Somewhere in the midst of the chaotic chatter on the decision of the Supreme Court on the health care reform and to respect the individual mandate, you could have heard a brief murmur about a decision on the Medicaid expansion. If this were the movie "Beaches," the individual mandate was Bette Midler and Barbara Medicaid expansion was the name thing.
However, the decision of the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to require states to develop Medicaid or face a heavy tax deserves much more time in the spotlight. Let's take a look at what went down yesterday with Medicaid.
What Medicaid, anyway?
Medicaid is a program that provides low-income Americans with health care. Each state runs its special Medicaid program under guidelines the federal government and the Fed has paid a large sum of money to each state to keep the program running. This amount varies between states, but the average amount the federal government pays each state is 57 percent of the bill.
Medicaid is basically the cheapest insurance available. eligible Medicaid include low-income children, parents and people with disabilities. Although it provides a needed service to the poor of our country, there are certainly limits to coverage and it does not pay health care providers very well at all.
What was decided on in the first place?
The Act on the Protection and Affordable Care Patient (PPACA) included plans to greatly expand the Medicaid program in the country. The law aimed to make Medicaid available to everyone with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Using the most recent data, anyone who made $ 14,856 per year would be eligible, regardless of age or health status.
The cost of the expanded Medicaid would initially be paid in full by the federal government. After several years, each state would have to pay 10 percent. Here is where many states (26 to be exact) started to get angry: Do not take the federal government on their offer of Medicaid expansion could lead to lose their existing Medicaid funding. The 26 statements were essentially blackmail sense by expanding Medicaid coverage.
What was the final decision?
The Supreme Court agreed that it was coercive and unconstitutional if the law worked to remove existing Medicaid funding from state. Judge Roberts said: "In this case, the" incitement "Congress Financial has chosen is much more than" relatively mild encouragement '-.? There is a gun to the head
Now that
States have important decisions to make. Simply because they now have the option not to expand Medicaid coverage does not mean they will not. About 9 million people would get coverage in all 26 states as a result of the PPACA.
Keeping in mind that there is a huge financial incentive - 100 percent of covered care for newly added Medicaid participants for the first 3 years - it is expected that the governors will be pushed by their citizens to accept the terms.
0 Komentar