Nixon administration: Missouri could gain from Medicaid
Monday, December 24, 2012
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Although the federal government would spend billions of dollars, an expansion of Missouri's Medicaid program could actually generate millions of dollars of new revenues and savings for the state's budget, according to an analysis by Gov. Jay Nixon's administration.
The Democratic governor plans to use the figures to bolster his argument to skeptical Republican legislators that the state should embrace a key part of President Barack Obama's health care law and expend Medicaid eligibility to hundreds of thousands of lower-income adults.
The projections released this past week by Nixon's budget office show Missouri could see a nearly $47 million increase in general revenues during the first year of the Medicaid expansion in 2014. That boost in state revenues would grow to nearly $140 million in 2016 before gradually declining to a slightly better than break-even point in 2021.
As called for under Obama's health care law, the federal government would pay the full cost for the first three years of the Medicaid expansion before states gradually pick up a 10 percent share. The analysis concludes that Missouri stands to benefit because it would no longer have to spend state money for certain health care expenses, and because the flow of federal money to medical providers would generate higher state income and sales tax revenues.
"This, to us, points out that we do believe this is something that is affordable for the state of Missouri to do," said Nixon's budget director, Linda Luebbering.
To expand Medicaid, however, will require the consent of Missouri's Republican-led Legislature, which has opposed almost anything associated with Obama's health care law. Republican legislative leaders have cited concerns about long-term costs to the state of a Medicaid expansion, as well as the cost to an already indebted federal government. They also have raised philosophical objections to enlarging social programs.
Republican senators recently discussed the potential Medicaid expansion at a closed-door caucus meeting. That meeting was before Nixon's administration publicly released its analysis but after other groups had already produced studies outlining the costs and benefits of a Medicaid expansion.
"Everyone was of the same mind as they were in November, that we have serious concerns, long term, about its impact on the state and our ability to meet our other obligations," said Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles. "There wasn't any movement there on Medicaid expansion."
The analysis by Nixon's administration projects that 259,499 adults would enroll in Medicaid in the 2014 fiscal year if eligibility thresholds are raised to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, which equates to an annual income of $15,415 for an individual or $26,344 for a family of three. By 2021, the additional enrollment is expected to reach 307,542.
The swelling of Missouri's Medicaid rolls would cost the federal government $907 million in 2014 and the state nothing. By 2021, the federal cost would rise to $2.3 billion; the state's 10 percent share would include $143 million paid from general revenues and additional $116 million paid from other state sources such as existing taxes on hospitals and pharmacies.
But the analysis concludes that the state's costs would be more than offset. Because of the Medicaid expansion, Missouri would no longer have to pay as much to provide mental health services to some people. The expanded eligibility also would cover some disabled residents and pregnant women at a higher federal payment rate than would otherwise exist under Missouri's current Medicaid program. That would free up state money currently spent on those efforts.
The total projected savings: $31 million in 2014 and $78 million by 2021.
The analysis by Nixon's administration also assumes that medical providers would use a portion of their increased federal payments to boost their payrolls, which in turn would increase state income taxes collected from those employees. Those businesses and employees also would spend a portion of their increased incomes, resulting in additional state sales tax collections.
The total additional projected tax revenues: Nearly $16 million in 2014, rising to almost $70 million by 2021.
State Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, who is a member of the House Budget Committee, said he agrees with the general conclusion that the Medicaid expansion can save the state money.
"All the talk that it's going to cost Missouri money is simply an expression of opposition to Obamacare," Kelly said. "No one who says those things is demonstrating any analysis that gives a basis for that conclusion."

Comments
BillyJoeRayBob 5 months ago
They just don't get it. It isn't "free money"; it's increased federal borrowing to pay for more entitlement programs for less needy people. We need to be reigning in federal spending. The citizens of Missouri are going to end up paying that nearly one billion dollar increase one way or another, most likely through your federal taxes. And it just keeps going up in the future. They need to look at all the dollars that are currently being wasted in the existing Medicaid and Department of Mental Health (DMH) programs to pay family members to take care of their relatives. Those programs are rampant with fraud and all they talk about is increasing the rolls with people who make more money and are above the poverty level. Do you know there are no provisions at the federal or state programs level to kick someone off of Medicaid if the commit fraud ?? Sorry .. in this case .. less is better. Happy Holidays.
spelchek 5 months ago
Agreed. How are we saving on something we have to pay back with interest to the Chinese via taxes?
Littleinvestor 5 months ago
75 percent of U.S. debt is held by U.S. citizens or their investment funds. About 11 percent is held by the Chinese. We owe too much, regardless of who owns the debt. In 2010, Missouri hospitals reported $1.1 Billion in unpaid medical bills for that year alone. That's just in Missouri, for just one year. Who do you think made up that $1.1 Billion that year? Anyone who paid a health insurance premium or had medical services that year in this state. And that happened in 49 other states too, with different numbers. And that happens year after year after year. If someone can't or won't pay, do we let them die? Or do we continue to pass those hidden costs on as an unauthorized tax in the overhead every year? Or do we tell people buy insurance if you can and find a program for them if they really can't? What would you do? It's a hard question to ponder and even harder to answer.
TrueStory 5 months ago
I am sorry but Health insurance has nothing to do with unpaid medical bills. The hospitals eat the charges and then get assistance from the state and raise our prices. Non of this affects insurance, they pay what they pay period. Insurance is not a charity, it is profit driven. Nothing more.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID