula (called Federal Medical Assistance Percentages), which generates payment rates that vary from state to state, depending on each state's respective per capita income. 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 percent (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 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 also allowed states to recover other Medicaid expenses for deceased Medicaid recipients 55 or older, at each state's choice. However, states are 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" and "the law 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."

Medicaid payments currently assist nearly 60 percent of all nursing home residents and about 37 percent of all childbirths in the United States. The federal government pays on average 57 percent of Medicaid expenses. 

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 will enable 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 means that the burden of financial responsibility will be placed on 13 million Medicaid recipients who will face 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.

Effects

After Medicaid was enacted, some states repealed their filial responsibility laws, but most states still require children to pay for the care of their impoverished parents. 

A 2017 survey of the academic research on Medicaid found it improved recipients' health and financial security. 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." A 2019 study found that Medicaid expansion reduced the poverty rate.

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 percent on the original cost of childhood coverage for these cohorts, most of which comes from lower cash transfer payments."

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

A 2017 study found that Medicaid expansion, by increasing treatment for substance abuse, "led to a sizeable reduction in the rates of robbery, aggravated assault and larceny theft."

A 2018 study found that Medicaid expansions in New York, Arizona, and Maine in the early 2000s caused a 6 percent decline in the mortality rate:
HIV-related mortality (affected by the recent introduction of antiretrovirals) accounted for 20 percent 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 2019 paper by Stanford University and Wharton 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."

Oregon Medicaid health experiment

"The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: Evidence from the First Year", a 2011 paper by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Harvard School of Public Health, used Oregon's 2008 decision to hold a randomized lottery for the provision of Medicaid insurance in order to measure the impact of health insurance on an individual's health and well-being. The study examined the outcomes of the 10,000 lower-income people eligible for Medicaid who were chosen by this randomized system, which helped eliminate potential bias in the data produced. The study's authors caution that the survey sample is relatively small and "estimates are therefore difficult to extrapolate to the likely effects of much larger health insurance expansions, in which there may well be supply side responses from the health care sector." Nevertheless, the study finds evidence that:
  • 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;
  • 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;
  • 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;
  • Those with insurance were about 10% less likely to report a diagnosis of depression.
In the experiment, patients with catastrophic health spending (with costs that were greater than 30% of income) dropped. The experiment also showed that Medicaid patients had cut in half the probability of requiring loans or forgoing other bills to pay for medical costs. The study found that Medicaid recipients had greater financial security: "recipients had fewer out-of-pocket medical expenses, were less likely to owe medical debt, or to refuse treatment due to costs".

In 2013, the same research team reported that Medicaid did not significantly improve physical health outcomes in the first two years after the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment (aka OHIE) began, but that it did "increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain."

Social Security Trust Fund

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund (collectively, the Social Security Trust Fund or Trust Funds) are trust funds that provide for payment of Social Security (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; OASDI) benefits administered by the United States Social Security Administration.
 
The Social Security Administration collects payroll taxes and uses the money collected to pay Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance benefits by way of trust funds. When the program runs a surplus, the excess funds increase the value of the Trust Fund. At the end of 2014, the Trust Fund contained (or alternatively, was owed) $2.79 trillion, up $25 billion from 2013. The Trust Fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government. These securities earn a market rate of interest.

Excess funds are used by the government for non-Social Security purposes, creating the obligations to the Social Security Administration and thus program recipients. However, Congress could cut these obligations by altering the law. Trust Fund obligations are considered "intra-governmental" debt, a component of the "public" or "national" debt. As of June 2015, the intragovernmental debt was $5.1 trillion of the $18.2 trillion national debt.

According to the Social Security Trustees, who oversee the program and report on its financial condition, program costs are expected to exceed non-interest income from 2010 onward. However, due to interest (earned at a 3.6% rate in 2014) the program will run an overall surplus that adds to the fund through the end of 2019. Under current law, the securities in the Trust Fund represent a legal obligation the government must honor when program revenues are no longer sufficient to fully fund benefit payments. However, when the Trust Fund is used to cover program deficits in a given year, the Trust Fund balance is reduced. By 2034, the Trust Fund is expected to be exhausted. Thereafter, payroll taxes are projected to only cover approximately 79% of program obligations.

There have been various proposals to address this shortfall, including reducing government expenditures, such as by raising the retirement age; tax increases; and borrowing.

Structure

The "Social Security Trust Fund" comprises two separate funds that hold federal government debt obligations related to what are traditionally thought of as Social Security benefits. The larger of these funds is the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust special interest-bearing federal government securities bought with surplus OASI payroll tax revenues. The second, smaller fund is the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust more of the special interest-bearing federal government securities, bought with surplus DI payroll tax revenues.

The trust funds are "off-budget" and treated separately in certain ways from other federal spending, and other trust funds of the federal government. From the U.S. Code:
EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM ALL BUDGETS
Pub.L. 101–508, title XIII, Sec. 13301(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388-623, provided that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of - (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or
(3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
The trust funds run surpluses in that the amount paid in by current workers is more than the amount paid out to current beneficiaries. These surpluses are given to the U.S. Treasury (and thus become part of the general federal budget) in exchange for special U.S. government securities, which are deposited into the trust funds. If the trust funds begin running deficits, meaning more in benefits are paid out than contributions paid in, the Social Security Administration is empowered to redeem the securities and use those funds to cover the deficit.

