A Little-Known Windfall for Some Hospitals, Now Facing Big Cuts

A Little-Known Windfall for Some Hospitals, Now Facing Big Cuts

Image result for 340B cuts

Most hospitals are nonprofit and justify their exemption from taxation with community service and charity care. But the Trump administration could require some of them to do more to help the poor, and the hospitals that are in the cross-hairs are those benefiting from an obscure drug discount program known as 340B.

The 340B program requires pharmaceutical manufactures to sell drugs at steep discounts to certain hospitals serving larger proportions of low-income and vulnerable people, such as children or cancer patients. The participating hospitals may charge insurers and public programs like Medicare and Medicaid more for those drugs than they paid for them and keep the difference.

By one estimate, the program saved hospitals $6 billion in 2015 alone. The original intent of the program, enacted in 1992, was for hospitals to use the revenue to provide more low-income patients a broader range of services.

Many institutions that serve mostly low-income and uninsured populations say they need the program. “Most nonprofit hospitals have very slim profit margins, and they’ve come to rely on this revenue,” said Melinda Buntin, chairwoman of the Department of Health Policy at Vanderbilt School of Medicine. A hospital lobbying group said that for some rural hospitals, the funding cut “could actually be the difference between staying open and closing.”

But there is concern that 340B has come to include hospitals that don’t need the extra help and are not using its windfall as originally intended.

The program has grown considerably, most recently as a result of an expansion included in the Affordable Care Act. As of 2004, about 200 hospitals benefited from the 340B program; by 2015, over 1,000 were participating. The program now encompasses 40 percent of all hospitals and an even larger number of hospital-affiliated clinics and pharmacies.

It might seem odd to give discounts on drugs to help hospitals offer care to low-income patients. How can we be sure they’ll use the money for that?

An increasing number of hospitals are not.

A study published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that the early participating hospitals were more likely to be located in poor communities with higher levels of uninsured people, to spend more of their budget on uncompensated care, and to offer more low-profit services than hospitals that started participating later.

“The 340B program may produce the results intended at some hospitals,” said Sayeh Nikpay, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University and a co-author on the study. “But as the program grew, it benefited many hospitals with less need for assistance in serving low-income populations.”

Other research corroborates that hospitals aren’t using the 340B program as intendedA study in The New England Journal of Medicine was unable to find any evidence that profits from 340B have led to more access to care for low-income patients, or reductions in mortality rates among them. Another study in Health Affairs found that 340B hospitals have increasingly expanded into more affluent communities with higher rates of insurance.

The 340B program may have also inadvertently raised costs — for example, by encouraging care in 340B-eligible hospitals that could have been provided less expensively elsewhere. A study in Health Services Research found that hospital participation in 340B is associated with a shift of cancer care from lower-cost physician offices to higher-cost hospital settings.

The program may also encourage providers to use more expensive drugs. The more hospitals can charge insurers and public programs for a drug — relative to how much they have to pay for it under the program — the greater the revenue they receive. They also receive more revenue when the drugs are prescribed more often.

In January, Medicare lowered the prices it pays for 340B drugs by 27 percent. Although this move chips away at how much hospitals can benefit financially, it does little to address how much insurers and individuals pay for prescription drugs or the value they obtain from them. In addition, the move does nothing to increase hospital spending that could help the poor.

It may even harm some health care organizations, leading to lower-quality care at those institutions that are helping the poor. Studies have shown that, by and large, when hospitals lose financial resources, they make cuts that could harm some patients.

This can happen if cuts lead to reductions in workers who perform important clinical functions. A study in Health Services Research found that hospitals cut nursing staff in response to Medicare payment cuts in the late 1990s. Heart attack mortality rates improved less at hospitals that had larger cuts.

Another response to reduced revenue is cuts to specific services, which would harm patients who rely on them. A study by economists from Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management found that some hospitals that endured financial setbacks during the Great Recession cut less profitable services like trauma centers and alcohol- and drug-treatment facilities.

Another study looked at a 1998 California law that required hospitals to comply with seismic safety standards — imposing a large cost on those institutions, without providing additional funding. Hospitals that were hit harder financially by this law were more likely to close; government hospitals responded by reducing charity care.

Hospitals could absorb cuts without harming care if they could become more productive — by doing more with less. Historically, there is very little evidence they have been able to do that.

