Advocates pushing Kansas officials to expand Medicaid acknowledge it is unlikely they will achieve their goal this year.
But they said they remain hopeful they can convince Gov. Sam Brownback and legislators next year to make more Kansans eligible for the program.
“If it’s not going to happen the first year, we’ll continue to build grassroots support. We’re not giving up,” said Anna Lambertson, director of the Kansas Health Consumer Coalition, one of the groups pushing for expansion.
Medicaid, known in Kansas as KanCare, currently provides medical and long-term living assistance services for about 380,000 poor, disabled and elderly Kansans. Expansion could increase enrollment in the program by as many as 240,000, according to various projections.
The federal Affordable Care Act initially required states to expand Medicaid eligibility. However, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the law made expansion optional for states.
Expansion would have a bigger impact in Kansas than in many other states. That’s because the state’s current eligibility criteria exclude all but the poorest adults. Only those with children and incomes less than 32 percent of the federal poverty level — about $6,000 a year for a family of four — can qualify. Implementing expansion would mean that adults in that same family of four could make more than $31,000 a year and qualify.
The Brownback administration has estimated that expanding eligibility for the $3.2 billion program would cost the state an additional $600 million over 10 years.
Door still open
Whenever asked about expansion, Brownback says things that suggest he’s more likely to say “no” than “yes” to it. But advocates said they remain encouraged by the fact he hasn’t rejected the idea.
“If he’s really looking at the options with an open mind — as he himself has said he’s doing — then I see him taking his time (to decide) as beneficial,” Lambertson said. “I’d rather that he take his time than just say ‘no’.”
Last week, Brownback again expressed doubts that the federal government could afford to keep its promise to cover all the costs of expansion for the first three years and no less than 90 percent thereafter. Despite his misgivings, he said, he continues to have “active conversations” with expansion advocates and legislators on the topic.
“It’s in the legislative process,” Brownback said. “Expansion would have to be addressed by the Legislature. They would have to budget it.”
Brownback’s requirement that legislators budget for it before he would sign off on it has advocates convinced a decision won’t be made this year.
Members of the House-Senate conference committee negotiating a final version of the fiscal 2014-15 budgets are scheduled to return to the bargaining table early next month when the Legislature returns to Topeka for what leaders hope will be a brief wrap-up session.
A study released today by the Kansas Hospital Association says that expanding Medicaid eligibility to levels called for in the federal health reform law would pump more than $3 billion into the state’s economy and create 4,000 new jobs by 2020.
The study, done for the association by the Center for Health Policy Research at George Washington University and Regional Economic Models, Inc., also shows that expansion would save the state more than it would cost.
Tom Bell, the association’s chief executive, said the projected economic benefits were too significant to be ignored by Gov. Sam Brownback and legislative leaders as they consider whether or not to expand eligibility for the healthcare program that serves poor, elderly and disabled Kansans.
Brownback has been a vocal opponent of the Affordable Care Act but has not made a decision on Medicaid expansion, which was made optional for states as the result of last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the law.
“I think from our perspective, it’s not unlike the state landing a huge federal contract,” Bell said.
The impact of the expansion on the Kansas economy could rival that of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, Bell said.
“That’s the way we look at it, as an opportunity for our state,” he said.
Bigger impact in Kansas
Since Jan. 1 in Kansas, the Medicaid program has operated under the name of KanCare. Three health insurance companies are under contract with the state administer it.
The health reform law requires that the federal government cover state costs of expanding Medicaid for three years. After that, the federal share would recede gradually until it reaches 90 percent, where it would remain.
Currently, Kansas’ Medicaid eligibility criteria for adults are among the most restrictive in the nation. Only those with children are eligible and only then if they earn less than 32 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPF) — currently $5,900 a year for a family of four.
Because those numbers are so low, expanding Medicaid would have a bigger impact in Kansas than in many other states by making all Kansans who earn up to 133 percent of FPL — $30,660 for a family of four — eligible for the program.
Various estimates suggest that expansion could add between 226,000 and 240,000 Kansans to the 380,000 now enrolled in Medicaid.
Net benefit to the state
A Kansas Department of Health and Environment report released last week estimated Medicaid costs would climb by $513 million over 10 years regardless of whether the state expanded eligibility for the program. That’s because heightened attention surrounding the expansion issue is expected to prompt many people who already are eligible but not enrolled to sign up.
Covering only those who are made eligible by the expansion would cost another $600 million over 10 years, the KDHE report said. Even so, the hospital association report said that expanding Medicaid would produce a net savings to the state of $82 million from 2014 to 2020.
“That’s front loaded into those first three years, but it’s still a substantial net benefit,” Bell said.
Brownback has not ruled out expansion but neither has his administration shown much, if any, enthusiasm for the idea. Reacting to the KDHE cost estimate, Sherriene Jones-Sontag, the governor’s chief spokesperson, said expanding Medicaid would affect the state’s ability to fund other “core responsibilities.” The impact would be even greater “if the federal government fails to keep its promise to pay for its part of the expansion,” she said.
Bell said administrators at the association’s 126 member hospitals understand Brownback’s concerns, which are shared by many legislators. But he said they believe the Medicaid expansion dollars are needed to offset the anticipated loss of other federal funds that hospitals have used to cover the cost of caring for the uninsured.
“From an economic perspective for our members — especially those that treat a higher number of uninsured — they think it makes great sense to take a serious look this and see if we can make it work,” Bell said.
Many Kansas hospital officials say they are worried that if state policymakers choose not to expand eligibility for the state’s Medicaid program, the hospitals will see a significant drop in the money they receive to help care for patients who can’t or won’t pay their medical bills.
Currently, 64 of the state’s 127 hospitals divide about $51.3 million a year in what are called Medicaid disproportionate share payments.
They use the money, a mix of federal and state dollars, to offset some of the costs of caring for the uninsured.
“It’s a significant amount of funding for us,” said Bruce Witt, director of governmental relations at Via Christi Health in Wichita.
In the current fiscal year, Via Christi Health is expected to receive almost $13 million from the disproportionate share payments, the most of any health care provider in the state.
Under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, those payments are to be significantly reduced, starting in October.
“We’re being told that ‘disproportionate share’ won’t be completely phased out, but that roughly 50 percent will be going away,” said Tom Bell, chief executive of the Kansas Hospital Association. “It may end up being somewhere between 50 and 75 percent. We don’t know at this point.”
Though Via Christi could expect to lose the most dollars, the smaller, rural hospitals likely would be the hardest hit proportionately based on an analysis done for the KHI News Service by its parent organization, the Kansas Health Institute. The analysis calculated the likely revenue hit on each Kansas hospital based on recent payment histories, bed counts and inpatient stays.
State option on Medicaid
The law’s design, Bell said, preceded the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 28, 2012 ruling that gives states the option of choosing to not expand their Medicaid coverage to include non-disabled, childless adults whose incomes fall below 133 percent of the federal poverty level.
Since the ruling, governors in at least 10 states – Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas - have said they will not expand Medicaid eligibility.
“Our lieutenant governor is saying he’s not sure that DSH (disproportionate share) is going away because the (U.S.) Supreme Court has said the federal government can’t penalize states for not going along with the Medicaid expansion,” said Shawn Rossi, a vice president with the Mississippi Hospital Association.
“We don’t know if that’s a correct assumption,” Rossi said, “but we are for sure telling our legislators that if DSH goes away, we’re definitely going to need something to take its place. We see a very large number of people who are uninsured.”
Brownback looking it over
Kansas’ Gov. Sam Brownback has been an outspoken opponent of the Affordable Care Act, has not yet decided whether to implement the Medicaid expansion.