The author identifies some of the federal and state legislators that are also opposed to the Medicaid expansion in the writer’s district. US Senator John Cornyn says that the Obamacare Medicaid expansion program is formed to be wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive to the nation (Cornyn, 2010). According to US Senator Cornyn, “The $3.4 trillion federal taxpayers spend on the Medicaid program is a target for waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead of fixing these problems, the President’s new health care overhaul includes the largest expansion of the broken Medicaid program since its creation in 1965: it’s only going to get worse from here” (John Cornyn, 2010). Along with Gov. Perry’s decision to refuse significant portion of the expansion for the poor, …show more content…
The author also believes that the Medicaid expansion extends beyond the politics, and has an aim to impact the life, health, and financial stability for the state and individuals. Medicaid expansion can be beneficial to many countries that have a large proportion of low-income people that are uninsured and or with disabilities. This can aid in saving the state money because much of the cost is provided and covered by the federal government, that encourages healthier behavior and results to a reduction in chronic disease due to lower health care costs. Although Texas opted out in adopting the expansion, legislators should decide on the advantage and disadvantage of participating in the Medicaid expansion to improve the welfare of the state. The expansion of Medicaid coverage will give low-income pregnant women the chance to reduce the rate in infant mortality and provide an opportunity for those that were unable to get coverage to be …show more content…
In consequence, this will limit poor adults finding the proper treatment since many doctors do not accept Medicaid patients. High rates of uninsured populations were associated with lower primary care capacity (Ku et al., 2011). Thus, expanding insurance coverage can support more primary care practices in rural areas and can help equal the gap in primary care positions. The impact of not expanding affects APRN practice by limiting them to practice in areas where they are needed the most. This not only affects APRNs from practicing without a physician supervision but also limit those that need coverage for basic preventive measures to reduce non-paying visits to the emergency room. Ensuring access to care will be contingent upon the ability to attain progress from insurance coverage and primary
One of the most controversial topics in the United States in recent years has been the route which should be undertaken in overhauling the healthcare system for the millions of Americans who are currently uninsured. It is important to note that the goal of the Affordable Care Act is to make healthcare affordable; it provides low-cost, government-subsidized insurance options through the State Health Insurance Marketplace (Amadeo 1). Our current president, Barack Obama, made it one of his goals to bring healthcare to all Americans through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. This plan, which has been termed “Obamacare”, has come under scrutiny from many Americans, but has also received a large amount of support in turn for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons include a decrease in insurance discrimination on the basis of health or gender and affordable healthcare coverage for the millions of uninsured. The opposition to this act has cited increased costs and debt accumulation, a reduction in employer healthcare coverage options, as well as a penalization of those already using private healthcare insurance.
The leadership’s decision not to expand Medicaid leaves between 300,000 and 400,000 South Carolinians without health insurance (South Carolina Medical Association, 2012). The stated intent of the Affordable Care Act, pejoratively dubbed “Obamacare” by its critics, was to put affordable health care within reach of more of the 40 million Americans who lacked health insurance. The law’s grand design included an assumption that states would expand their Medicaid programs, since the federal government would pay 100 percent of the expansion costs through 2016, and 90 percent thereafter. But in demonstrating its traditional mistrust of Washington’s promises, Columbia declined the offer and, in the process, left thousands of low-income workers without the means to obtain health coverage, either because they cannot afford the premiums or because their employers do not provide it. (Advisory Committee, 2013). Ironically, in a state where the median annual income is $44,600, South Carolina’s working poor earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid; however, they would be covered under the ACA model (Hailsmaier and Blasé, 2010).
For decades, one of the many externalities that the government is trying to solve is the rising costs of healthcare. "Rising healthcare costs have hurt American competitiveness, forced too many families into bankruptcy to get their families the care they need, and driven up our nation's long-term deficit" ("Deficit-Reducing Healthcare Reform," 2014). The United States national government plays a major role in organizing, overseeing, financing, and more so than ever delivering health care (Jaffe, 2009). Though the government does not provide healthcare directly, it serves as a financing agent for publicly funded healthcare programs through the taxation of citizens. The total share of the national publicly funded health spending by various governments amounts to 4 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, GDP (Jaffe, 2009). By 2019, government spending on Medicare and Medicaid is expected to rise to 6 percent and 12 percent by 2050 (Jaffe, 2009). The percentages, documented from the Health Policy Brief (2009) by Jaffe, are from Medicare and Medicaid alone. The rapid rates are not due to increase of enrollment but growth in per capita costs for providing healthcare, especially via Medicare.
Summary: Medicaid for Millionaires briefly touches on one of the many problems facing the U.S. and its current Medicaid policy. The articles begins by acknowledging the fact that Medicaid was originally formed in 1965 with the intent of providing medical care just for the poor, and how lately this hasn’t been the case. Today were finding out how more of societies upper-class are discovering ways to receive Medicaid benefits as well. The system is being called “Asset-Shifting”, were anyone is allowed to give away most of their assets (no matter the cost) to someone else and three years later claim the same medical benefits being set aside for the poor. As quoted in the article “there’s an entire industry being dedicated to making sure that other taxpayers, not they, be responsible for paying the nursing-home needs of the rich“. Though morally questionable, more and more Medical Planners today directly counsel their well-off clients on how to take advantage of this loop-hole in our system. A more troubling fact is that of the 100% of the less fortunate that occupy the scarcer Medicaid beds being provided by the government, 70% of those in well kept nursing homes receive the same exact Medicaid benefits. Many government officials have tried to stop this on going trend by passing laws during the 90’s that required states to recover the cost of benefits from the estates of those who attempt asset shifting, however failing miserably due to half-hearted efforts.