Two powerful lobbies are now battling each other, with the pharmaceutical industry arguing that 340B has grown well beyond its original intent. Hospital lobbying groups are fighting back and also squaring off against the government, suing over the planned federal cuts.

Those are big clashes over a program that began modestly a quarter of a century ago to help the poor, albeit in a most convoluted way.

 

 

The uninsured rate remains plateaued

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/Insur201808.pdf?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top-stories

Image result for The uninsured rate remains plateaued

 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is out with its latest health insurance coverage data this morning, and the nation’s uninsured rate isn’t really changing a whole lot.

By the numbers: As of March 2018, 8.8% of all Americans, or about 28.3 million people, had no health insurance.

  • Those numbers are almost identical to the CDC’s 2017 report, when 28.1 million people were uninsured as of March 2017.
  • It’s also worth noting that 47% of people younger than 65 are in a high-deductible plan, up from 42.3% recorded at the same point last year.

The big picture: The federal and state exchanges established by the ACA are treading water when it comes to enrollment, and no new states have expanded Medicaid. (Notably, Maine Gov. Paul LePage is still resisting his state’s voter-approved Medicaid expansion.)

The bottom line: Don’t expect the uninsured rate to fluctuate a lot until more states expand Medicaid or the ACA exchanges get more federal support.

Looking ahead: The U.S. Census Bureau will unveil its 2017 health insurance numbers on Sept. 12.

 

 

1 big thing: Pre-existing conditions as a political hammer

Mapping Pre-existing Conditions across the U.S.

 

The number of people with pre-existing medical conditions varies substantially between metropolitan areas, according to Kaiser Family Foundation data. That means even within a single state, different locations would see different results under legislation that erodes the Affordable Care Act’s protections, my colleague Caitlin Owens reports.

Why it matters: The more people who have a pre-existing condition, the more likely health care is to resonate as an issue in the midterm elections in that state or district.

  • Democrats have been making the case that Republicans threaten pre-existing conditions protections — through legislation, executive action and the courts — and have made this a dominant theme of the midterms.
  • Some of the areas with the highest number of people with pre-existing conditions are in states with competitive Senate races, such as West Virginia, Tennessee and Indiana.

The issue makes for absolutely brutal ads, and Democrats know it. They believe one of their most potent lines of attack against Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, is arguing he could be the deciding vote against these protections.

  • Protect Our Care has a new TV ad out today, provided to Axios, that depicts an imaginary broadcast in 2019 or 2020 announcing SCOTUS has struck down the ACA’s pre-existing conditions regulations.
  • The ad targets Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who voted against the GOP health care bill last year. The pro-ACA group is airing radio ads tying Kavanaugh to pre-existing conditions in both Maine and Alaska.
  • Kavanaugh’s Senate hearing begins Sept. 4, the day before oral arguments in the court case that would strike down the ACA regulations.

 

 

 

GOP eyes another shot at ObamaCare repeal after McCain’s death

GOP eyes another shot at ObamaCare repeal after McCain’s death

Image result for senator mccain vote on aca repeal

 

Senate Republicans say they would like Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) to appoint a successor to the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who, unlike McCain, would support GOP legislation to repeal ObamaCare.

Republican lawmakers say they won’t have time to hold another vote to repeal the law in 2018 but vow to try again next year if they manage to keep their Senate and House majorities.

“If we re-engage in that discussion in some point in the future, it would be nice to have members who enable us to pass it,” Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune (S.D.) said when asked about the possibility of ObamaCare repeal legislation coming up for a future vote.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he hopes the next senator from Arizona will be a “strong ally” who “recognizes that ObamaCare is not a proper solution.”

“It hasn’t worked. It’s created a lot of harm and damage to real people,” he added.

A senior Senate GOP aide said the chamber would “absolutely” vote again to repeal ObamaCare but cautioned it would depend on “if we keep the House.”

“McCain was personally conservative but ideologically inconsistent,” the aide said. “I think Ducey is going to pick someone more like himself. He’s a more reliable conservative.”

McCain’s surprise vote to reject legislation that would repeal core pillars of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — also known as ObamaCare — was the most impactful decision of his final year in the Senate.

It quashed the GOP’s eight-year quest to repeal the law and forced party leaders to drop major health-care legislation for the rest of the 115th Congress.

McCain’s vote remained a point of contention with President Trump for months afterward.