Governance

The Board of Trustees of the Trust Funds is composed of 6 members:
The Board of Trustees holds the trust funds. The Managing Trustee is responsible for investing the funds, which has been delegated to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service.

History

The Social Security system is primarily a pay-as-you-go system, meaning that payments to current retirees come from current payments into the system. 

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter and the 95th Congress increased the FICA tax to fund Social Security, phased in gradually into the 1980s. In the early 1980s, financial projections of the Social Security Administration indicated near-term revenue from payroll taxes would not be sufficient to fully fund near-term benefits (thus raising the possibility of benefit cuts). The federal government appointed the National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan (who had not yet been named Chairman of the Federal Reserve), to investigate what additional changes to federal law were necessary to shore up the fiscal health of the Social Security program. The Greenspan Commission projected that the system would be solvent for the entirety of its 75-year forecast period with certain recommendations. The changes to federal law enacted in 1983 and signed by President Reagan  and pursuant to the recommendations of the Greenspan Commission advanced the time frame for previously scheduled payroll tax increases (though it raised slightly the payroll tax for the self-employed to equal the employer-employee rate), changed certain benefit calculations, and raised the retirement age to 67 by the year 2027. As of the end of calendar year 2010, the accumulated surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund stood at just over $2.6 trillion.

Social Security benefits are paid from a combination of social security payroll taxes paid by current workers and interest income earned by the Social Security Trust Fund. According to the projections of the Social Security Administration, the Trust Fund will continue to show net growth until 2022 because the interest generated by its bonds and the revenue from payroll taxes exceeds the amount needed to pay benefits. After 2022, without increases in Social Security taxes or cuts in benefits, the Fund is projected to decrease each year until being fully exhausted in 2034. At this point, if legislative action is not taken, the benefits would be reduced.

Recent activity and financial status

The Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by 2034, based on current law projections. Payments to beneficiaries thereafter will be limited to program tax receipts. Source: 2015 OASDI Trustees Report.
 
U.S. Social Security Trust Fund: Payroll taxes and revenues add to the fund, while expenses (payouts) reduce it.
 
The 2015 Trustees Report Press Release (which covered 2014 statistics) stated:
  • "Income including interest to the combined OASDI Trust Funds amounted to $884 billion in 2014. ($756 billion in net contributions, $30 billion from taxation of benefits, $98 billion in interest, and less than $1 billion in reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury—almost exclusively resulting from the 2012 payroll tax legislation)
  • Total expenditures from the combined OASDI Trust Funds amounted to $859 billion in 2014.
  • Non-interest income fell below program costs in 2010 for the first time since 1983. Program costs are projected to exceed non-interest income throughout the remainder of the 75-year period.
  • The asset reserves of the combined OASDI Trust Funds increased by $25 billion in 2014 to a total of $2.79 trillion.
  • During 2014, an estimated 166 million people had earnings covered by Social Security and paid payroll taxes.
  • Social Security paid benefits of $848 billion in calendar year 2014. There were about 59 million beneficiaries at the end of the calendar year.
  • The cost of $6.1 billion to administer the program in 2014 was 0.7 percent of total expenditures. However, because the dollar value of the expenditures is so large this percentage is actually very high.
  • The combined Trust Fund asset reserves earned interest at an effective annual rate of 3.6 percent in 2014."
Some basic equations for understanding the fund balance include:
  • Fund ending balance for a given year = Fund starting balance + program revenues + interest - program payouts
  • Program annual surplus (or deficit if negative) = program revenues + interest - program expenses
  • Program annual cash surplus (or deficit if negative) = program revenues - program expenses
"Program revenues" has several components, including payroll tax contributions, taxation of benefits, and an accounting entry to reflect recent payroll tax cuts during 2011 and 2012, to make the fund "whole" as if these tax cuts had not occurred. These all add to the program revenues.

During 2016, the initial balance as of January 1 was $2,780 billion. An additional $710 billion in payroll tax revenue and $87 billion in interest added to the Fund during 2016, while expenses of $776 billion were removed from the Fund, for a December 31, 2016 balance of $2,801 billion (i.e., $2,780 + $710 + $87 - $776 = $2,801).

Recent attention

Under George W. Bush

On February 2, 2005, President George W. Bush made Social Security a prominent theme of his State of the Union Address. One consequence was increased public attention to the nature of the Social Security Trust Fund. Unlike a typical private pension plan, the Social Security Trust Fund does not hold any marketable assets to secure workers' paid-in contributions. Instead, it holds non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government". The trust funds have been invested primarily in non-marketable Treasury debt, first, because the Social Security Act prohibits "prefunding" by investment in equities or corporate bonds and, second, because of a general desire to avoid large swings in the Treasuries market that would otherwise result if Social Security invested large sums of payroll tax receipts in marketable government bonds or redeemed these marketable government bonds to pay benefits.

The Office of Management and Budget has described the distinction as follows:
These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits.
— from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337
Other public officials have argued that the trust funds do have financial or moral value, similar to the value of any other Treasury bill, note or bond. This confidence stems largely from the "full faith and credit" guarantee. "If one believes that the trust fund assets are worthless," argued former Representative Bill Archer, then similar reasoning implies that "Americans who have bought EE savings bonds should go home and burn them because they're worthless because the money has already been spent." At a Senate hearing in July 2001, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was asked whether the trust fund investments are "real" or merely an accounting device. He responded, "The crucial question: Are they ultimate claims on real resources? And the answer is yes."

Like other U.S. government debt obligations, the government bonds held by the trust funds are guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government. To escape paying either principal or interest on the "special" bonds held by the trust funds, the government would have to default on these obligations. This cannot be done by executive order or by the Social Security Administration. Congress would have to pass legislation to repudiate these particular government bonds. This action by Congress could involve some political risk and, because it involves the financial security of older Americans, seems unlikely.

An alternative to repudiating these bonds would be for Congress to simply cap Social Security spending at a level below that which would require the bonds to be redeemed. Again, this would be politically risky, but would not require a "default" on the bonds.

From the point of view of the Social Security trust funds, the holdings of "special" government bonds are an investment that returned 5.5% to the trust funds in 2005. The trust funds cannot resell these "special" government bonds on the secondary bond market, although the interest rate is determined based on market interest rates. Instead, the "specials" can be sold back to the government at face value, which is an advantage when interest rates are rising. 

The week after his State of the Union speech, Bush downplayed the importance of the Trust Fund:
Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund – in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money – payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust.
These comments were criticized as "lay[ing] the groundwork for defaulting on almost two trillion dollars' worth of US Treasury bonds".

However, even right-leaning politicians have been inconsistent with the language they use when referencing Social Security. For example, Bush has referred to the system going "broke" in 2042. That date arises from the anticipated depletion of the Trust Fund, so Bush's language "seem[s] to suggest that there's something there that goes away in 2042." Specifically, in 2042 and for many decades thereafter, the Social Security system can continue to pay benefits, but benefit payments will be constrained by the revenue base from the 12.4% FICA (Social Security payroll) tax on wages. According to the Social Security trustees, continuing payroll tax revenues at the rate of 12.4% will enable Social Security to pay about 74% of promised benefits during the 2040s, with this ratio falling to about 70% by the end of the forecast period in 2080.

Under Barack Obama

In 2011 and 2012, the federal government temporarily extended the reduction in the employees' share of payroll taxes from 6.2% to 4.2% of compensation. The resulting shortfall was appropriated from the general Government funds. This increased public debt, but did not advance the year of depletion of the Trust Fund.

An economic perspective

Overview

The Trust Fund represents a legal obligation of the federal government to program beneficiaries. Under current law, when the program goes into an annual cash deficit, the government has to seek alternate funding beyond the payroll taxes dedicated to the program to cover the shortfall. This reduces the trust fund balance to the extent this occurs. The program deficits are expected to exhaust the fund by 2034. Thereafter, since Social Security is only authorized to pay beneficiaries what it collects in payroll taxes dedicated to the program, program payouts will fall by an estimated 21%.
Gross federal debt consists of debt held by the public and debt issued to government accounts (for example, the Social Security trust funds). The latter type of debt does not directly affect the economy and has no net effect on the budget. Congressional Budget Office
The trust fund is expected to peak in 2021 at approximately $3.0 trillion. If the parts of the budget outside of Social Security are in deficit, which the Congressional Budget Office and multiple budget expert panels assume for the foreseeable future, there are several implications:
  • Additional debt must be issued to investors to obtain the funding necessary to pay this obligation. This will increase "debt held by the public" while simultaneously reducing the "intragovernmental debt" represented by the trust fund.
  • CBO reported in 2015 that: "Continued growth in the debt might lead investors to doubt the government's willingness or ability to pay its obligations, which would require the government to pay much higher interest rates on its borrowing."[30]
  • Other parts of the budget may be modified, with higher taxes and lower expenditures in other areas to fund Social Security.[31]
  • Debate regarding whether the proper debt-to-GDP ratio for evaluating U.S. credit risk is the "debt held by the public" or "total debt" (i.e., debt held by the public plus intragovernmental debt) will be rendered moot, as the amounts will converge substantially.
On the other hand, if other parts of the budget are in surplus and program recipients can be paid from the general fund, then no additional debt need be issued. However, this scenario is highly unlikely.

Commentary

Some commentators believe that whether the trust fund is a fact or fiction comes down to whether the trust fund contributes to national savings or not. If $1 added to the fund increases national savings, or replaces borrowing from other lenders, by $1, the trust fund is real. If $1 added to the fund does not replace other borrowing or otherwise increase national savings, the trust fund is not "real". Some economic research argues that the trust funds have led to only a small to modest increase in national savings and that the bulk of the trust fund has been "spent". Others suggest a more significant savings effect.

Inbreeding depression

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