medicaid and poor adults: who’s left out? how can federal policy help?
Post on 24-Jan-2016
18 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 1
Medicaid and poor adults: Who’s left out? How can federal policy help?
Stan Dorn The Urban Institute202.261.5561sdorn@urban.orghttp://www.urban.org/health_policy/ http://www.urban.org
September 15, 2008
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 2
“Medicaid covers the poor … while Medicare is primarily designed for the elderly…”
H. Sheppard, “States Get A Handle On Medicaid: Better Economy, Federal-law Changes Help,” Los Angeles Daily News, 11/28/06
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 3
Medicaid covers the poor only if they are - •Children•Currently caring for
dependent children•Pregnant
•Elderly •People with severe and
permanent disabilities
“Parents and children” side of the program
“Elderly and disabled” side of the program
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 4
Who’s left out?
•Adults without children•Empty nesters
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 55
Topics to cover
1. The federal exclusion of non-categorical adults2. Facts about uninsured, non-categorical adults3. Federal policy options
THE URBAN INSTITUTE
Part I
The federal exclusion
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 7
What is the federal exclusion of non-categorical adults?
•Federal matching funds are limited to the categorically eligible•States can obtain 1115 waivers, but
Federal budget neutrality rules = no new money (at least in theory)
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 8
How many states cover non-categorical adults?
1115 waivers State-only funds
Comprehensive 9 states: AZ, DE, HA, ME, MA, NM, NY, OR, VT
3 states: DC, MN, WA
Less than comprehensive
12 states: AR, DC, IA, ID, IN, MD, MI, MO, MT, OK, TN, UT
1 state: PA
Sources: Klein and Schwartz, 2008; Dorn, et al., 2005. Note: comprehensive programs provide (a) benefitsat least as generous as typical ESI to (b) at least all adults up to 100% FPL.
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 9
The history of this exclusion
•Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601
•Social Security Act of 1935
•Medicaid’s creation in 1965
•Medicaid’s subsequent evolution
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 10
In short:•It is not clear how much thought federal
policymakers gave to this Medicaid exclusion.•Basic judgment underlying the exclusion:
Able-bodied adults should be able to support themselves and so do not need federally-funded cash assistance.
Judgment renderedIn 1935About cash assistance
Can poor, able-bodied adults provide themselves with health coverage in 2008?
THE URBAN INSTITUTE
Part II
Facts about uninsured, non-categorical adults
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 12
Low-income, non-categorical adults outnumber all uninsured children and all uninsured parents
Uninsured, by income and relationship to children: 2006 (millions)
3.9 3.88.92.6 4.1
6.9
1.41.9
4.3
1.51.8
5.3
Children Parents ofdependent children
Other adults
300+% FPL
200-299% FPL
100-199% FPL
Under 100% FPL
Source: KCMU/UI, October 2007.
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 13
More than half of all poor uninsured are non-categorical adults
Uninsured with incomes below FPL, by relationship to children: 2006
Children, 20%
Parents of Dependent
Children, 25%
Other Adults, 55%
Source: KCMU/UI, October 2007.
Total number: 16.6 million
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 14
Uninsured non-categorical adults, by age, income, and eligibility for Medicaid/SCHIP: 2004 (millions)
1.1 0.2 0.3 0.3
7.9
3.2 2.9 3.6
1.5
1.1 1.31.9
19 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64Age
Eligible Ineligible, income below 300% FPL Ineligible, income at 300%+ FPL
Source: Holahan, et al., February 2007.
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 15
Uninsured, non-categorical adults broadly resemble other uninsured
Uninsured, non-categorical adults, by employment:
2006
Working 79%
Not Working
21%
Total number: 25.5 million
Uninsured, non-categorical adults, by citizenship: 2006
U.S. citizens
81%
Non-citizens
19%
Total number: 25.5 million
Source: KCMU/UI, October 2007.
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 16
Uninsured, non-categorical adults broadly resemble other uninsured (continued)
Uninsured, non-categorical adults, by race and
ethnicity: 2006
Black, 16%
Asian & other,
7%
Latino, 26%
White, 51%
Total number: 25.5 million
Uninsured, non-categorical adults, by income 2006
101-200%
FPL, 25%
201-300%
FPL, 17%
301+% FPL, 29%
0-100% FPL, 29%
Total number: 25.5 million
Source: KCMU/UI, October 2007.