The president mocked McCain at a Nevada rally in June for voting “no” on the repeal measure with a thumbs-down gesture.

The vote caught Trump and GOP leaders completely by surprise.

“Nobody knew he was going to do that. He campaigned on repeal and replace,” Trump told the Nevada audience. “Nobody talked to him. Nobody needed to, and then he walked in: thumbs down.”

More generally, GOP senators say they would like the new senator from Arizona to have a better working relationship with Trump.

“I think it would serve a useful purpose to get along with the president,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said. “By having a sincere appreciation, admiration and respect, you can get a lot more done than [by being] adversarial.”

“It’s hard to imagine he could pick anyone more antagonistic,” quipped a GOP senator who requested anonymity, referring to Ducey.

Republican senators say they don’t want similar surprises from McCain’s successor.

“I’d love to have somebody to take care of that,” Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) said of repealing ObamaCare.

Republicans repealed a main component of ObamaCare last year when they eliminated the law’s requirement that individuals obtain health insurance or pay a fine.

But GOP lawmakers say they can do more.

“Can we make insurance more affordable? Absolutely,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). “More needs to be done.”

Cassidy said he doesn’t know whether the Senate will move another comprehensive health-care reform package, but he expects Republican leaders will push “piecemeal efforts to make affordable once more that which has not been affordable since ObamaCare passed.”

GOP senators think they have a good chance to increase their Senate majority because Democrats have to defend 24 seats, including seats in 10 states that Trump won in the 2016 presidential election.

There is only one Republican running for reelection in a state that voted for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, while five Democrats are running in states that Trump won by double digits: Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia.

Future Republican control of the House is more in doubt.

House Republicans need to defend 25 seats carried by Clinton in 2016, and Democrats need to flip only 23 to capture the majority.

Republicans want Ducey to appoint someone who will be a more reliable vote on health care in case they retain their congressional majorities.

“I want somebody who is for affordable health care, and right now ObamaCare is not affordable, nor is health care, which is a direct result of ObamaCare,” Cassidy said.

Ducey, who was governor when the Senate debated ObamaCare repeal legislation in 2017, initially had serious reservations about the GOP bill.

Arizona was a state that opted to expand Medicaid coverage under ObamaCare, which enabled almost 500,000 residents in the state to gain health coverage.

But in a phone call with McCain shortly before his dramatic “no” vote, Ducey recommended that the senator vote for it, McCain recalled in his book “The Restless Wave.”

“On balance he thought it was worth voting for,” McCain wrote.

A Republican senator who requested anonymity to discuss Ducey’s choice said he expects the governor will tap someone who is more aligned with his political views.

“I think he’s going to pick someone where he knows the answers to those questions,” the senator said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is keeping his agenda for next year secret.

He declined on Tuesday to say whether Republicans would make another push to repeal ObamaCare if they keep control of Congress.

“I’m concerned about September,” McConnell told reporters, emphasizing that he’s more focused on the remaining 2018 agenda. “We have, I hope, three conference reports on minibuses; I hope a conference report on the farm bill; I hope an up-or-down vote on a bipartisan opioid agreement.

“We have a full plate for September, and I’m not willing to speculate beyond the end of September,” he added.

 

Priced Out of Health Insurance, Americans Rig Their Own Safety Nets

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-22/priced-out-of-health-insurance-americans-rig-their-own-safety-nets

Risking It: Stories From America's Uninsured

Consumers frustrated by high costs are bypassing the bureaucracy with patchwork plans.

When their son Sky was born four years ago, Lindsie and Chris Bergevin were hit with a big surprise: $7,000 in bills for the birth that their health plan didn’t cover. Sky was two when the couple jettisoned their medical insurance, which helped them eventually pay off the debt.

Now that they’re ready to have a second child, they’re not going back to their old coverage, with its premiums of more than $350 a month. Instead, they’ve patched together an alternative through a religious group and a primary-care doctor whom they can visit anytime for a monthly fee.

“I was so jaded with the whole health-care insurance situation,” Lindsie, 35, says. “I just didn’t want to deal with it.”

The Bergevins, who rent a snug little house near downtown Boise, Idaho, are joining a small but growing number of Americans rigging their own medical safety nets. They’re frustrated by the high costs, opaque pricing, and maddening bureaucracy of health insurance.

In their quest for a different way, they’re meeting doctors like Julie Gunther who are also fed up. These physicians have opted to reject insurance, instead charging patients directly in return for more personalized care.

