Tag Archives: Underinsured

Conservative Koch Network Criticizes U.S. Senate Healthcare Bill

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/06/25/us/politics/25reuters-usa-healthcare-koch.html?utm_campaign=CHL%3A%20Daily%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=53556425&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–djYFrda8WaYTSvjAGXvhQeoYibGMMBXE0-JZ8fkciqAicltqEnzobfmLi5nqpEe85UhjPan-YY-HNpx57iUBW7xUyKA&_hsmi=53556425

Related image

Officials with the conservative U.S. political network overseen by the Koch brothers say they are unhappy with the healthcare bill that may be voted on by the Senate this week and will lobby for changes to it.

At a weekend event with conservative donors, top aides to Charles Koch, the billionaire energy magnate, said the Senate bill does not go far enough to dismantle former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law, also known as Obamacare.

“We have been disappointed that movement has not been more dramatic toward a full repeal,” said Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, a grassroots advocacy group backed by Charles Koch and his brother, David.

The Senate’s 142-page proposal, worked out in secret by a group led by Senate Majority Leader McConnell, aims to deliver on a central campaign promise of President Donald Trump to repeal Obamacare, which has provided coverage to 20 million Americans since its passage in 2010.

Republicans view the law, formally called the Affordable Care Act, as a costly government intrusion and say individual insurance markets created by it are collapsing.

Phillips and other aides to the Koch network told Reuters they want to see the Senate bill do more to roll back Obamacare’s expansion of the Medicaid program for poor and disabled Americans. They also contend the bill does not do enough to reform the U.S. healthcare system and cut costs.

The aides said lobbying efforts to reshape the bill are continuing ahead of a planned vote.

Similar concerns helped steer the House’s version of the bill in a more conservative direction. A primary mover of that effort, Mark Meadows, a Republican congressman from North Carolina, attended the Koch donor event.

Meadows, chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus in the House, said he is prepared to support the Senate bill if it clears that chamber, a sign that quick action to land the legislation on Trump’s desk is possible.

However, Meadows said the Senate version of the bill would need to be amended to allow insurers who sell plans on Obamacare’s insurance exchanges to offer less-expensive plans that do not comply with that law’s coverage requirements.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who currently opposes the Senate bill, has offered an amendment along those lines. Cruz attended the Koch event here, as did Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who remain undecided.

Meadows also seeks an amendment that would allow some consumers who have private health savings accounts to deduct the cost of insurance premiums from their taxes.

Senate leaders have set a goal of passing the healthcare measure by the end of this week, ahead of the July 4 congressional recess, which would then send it back to the House.

If the Senate passes legislation this week that is palatable to the House, Meadows said it is conceivable the House could pass that version and choose to forgo a formal conference committee that would reconcile the Senate and House bills. That, he said, could result in sending the bill to Trump’s desk for his signature before the recess.

Getting a vote by the end of the week could be difficult.

Five Senate Republicans, including Cruz, have publicly voiced their opposition to the current Senate draft. No Senate Democrats are expected to back it, which means McConnell cannot afford to lose more than two Senate Republicans.

As a sign of the Koch network’s influence, Phillips said his organization is prepared to spend as much as $400 million before next year’s congressional elections to advocate for the network’s conservative causes.

The doctor is out: PCP availability beyond 2020

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

The doctor is out: PCP availability beyond 2020

In 2020 and beyond, under the Senate’s BCRA, the working poor will have a very hard time finding primary care providers (PCP) who will schedule appointments with them. Providers, rightly, fear bad debt from high deductible plans. They will discriminate on the ability to pay upfront.

