PA Medicaid Expansion Debate Isn’t About Costs

Share With Friends
  

Tom Corbett says he rejected the Medicaid expansion because he’s just trying to make a fiscally prudent decision for state taxpayers. But that’s pretty obviously not true.

What he really means is that he can’t expand health insurance coverage while holding all his political priors intact.

If this were really a debate about costs, then Tom Corbett would be recommending a single payer system for the state. There’s a hot new study out of UMass that says creating a single state government insurer would save PA residents about $1000 a year on their health care spending, and reduce total spending by about 11%:

Through economies in administration and by reducing inflated prices within health care, the PHCP would produce substantial savings over the current health care system. These economies would allow the PHCP to save over 22 percent of current expenditures while providing the same health services as the current system.

Some of these savings would be used to correct problems within the health care system by extending coverage to the uninsured, raising some provider reimbursements, and removing barriers to access. After these adjustments, health care spending in Pennsylvania would be over 11 percent lower under the PHCP, with savings of over $17 billion or over $1,000 per resident.

Or as a less radical option, Corbett might note that they spend a lot less on health care in Maryland, and propose copying their all-payer rate setting approach.

Now you can certainly raise a number of political objections to these methods. It’s quite true that these are totally untenable ideas if your number one priority is stroking your own conservative superstitions.

But if people were actually interested in the question of what really would work to keep state health care spending affordable both for individuals and for the state budget, then they’d stop fussing around with a multi-payer market and do what every other country with affordable health care does: state price controls.

What’s truly maddening is that when Tom Corbett finally does climb down from his ridiculous position and agree to expand Medicaid, the deal he’s probably going to work out with Kathleen Sebelius will be something like the Arkansas deal, which actually goes out of its way to be more expensive than Medicaid by larding on some extra goodies for health care providers.

This debate is about conservative ideology, it is about interest group politics, it is about many things, but the one thing it definitely is not about is costs.

This entry was posted in Miscellany.

6 Responses to PA Medicaid Expansion Debate Isn’t About Costs

  1. Kathleen3 says:

    What would cut costs would be: purging the state of all illegal aliens which currently cost taxpayers over $1.4 billion/yr.; investigating and evaluating the eligibility of every and any person on Medicaid, WIC, SNAP and every other government subsidy; and, evaluating the job descriptions/hours/salary of each and every elected and appointed official.

    We desperately need to severely cut back on government (local/state/federal) rather than follow the Progressive Game Plan that allows the governments’ to grow their tentacles.

  2. Pingback: Single-payer: A test-case study - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum

  3. Pingback: PA Medicaid Expansion Debate Isn't About Costs, Cont'd - Keystone Politics

  4. Pingback: Corbett Not Yet Ready to Ask For Larded-Up Private Alternative to Medicaid Expansion

  5. Pingback: Corbett Not Yet Ready to Ask For Larded-Up Private Alternative to Medicaid Expansion - Keystone Politics