“I like to think we can protect people in vulnerable moments where they’re going to get lost like a widget,” Gunther said, “because they’re not a widget for us.”
We Want to Hear Your Insurance Story:

Bloomberg News wants to hear about being uninsured in America in 2018 and what it means to you.
Please click here to tell us your story.

Bloomberg News is following people who are uninsured in a year-long effort to tell the story of Americans struggling to afford the rising costs of health care, and the financial and medical trade-offs they make.

No reliable data exist on how many people are replacing insurance with arrangements like the Bergevins’, but the trend appears to be gaining momentum.
The number of people joining so-called health-care sharing ministries—religion-based cost-sharing plans—rose 74 percent from 2014 to 2016, according to the latest Internal Revenue Service data. An alliance for the groups said that more than 1 million people now participate in such programs. Similarly, primary-care clinics like the one Julie Gunther started in 2014 have grown to almost 900 from just a handful in the early 2000s, according to the Direct Primary Care Coalition, a trade group for the clinics.

The number of people without traditional insurance is expected to increase. The Trump Administration lifted the Affordable Care Act’s penalty for those who go without insurance, while also encouraging the growth of lightly regulated products such as short-term health plans. Proponents of Obamacare fear the administration’s actions will draw healthy people out of the ACA marketplaces, raising costs for those who remain.

Though the ACA expanded coverage to 19 million Americans, some of those gains are reversing. About 28 million remain uninsured. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health-research nonprofit, determined that most uninsured families simply found health insurance too expensive.

The Bergevins are one of those families.
Lindsie is a freelance graphic designer who focuses on clients in the craft industry. Chris, 34, is a supervisor at the auto shop the Bergevins jointly own with another couple. Though the business is growing, things were tight enough that Chris didn’t draw a salary until last summer. Last year, the couple took home from $40,000 to $50,000, after taxes.

In 2014, when Lindsie was pregnant with Sky, the couple still had coverage through her job at the Idaho Statesman newspaper.
A calculator on her Aetna health plan’s website estimated the Bergevins would need to pay about $3,000 or $4,000 out-of-pocket for Sky’s birth. When the total bill came, the sum for prenatal care, hospital costs, anesthesia, and other care was triple the estimate.

They were still paying off Sky’s birth in 2016 when Lindsie had surgery to remove her tonsils and correct a deviated septum, leaving them with several thousands of dollars more in bills.

She put the sum on a CareCredit medical credit card and is paying $300 each month toward that debt.
As the couple thought more about it, maintaining their coverage made little sense. They were falling deeper into medical debt, despite having insurance which itself cost thousands of dollars a year. In 2016, Lindsie left her newspaper job to devote herself full-time to her thriving freelance design business—and they went uninsured.

“I couldn’t justify it,” she says. The cheapest policy she could find through the Affordable Care Act, she recalls, was $547 a month—more than half the family’s $875 monthly rent at the time. It had a high deductible that could leave them with out-of-pocket costs of more than $10,000.

“If something were to happen to us, we would have been in trouble,” she acknowledges. To hedge, the couple bought an inexpensive accident policy from Aflac that would cover some costs from an injury if, for example, Chris hurt himself working.

A friend told them about a small primary-care clinic called SparkMD less than a mile from their house. The doctors didn’t accept insurance. Instead, they charged a monthly fee of $130 per family. That allowed visits as needed without any limits. When Lindsie went to check it out, a physician began with an in-depth conversation about the family’s health.

“It was amazing. She sat down with me for an hour and talked about everything,” Lindsie says.

Gunther, the Bergevins’ new physician, had long wanted to be a family doctor in her hometown. Working for a large hospital system, though, she was soon chafing under a bureaucracy that seemed to make too many of her clinical decisions for her, down to what tools and equipment she could use. Even worse, Gunther was paid based on her volume of patients and services billed.

She saw patients in 15-minute intervals and says she felt like a factory line worker. She’d later joke that she spent longer waiting in line for her morning coffee than she did with a patient.

“I was saying ‘I’m sorry’ all the time,” Gunther, 42, recalls. “I’m sorry I’m late, I’m sorry this didn’t get called in, I’m sorry this got forgotten, I’m sorry they didn’t give me the message.”