In the NEJM, Karin Rhodes, Genevieve Kenney, and Ari Friedman† looked at PCP appointment availability in the from the end of 2012 to Spring 2013. They found that appointments were usually quickly available if the person had insurance and unavailable if they were cash paying patients who could not afford the median price of services.**

The overall rate of new patient appointments for the uninsured was 78.8% with full cash payment at the time of the appointment (Figure 2). The median cost of a new patient primary care visit was $120, but costs varied across the states, as indicated in the figure legend. Only 15.4% of uninsured callers received an appointment that required payment of $75 or less at the time of the visit, because few offices had low-cost appointments and only one-fifth of practices allowed flexible payment arrangements for uninsured patients.

Why does this matter in the BCRA environment?

The baseline plan will be a plan with a $7,500 deductible for a single person. For people with means, paying $120 for a PCP visit is unpleasant but not onerous. If I had to do that this afternoon, I would grumble as I pull out a credit card. I would pay that credit card off tomorrow after I got the transaction points. Not everyone can do that.

Craig Garthwaite raises a good point this morning:

Primary care providers will seek to minimize their net bad debt.

Michael Chernew and Jonathan Bush looked at how bad debt accumulates as a function of out of pocket expenses at professional offices.

The median PCP cash visit price is a large payment in the Chernew/Bush schema. Most of it will be paid as people with means take out their credit card, their HRA debit card, or their HSA card and swipe it through the machine. But a simple PCP visit will produce significant chasing and write-downs. The study is limited as it only looked at people who were commercially insured. It excludes most low income people who are in the Medicaid gap on an income qualification basis by design. The average income in the study group is highly likely to be higher than the income of people who would move from Medicaid to benchmark plans. Even so, there is significant chasing and write downs. I would predict that applying 100% first dollar obligations on people with even less income than the study population will lead to more provider bad debt. This is because these programs are income qualified and if a person income qualifies for these programs, they probably don’t have a spare $120 floating around or easy access to cheap, revolving credit.

If we assume that some normal PCP visits will include some extra services that increase the contracted payment rate to $200 or more (very large obligations in Chernew/Bush) significant sums will be written down and off. For provider practice viability concerns, providers will very aggressively screen against people with very high deductible insurance who can’t pay the entire amount of the contracted rate price up front at the receptionist desk. This is a very patient unfriendly system.

Most payment reform models focus on delivering more primary care. The objective is to substitute cheap primary care for expensive specialist, inpatient hospital stays and post-acute rehabilitation. This is the concept behind value based insurance design. VBID is supposed to encourage the routine, low cost, regular maintenance of chronic conditions in outpatient or community settings instead of having people end up in the hospital for preventable admissions.

Yet, under the very understandable incentives of primary care physicians wanting to stay in business, access to primary care for the working poor who would have several thousand dollar deductibles that apply to all services, will be greatly restricted because of the cost barrier. If we want all members of our shared society to have decent health and decent lives, should want people to have easy and ready access to primary care. This bill creates strong business incentives to create barriers to primary care access.

Like the AHCA, the Senate’s health care bill could weaken ACA protections against catastrophic costs

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/06/23/like-the-ahca-the-senates-health-care-bill-could-weaken-aca-protections-against-catastrophic-costs/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=53522663

Image result for catastrophic health

Editor’s Note:This analysis is part of USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative on Health Policy, which is a partnership between the Center for Health Policy at Brookings and the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics. The Initiative aims to inform the national health care debate with rigorous, evidence-based analysis leading to practical recommendations using the collaborative strengths of USC and Brookings.

On Thursday, Senate Republicans unveiled the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), its Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal bill. One provision of that legislation would greatly expand states’ ability to waive a range of provisions of federal law that affect health insurance. As both my Brookings colleague Jason Levitis and Nicholas Bagley have explained in pieces published earlier today, states would need to meet only very weak standards in order to obtain a waiver under the Senate bill, and waivers could have wide-ranging implications for the extent and affordability of insurance coverage.

One potential effect of these state waivers is weakening a pair of protections against catastrophic costs included in the ACA. In particular, states can directly use this expanded waiver authority to eliminate the requirement that individual and small group plans cap annual out-of-pocket spending. States can also indirectly weaken or effectively eliminate both the ACA’s requirement that plans limit out-of-pocket spending and its ban on individual and lifetime limits by setting a definition of “essential health benefits” that is weaker than the definition under current law. Both of these protections against catastrophic costs apply only with respect to care that is considered essential health benefits, so as the definition of essential health benefits narrows, the scope of these protections narrows as well.

Allowing states to change the definition of essential health benefits unavoidably weakens these protections against catastrophic costs in waiver states’ individual and small group markets. But waivers’ effects could also cross state lines and weaken these protections for people covered by large employer plans in every state.[1]  Under current regulations, large employer plans are allowed to choose the definition of essential health benefits in effect in any state in the country for the purposes of determining the scope of these protections against catastrophic costs. If the Trump Administration maintains that approach as it implements the BCRA and even one state uses the waiver process under the BCRA to set a lax definition of essential health benefits, then these protections against catastrophic costs could be weakened or effectively eliminated for people working for large employers nationwide.

The potential effects of the the BCRA waiver provisions on the ACA’s protections against catastrophic costs are essentially identical to those of a waiver provision included in the House-passed American Health Care Act (AHCA), which I have written about previously. The only substantive difference is that the Senate version would allow states to directly waive the out-of-pocket maximum requirement for some plans; under the House-passed bill, states could only affect this requirement indirectly by changing the definition of essential health benefits.

The remainder of this blog post examines these issues in greater detail.

Trump Budget, Revised AHCA, Credit Negatives for NFP Hospitals

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/trump-budget-revised-ahca-credit-negatives-nfp-hospitals?spMailingID=11188911&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NjY1MzYzS0&spJobID=1180412845&spReportId=MTE4MDQxMjg0NQS2#

Image result for hospital credit ratings

The one-two punch of massive cuts to Medicaid that are proposed in both the new budget and the House Republicans’ revised American Healthcare Act would result in cuts of close to $1 trillion over 10 years, analysis shows.

Cutting Medicaid by more than $860 million over the next decade would be a credit negative for states and not-for-profit hospitals, both of which would be left scrambling for alternative funding to cover the loss, according to a new report from Moody’s Investors Service.

Last week the Trump administration unveiled a budget proposal that includes $610 billion in cuts to core Medicaid services, and an additional $250 million in reductions to Medicaid expansion programs created under the Affordable Care Act.

The following day, the Congressional Budget Office released its scoring of the revised American Health Care Act – the Republican plan to repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and estimated that it would reduce Medicaid spending by $834 million through 2026.

“The proposals significantly change the longstanding Medicaid financing system and are credit negative for states and not-for-profit hospitals,” Moody’s said in an issues brief.

For states that don’t have the luxury of ignoring budget imbalances, the changes would increase pressure to either kick people off Medicaid, increase the state share of Medicaid funding, or cut payments to hospitals and other providers, Moody’s says.

Hospitals, particularly those serving a high mix of Medicaid patients, could expect to see reimbursement cuts and more cases of uncompensated care as Medicaid patients lose the coverage they’d gained under the ACA’s expansion.

Medicaid is already a significant budget burden for states, consuming between 7% to 34% of state revenue and averaging 16%.

Under the ACA, bad debt expense at not-for-profit hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid eligibility declined on average by 15% to 20% since 2014, enhancing these hospitals’ cash flow. Similarly, the gains in insurance coverage lowered the nationwide uninsured rate to approximately 11%, with uninsured rates even lower in states that expanded their Medicaid rolls, Moody’s says.

“Although the budget would give states limited new flexibility to adjust their Medicaid programs, the measure overall reflects a significant cost shift away from federal funding to states,” Moody’s says. “This cost shift is significant and would force states to make difficult decisions about safety-net spending for hospitals that serve large numbers of indigent patients.”