In the early years of 2009 to 2010 the political process pushed health care through legislation led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Health care and government, 2013). This process was extraordinarily tiring, as many defenders of the bills passing were present. Many congressional members “dug their heels in”, and wanted to slow down the process even more as confusion about the bill was posed (Health care and government, 2013). Despite opposition by many sides of the American people, a Democrat-dominated House of Representatives passed the bill and the Affordable Care Act was signed into action on March 21, 2010 (Hogberg, 2013). Indeed, all three branches of government were instrumental with the passing the Affordable Care Act into place.
It is no secret that the current healthcare reform is a contentious matter that promises to transform the way Americans view an already complex healthcare system. The newly insured population is expected to increase by an estimated 32 million while facing an expected shortage of up to 44,000 primary care physicians within the next 12 years (Doherty, 2010). Amidst these already overwhelming challenges, healthcare systems are becoming increasingly scrutinized to identify ways to improve cost containment and patient access (Curits & Netten, 2007). “Growing awareness of the importance of health promotion and disease prevention, the increased complexity of community-based care, and the need to use scarce human healthcare resources, especially family physicians, far more efficiently and effectively, have resulted in increased emphasis on primary healthcare renewal.” (Bailey, Jones & Way, 2006, p. 381).
Reese, Philip. Public Agenda Foundation. The Health Care Crisis: Containing Costs, Expanding Coverage. New York: McGraw, 2002.
Medicaid is a broken system that is largely failing to serve its beneficiary’s needs. Despite its chronic failures to deliver quality health care, Medicaid is seemingly running up a gigantic tab for tax payers (Frogue, 2003). Medicaid’s budget woes are secondary to its insignificant structure, leaving its beneficiaries with limited choices, when arranging for their own health care. Instead, regulations are set in order to drive costs down; instead of allowing Medicaid beneficiaries free rein to choose whom they will seek care from (Frogue, 2003)
Clearly, the Medicaid program is ripe for a major overhaul, a task that the federal government has thus far been unwilling to undertake. I chose this topic because I believe that the Medicaid program can be rescued and revitalized by leadership; otherwise, it is likely to be eroded. Medicaid is a government-sponsored program whose objective is to provide patients with health assistance upon meeting specific criteria. Medicaid is an insurance program that is available for disadvantaged persons, including the elderly, who cannot afford health benefits because of low incomes or other factors. This program is subsidized by government funds and in many instances, will cover the costs of basic medical care as well as specialized testing and supplies. What are the problems with Medicaid and what should be done about them? This paper will look at 6 articles about the economics of Medicaid and analyze what should be done about this problem.
Every American will be at the losing end if the shortage of primary care doctors continues. Our current system is broken and all the alternatives our politicians are recommending favors only special interest groups whose only concern is their bottom-line. Our policy makers will not understand the predicament of the average citizen. Their special health insurance coverage insulates them from problem we all encounter.
Many residents in the United States receive healthcare through various forms, such as insurance’s, Medicaid or Medicare. Medicaid is health care for the low income including children, pregnant women, disabled, blind and elders (Adams). According to the Congressional Budget Office there are about 51 million people that are covered by Medicaid and also it the largest drain on state budgets (Adams). Most countries have some type of form of health care they provide, for example, Japan is a democratic country that provide health care, but is different from other countries. There are also many interest groups that either agree or disagree with expanding Medicaid. The New Hampshire (NH) Community Behavioral Health Association and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) are two of the many interest groups that are in favor of expanding Medicaid’s spending, as well as RTI International. However, Ohio Right to Life and Cleveland Right to Life are interest groups that oppose the expansion of Medicaid.
Explaining Health Care Reform: Questions About Medicaid’s Role. (2010). The Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved August 20, 2010 from http://www.kff.org/healthreform/7920.cfm
There were changes made by the United States federal government make significant changes to the health care system. The expansion of Medicaid was more so for; lower-income, poor and children’s population. The reason for South Carolina to opt out of the Medicaid expansion because it will affect employers, a taxpayer, and the health industry due to increasing of federal funding that represents unambiguous benefits to South Carolina (SCHA, 2012). One of the challenges are increasing funding for the spending of new sources on the outside may not exist for South Carolina. The outside spending is a big economic component for growth, export, manufacturing, and national firm. Therefore, due to the increasing federal funding, South Carolina made the decision to opt out of Medicaid expansion (SCHA, 2012). This will increase federal funding in South Carolina choice to opt into Medicaid expansion to provide jobs and more income is the effect of the decision
In the United States, spending on Medicaid's forty million beneficiaries is projected to an overall of two hundred twenty billion during the fiscal year of 2001. In the year 1998, the federal government's share of medicaid expenditures averaged about fifty-seven percent in every state. Eleven percent is the average rate the Medicaid spending grew during the years between 1980 to 2000. Moderate spending caused a concern to both the federal legal and regulatory efforts aimed at states use of financing mechanisms. For example most states used a huge amount of disproportionate share hospital payments, intergovernmental transfers, and provider taxes and donations. However, this did not impact the enrollment of people to Medicaid due to a strong economy along with state welfare reform and fewer expansions in eligibility. Services provided to Medicaid recipients were provided at costs that remained constant due to moderate health care price inflation along with expanded use of managed care and increased use of home and community-based alternative to costly institutional long term care.
Approximately 1 in 5 Americans do not have medical insurance and are more likely to lack a usual source of medical care, and more likely to skip routine medical care because of the very high costs, increasing their risk for serious health conditions. For the program, increasing the access to routine medical care and medical insurance are very important steps to achieve their goal of improving America’s health. The access to health services leading health indicators are those with medical insurance and a usual primary care provider. The access to health services in a regular basis can prevent disease and disability, detect and treat health conditions, increase quality of life, decrease the probability of premature death, and increase life