Burned out, she quit her job in 2014 and started her own practice. She borrowed about $200,000 to renovate an old red-brick law office on a leafy corner of downtown Boise, a few blocks from one of the city’s big hospital campuses.

Along with a nurse practitioner and a small office staff, she cares for about 600 patients. A typical primary-care doctor carries at least double or triple that load. More than half of Gunther’s patients have health insurance, often in high-deductible plans. Others are small business owners like the Bergevins. Most are disenchanted with the health-care system.

Last year, Lindsie Bergevin had a bad fever and what she described as “the worst pain I think I ever had in my head.” She called Gunther at 9:30 p.m. on a Saturday. Gunther met her at the clinic 15 minutes later. “She’s like, ‘Girl, you have a double ear infection, and the worst I’ve ever seen.’”

Bergevin walked out with an antibiotic and says that if Gunther hadn’t seen her, she would’ve gone to the emergency room, which could have resulted in a bill for hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Gunther tells her patients that belonging to her practice is not a replacement for having health insurance.

“There’s a whole bunch of things I can’t take care of,” Gunther says. “If you’re not standing upright, or bleeding doesn’t stop, do not call me.”

In April, knowing that they wanted to conceive this year, the Bergevins paid to join a Christian nonprofit called Liberty HealthShare. Organizations like Liberty, sometimes called faith-based plans, help like-minded members share some medical costs. To join, members must pledge to adhere to Christian principles. They are required to make fixed payments each month, and the money is disbursed to cover health-care needs for other families.

Though health-sharing ministries function like insurance in some ways, they aren’t regulated by states, don’t have capital requirements to protect against large losses and don’t have to adhere to rules about minimum benefits. They decline to cover medical expenses that result from behavior they deem immoral. They won’t pay medical costs for a drunk driver in a car crash, for example, or for contraception.

There are other restrictions too: Liberty limits coverage of pre-existing conditions for up to three years, according to its guidelines. Members can also get bounced for “failure to fully disclose known or suspected pre-existing condition information” when they join. Those limits are part of the reason why they’re cheaper—and potentially riskier.

The Bergevins originally expected to pay $450 per month for Liberty. Because Lindsie is overweight, they pay a surcharge of $80 per month—a fee regulated insurers are barred from charging. When they joined, their plan had an “annual unshared amount”—the equivalent of a deductible—of $1,500. Two months later, they learned that amount would increase to $2,250. Lindsie wasn’t thrilled, but she calls it “a ton cheaper than a typical deductible.” And on the plus side, Liberty would reimburse them for some of the cost of membership in SparkMD.

In early June, Lindsie sat at her kitchen table with a stack of medical bills going back four years. Sky ran in from the living room, where Dr. Seuss cartoons played on the TV, looking for dessert before he  finished his dinner.

The Bergevins’ improvised plan has pros and cons. They didn’t have to pay premiums for almost two years while they were uninsured, easing their finances significantly while their businesses grew. They love the personalized care they get from Gunther. And their costs for having another child should be capped at a lower level under the Liberty plan.

But between Liberty and SparkMD, the Bergevins pay more than they did for health coverage through Lindsie’s old job, and, she estimates, about as much as Obamacare insurance would cost. The family is still exposed to considerable risk. Liberty caps reimbursements at $1 million—a limit that insurance companies can’t impose. They have two friends who have had cancer, and, Chris says, “a million’s definitely not enough.”

The Bergevins have their fingers crossed that their choices will allow them to expand their family without incurring the kind of debt that Sky’s birth and Lindsie’s surgery left them with. But they know their improvised approach isn’t for everyone.

“It’s not like I’m trying to say, just go without insurance,” Lindsie says. “You have to find something that’s going to work for you.”

This Drug Is Safe and Effective. Wait. Compared With What?

This Drug Is Safe and Effective. Wait. Compared With What?

Image result for This Drug Is Safe and Effective. Wait. Compared With What?

We spend many billions of dollars each year on the discovery and development of new drugs, but almost none of it addresses two crucial questions: How do these new therapies compare with already known ones? What are the relative benefits and harms in a particular situation, for a person like you?

Such questions can best be answered by comparative effectiveness research.

To get approval from the Food and Drug Administration, drugs must be proved both effective and safe. The costs of doing this are significant, and they are most often borne by the pharmaceutical industry.

But the F.D.A.’s bar, while meaningful, often isn’t very useful for what physicians and patients really care about every day: how effective and safe drugs are compared with one another.