When An Insurer Balks And Treatment Stops

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

When An Insurer Balks And Treatment Stops

Gillen Washington, a student at Northern Arizona University, had been getting medication for an immunodeficiency disease since 2011. But when he went to his clinic in November 2014 for the monthly dose, a nurse told him his insurance company had denied it.

Soon after, the plan sent him a letter saying his bloodwork was outdated and didn’t show that the treatment was medically necessary, Washington’s attorney said.

Over the next few months, as Washington appealed the insurance company’s decision, he developed a cough that wouldn’t go away. He moved home to Huntington Beach, Calif., and ended up in the hospital with pneumonia and a collapsed lung.

“It was terrifying,” said Washington, 22. “I have never felt so depressed and so scared in my entire life.”

In 2015, Washington filed a breach of contract lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court against his insurer, Aetna, arguing that the company had improperly denied him the medication. The case is set for trial this month.

From 35,000 to 50,000 people in the U.S. are estimated to be dependent on medications to treat primary immunodeficiency diseases — about 300 rare conditions in which the immune system doesn’t function properly, or at all. The medication, known as immunoglobulin replacement therapy, replaces antibodies that the body doesn’t make. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars each year.

In recent years, patients with these diseases have faced increasing difficulty getting their insurers to approve treatments, according to clinicians and patient advocates. In some cases, insurers interrupt treatments that are already underway. In others, they deny it at the outset. Without medication, patients can get infections or even suffer organ failure.

Aetna, one of the nation’s largest insurers, with a 2016 net income of $2.3 billion, declined to answer questions about Washington’s case, citing the pending litigation. In court documents, attorneys representing the company argued that it didn’t breach its contract with Washington.

In 2014, Aetna denied coverage of the medication that Gillen Washington was taking for an immunodeficiency disease. He was later hospitalized with pneumonia and a collapsed lung. (Courtesy of Gillen Washington)

Dr. Rebecca Buckley, a professor of immunology and pediatrics at Duke University Medical Center, said insurance companies often require patients with immunodeficiency diseases to stop taking their medication and undergo new lab work to demonstrate they still need it. That interruption is a “serious problem” for people with a definitive diagnosis, she said, because the consequences can be so devastating.

“If you stop the treatment, they are going to get sick,” Buckley said. “There are no spontaneous recoveries from any of these genetic defects.”

Buckley acknowledged that some people are put on the medication unnecessarily. But those who definitely have the diseases can’t make antibodies on their own and have no protection without treatment.

The Immune Deficiency Foundation, a national patient advocacy organization, regularly advises patients who receive insurance denials. President and founder Marcia Boyle said the foundation is getting a growing number of calls each year from patients who face treatment delays because of insurance company decisions. Insurers are also more frequently shifting costs to patients by requiring higher copays and coinsurance or using restrictive formularies, she said.

“Some insurers are creating unnecessary roadblocks because of the costly therapy,” she said. “More often than not, when you have someone with a lifelong, preexisting condition that needs very good medical care and expensive therapy, you are going to have issues with access to care and insurance.”

Trump’s budget forces states into ‘difficult decisions’ about spending for hospitals serving indigent patients

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.journalnow.com/business/business_news/local/trump-s-budget-forces-states-into-difficult-decisions-about-spending/article_15f1eee9-b4aa-5c6b-8132-3d93739682c5.html

hospital bed

A prominent rating agency, Moody’s Investors Service, said Thursday the proposed Trump administration budget could form an even darker financial cloud over the nation’s not-for-profit health-care systems and state legislatures.

Moody’s said the White House budget, if approved in its current form by Congress, would represent a “credit negative” for both groups.

The White House budget calls for $610 billion in Medicaid cuts over 10 years as well as eliminating $250 billion dedicated to state Medicaid expansion programs.

A projected $834 billion in lower Medicaid spending over 10 years was scored by the Congressional Budget Office if the American Health Care Act (AHCA) is enacted. The bill also would lead to 23 million Americans losing their health insurance by 2026, the office projected.