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 17
Percentage of adults ages 19–29 reporting going without various services because of cost, by health insurance status: 2005
38% 37% 35%
45%
57%
17%12% 11%
18%
31%
Fill prescriptions Necessaryspecialist visits
Medical test,treatment, or
follow-up
Doctor visit formedical problem
Any of theseservices
Uninsured Insured
Source: Collins, et al., 2007.
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 18
Impact of health insurance coverage on health status for adults ages 55–64, controlling for multiple factors: 1992–2000
6.7%
4.0%
13.3%
3.9%2.7%
16.6%
Death rate Poor health Excellent health
Actual Insurance Coverage Simulated Full Insurance Coverage
Source: Hadley and Waidmann, 2006.
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 19
Effect of uninsurance on adults ages 55-64, controlling for multiple factors•Uninsurance increases risk of death:
From 7.5 percent to 10.5 percent among all adults age 55-64
From 9.4 percent to 14.1 percent in the lowest income quartile of such adults
•The lack of insurance among these adults Causes more than 13,000 deaths a yearIs the third-leading cause of death, after cancer
and heart diseaseSource: McWilliams et al., 2004
THE URBAN INSTITUTE
Part III
Federal policy options
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 21
Assumption: for the poorest, uninsured, non-categorical adults, Medicaid is the policy vehicle •100% FPL = $851/month for an individual in ‘07•Median cost-sharing, non-group plans, ’06-07
Average PPO deductible - $1,747Average co-pay - $28/$35, primary/specialty
•Effect of cost-sharing on indigent patientsMN study - $1/$3 drug copays caused 52% of affected Medicaid beneficiaries to go without necessary medicine; among this group, 34% used the ER or were admitted to the hospital.RAND study – among low-income adults with hypertension, cost-sharing increased blood pressure, raising risk of death by 14%Quebec study – maximum $12/month copays for welfare recipients increased ER use by 78%, hospitalization/institutionalization/death by 88%California study – $1/visit copays in the 1970s increased inpatient utilization by 17%
Sources: AHIP, 2006-2007 Individual Market Survey; M. Mendiola, et al., “Consequences of Tiered Medicaid Prescription Drug Copayments Among Patients in Hennepin County, Minnesota,” presented at Society of General Internal Medicine National Conference, May 2005; J. Gruber, The Role of Consumer Copayments for Health Care: Lessons from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment and Beyond, KFF, October 2006; Robyn Tamblyn, et al., “Adverse Events Associated with Prescription Drug Cost-Sharing among Poor and Elderly Persons,” JAMA 285(4): 421-429, January 2001; J. Helms, et al., “Copayments and the Demand for Medical Care: The California Medicaid Experience,” Bell Journal of Economics, 9:192-209, 1978.
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 22
For non-categorical adults at higher income levels, reasonable to consider other policy remedies•Refundable, advanceable
federal income tax credits •Medicare buy-in for the
near-elderly
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 23
Medicaid approach #1 – change budget neutrality requirements for waivers•Policy variants
Take Medicare savings into accountEliminate budget neutrality requirement for waiver
coverage of poor adults
•ImpactWaivers more useful than today - butWaivers are inherently limited
•Broader budget implications
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 24
Medicaid approach #2 – change Medicaid from categorical to purely income-based eligibility•Advantages
Administrative efficiencyEquity
•Disadvantage – potentially eliminates current-law coverageExamples – nursing home coverage, families moving from
welfare to employment, working disabled, near-poor kids, pregnant women, etc.
In 2006, Medicaid coverage >150% FPL included4.4 million non-elderly adults6.4 million children
•Variation – Medicaid coverage up to threshold, state options to structure coverage above threshold (NASHP)Potential cost increase above income threshold
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 25
Medicaid approach #3 – add coverage of poor adults
•Idea All adults with incomes below a certain threshold
receive Medicaid, regardless of categoryOther eligibility categories continue
•Disadvantages, compared to pure income-based eligibilityLess efficiency savings Fewer equity gains
•Advantage - above income threshold, retains existing coverage without increasing costs
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 26
Medicaid policy questions, regardless of approach•Optional or mandatory eligibility?•Federal funding – standard or enhanced?
If standard, limited state implementation or unfunded mandate
If enhanced, many ways to deliver funds:Enhanced match for this category;Program-wide increase in federal funding;Higher federal match for dual eligibles;Uncapped FMAP or SCHIP-style state allotments; Etc.
•Financial eligibilityIncomeAssets
THE URBAN INSTITUTE 2727
Conclusion•Low-income, non-categorical adults comprise
the largest group of uninsured•They suffer serious harm, particularly among
older adults•Serious policy design questions need to be
answered in deciding how best to provide coverage
top related