Real-World Questions

Consider antibiotics. In my work as a pediatrician, questions about their use come up a lot. Which drug is the best first-line therapy for which common illnesses? We don’t know. How long should we treat for different infections? We don’t know. What are the relative trade-offs between benefits and side effects in different patients in different circumstances? We don’t know.

The questions we need answered are legion. All the guidelines and practices we have are best guesses.

Comparative effectiveness research can take on many forms and involve more than drugs.

A Blood Pressure Study

We know that high blood pressure is both terribly prevalent and a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease. We also know that there are a lot of drugs out there, all F.D.A.-approved, that can help reduce this risk by better controlling blood pressure. But which is best?

This question isn’t new. In 2002, the results of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial — a comparative effectiveness trial — were published in JAMA.

Participants had to be at least 55, have hypertension and have at least one other risk factor for coronary heart disease. They were randomly assigned to take one of four drugs, each with an entirely different mechanism, representing a different class of drugs.

Chlorthalidone is a diuretic, or a drug that increases urine output. Amlodipine, a calcium channel blocker, causes blood vessels to relax and widen, and lowers the heart rate. Doxazosin does the same by blocking the effects of adrenaline on muscles throughout the body. Lisinopril blocks the enzyme angiotensin, which tightens blood vessels, leading to lower blood pressure. All the patients were tracked for four to eight years.

 

 

 

 

Ohio Gov. Kasich Stumps Again In Support Of Medicaid Expansion

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/21/640636316/ohio-gov-kasich-stumps-again-in-support-of-medicaid-expansion

Four years after going out on a limb to get Medicaid expansion enacted in Ohio, outgoing Republican Gov. John Kasich is worried about the future of the program. So he is now defending it — through a study and through the stories of people who have benefited from the coverage expansion.

One of those people is Brenda Jean Searcy, a 55-year-old law student who lives with her 93-year-old father in the Columbus suburb of Westerville. She says she had always been healthy but was felled by Lyme disease and then Graves’ disease; the diagnosis of the latter came after she had signed up for Medicaid through the expansion.

“I am very grateful to have Medicaid. It has made my life much better and made me much healthier,” Searcy says at a press conference.
Searcy is one of the 653,000 Ohioans who gained coverage through the Medicaid expansion, four years after Kasich defied his fellow Republican legislators in pushing Medicaid expansion through.

He claimed it would bring $13 billion in federal funding to help low-income people in Ohio get health care — especially those struggling with mental illness and addiction. Kasich is nearing the end of his second term and will leave office in January. He wants the Medicaid expansion to continue, and his Medicaid department commissioned an independent study on the effects of the expansion to support it.

Ohio Medicaid Director Barbara Sears says the analysis shows Medicaid expansion has cut in half the number of uninsured Ohioans. Ninety-six percent of people in the program with opioid addiction got treatment, and 37 percent of smokers were able to quit. One-third reported improved health, including better access to medical care for high blood pressure and diabetes. ER visits went down 17 percent, and there was a 10 percent increase in the number of people seeing primary care doctors. And most recipients said Medicaid expansion made it easier to find work, earn more money and care for their families.

The state’s budget office, part of the executive branch, estimates Medicaid expansion will cost nearly $5.2 billion in 2021, the first year Ohio will pay its full share of the costs as determined by the Affordable Care Act.

Ohio budget director Tim Keen says the state’s projected share would amount to $354.1 million. However, with drug rebates, assessments on managed care plans, a 1 percent tax on premiums and other offsets, the state’s share drops to $163.1 million. “Medicaid expansion is a significantly better deal for the states and for Ohio than the traditional program, and that’s important as one considers our ability to fund this program,” Keen says.

But Republican lawmakers have long had concerns about the program’s cost.

And so does the Republican candidate to replace Kasich, Attorney General Mike DeWine. After stating for months that he feels the Medicaid expansion is financially unsustainable, DeWine says he’ll keep it but makes changes, such as implementing work requirements and wellness programs. DeWine hasn’t made clear how much those changes would save the program – for instance, 96 percent of Medicaid expansion recipients in Ohio would be exempt from work requirements.

Kasich says he has talked to DeWine’s team about supporting the program. “I worry a little bit about somebody kind of nickeling and diming it away somehow — a little bit here, a little bit there — but I think they’ll be for it,”