Expansion of Medicaid will free up $900 million, study finds

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Houston Chronicle

Expansion of Medicaid will free up $900 million, study finds
By Peggy Fikac | March 12, 2013 | Updated: March 12, 2013 10:48pm

AUSTIN - Expanding Medicaid could make available at least $900 million in state money that otherwise would be slated for health care as lawmakers work to pay for Texas' priorities, according to an analysis released Tuesday.

"More efficient health spending means there's more money available for other needs like water and education," said Bee Moorhead of Texas Impact, a faith-based advocacy group that commissioned the analysis with Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas Inc. Both groups support Medicaid expansion.

Republican leaders and lawmakers oppose expanding Medicaid in its current form, saying it's a broken program that is taking an ever-larger share of Texas' budget. A number of key Republicans, however, are looking at alternatives that could allow the state to draw down billions of dollars in additional federal money for health care for the poor.

Moorhead said in a statement that moving people out of programs that are funded piecemeal with general revenue and into "prevention-focused managed care" would "give lawmakers more resources to tackle the other big issues on their plate this session.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Expansion-of-Medicaid-will-free-up-900-million-4349616.php?cmpid=houtexhcat

[Javaman]

1. perhaps one day cement head perry will grow a brain.

or just be voted out next time.

I live in Austin and the things that go on in our state politics is downright disgraceful.

[Igel]

2. So you're saying you're a good critical thinker?

You've looked at the study's assumptions and reasoning and found them both sound?

Or is this a faith-based conclusion?

Take the ACA, for example. The argument was that it would produce immediate savings because all the people going for expensive emergency-room treatments for routine problems would instead schedule doctor's appointments. The price difference would be phenomenal, and instead of not paying the high emergency room fees they would pay the regular copays.

The month this assumption was put into law a report came out looking at Massachusett's "developments." It found several things. First, a lot of people that went to emergency rooms didn't just run out on the debt. They insisted on paying it off. Second, there was a barely significant change in the rate of emergency room visits. The families that went for emergency room treatment for the kinds of a things a doctor's-office visit could have handled continued. The cost savings that Massachusett's allegedly had to reeive from this change hand't happened.

While this assumption was undermined rather well in 2010, it's still a staple of this kind of report. Another kind of staple of this report is the following.

By expanding Medicaid to 133% of the poverty line, all those people who would have gone to the emergency room go to doctor's offices. They're healthier overall and this saves money. (This is unclear, from looking at the elderly population's health versus demographics, but this isn't my point.) If we expand Medicaid, think of the savings this would produce. You can calculate it. And voila, there's a huge savings. Assuming that the Federal government really does fund fully Medicaid after the first few years.

In the case of Texas, however, there's a donut hole, so to speak. The first thing Texas would have to do is expand Medicaid coverage for groups between where the cut-off is now and 100%. This would be a consequence of the new Medicaid spending, but wouldn't be something attributed to it. Moreover, there's a knockon effect: If many of those between 100 - 133% of the poverty rate apply for Medicaid, it's very likely that Medicaid enrollment would increase for those between 0 - 100% of the poverty rate. This would also be a consequence of the new coverage increase, would be a spending increase, but wouldn't be attributed to it.

Now, perhaps this study doesn't make those kinds of mistakes. Advocacy research doesn't worry about critical thinking, about falsifiable hypotheses, about answering likely objections (even if they're already in print). They're about winning an argument, which is a nice rhetorical goal but not a research- or fact-based goal. Consider this: ad hominem arguments, etymology-based arguments, shifting definitions, or emotion-based appeals are all perfectly good, even admirable, rhetorical devices. They're common in political discourse and in much NGO-sourced "research." They have no place in science or fact-based research.

[Javaman]

3. huh, how about that, you made assumptions.

I make a comment about my moronic governor and you go from zero to unreal in nothing flat.

Good day.

[LeftInTX]

4. Our loser governor is against expanding Medicaid

He doesn't care about any studies.
He doesn't like to read or add. Seriously, he doesn't read anything.