Moody’s wrote that the White House budget, if enacted, “would pressure state governments to take various actions to balance their budgets, including adjusting Medicaid eligibility rules, increasing their own funding of Medicaid, or cutting payments to hospitals and other providers,” Moody’s said.

“Although the budget would give states limited new flexibility to adjust their Medicaid programs, the measure overall reflects a significant cost shift away from federal funding to states,” Moody’s said. “It would force states to make difficult decisions about safety-net spending for hospitals that serve large numbers of indigent patients.”

The warning comes 10 weeks after Moody’s and S&P Global Ratings cautioned that the proposed AHCA could put increased pressure on health-care systems’ operating revenue and bottom lines.

The ratings groups expressed concern that the ACHA would change funding for Medicaid from an open-ended entitlement to a system based on payments that will be made to the states based on a capped per-capita amount.

The bill passed the U.S. House, but is likely to face significant changes in the U.S. Senate.

Another factor Moody’s cited in the credit negative rating is a White House budget proposal “that forces” states to share the costs of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps.

The federal government covers all benefit costs of the program, while states pay to administer it. The White House budget proposes to shift 25 percent of the benefit costs to states, totaling $190 billion by fiscal 2027.

“We expect action to vary among states, with some taking more action to limit the loss of insurance coverage or benefit changes,” Moody’s said.

“Material reductions of insurance coverage would be credit negative for not-for-profit hospitals because they would increase their bad debt and uncompensated care costs.”

In the most recent quarterly reports for the Triad’s three main health-care systems, each reported an increase in bad debt.

According to the American Hospital Association, bad debt is defined as services for which hospitals anticipate, but do not receive, payment from patients who have the financial means to pay.

Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center reported that through the first three quarters of fiscal 2016-17, it had $166.1 million in bad debt, compared with $38.2 million the year before.

Divisions emerge in the Senate on pre-existing conditions

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Divisions emerge in the Senate on pre-existing conditions

Divisions emerge in the Senate on pre-existing conditions

Senate Republicans are showing early divisions over what to do about ObamaCare’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

Some conservatives, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), want to simply repeal those provisions and other ObamaCare regulations and leave them up to the states.

But advocates of a more centrist approach, like Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), are speaking out in favor of pre-existing condition protections and endorsing a “Jimmy Kimmel test” for the bill, where no one can be denied coverage.

Other senators are exploring a middle ground where states would have to automatically enroll people in health insurance before they could get a waiver for the regulations, though conservatives object to that idea as Washington overreach.

The disagreements over what to do about preexisting conditions point to the larger difficulty facing Senate Republicans as they seek to find consensus on a host of contentious issues in the healthcare bill.

Pre-existing Conditions and Medical Underwriting in the Individual Insurance Market Prior to the ACA

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Pre-existing Conditions and Medical Underwriting in the Individual Insurance Market Prior to the ACA

Image result for Pre-existing Conditions and Medical Underwriting in the Individual Insurance Market Prior to the ACA

Before private insurance market rules in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) took effect in 2014, health insurance sold in the individual market in most states was medically underwritten.1  That means insurers evaluated the health status, health history, and other risk factors of applicants to determine whether and under what terms to issue coverage. To what extent people with pre-existing health conditions are protected is likely to be a central issue in the debate over repealing and replacing the ACA.

This brief reviews medical underwriting practices by private insurers in the individual health insurance market prior to 2014, and estimates how many American adults could face difficulty obtaining private individual market insurance if the ACA were repealed or amended and such practices resumed.  We examine data from two large government surveys: The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), both of which can be used to estimate rates of various health conditions (NHIS at the national level and BRFSS at the state level). We consulted field underwriting manuals used in the individual market prior to passage of the ACA as a reference for commonly declinable conditions.

 

Pre-ACA Market Practices Provide Lessons for ACA Replacement Approaches

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Pre-ACA Market Practices Provide Lessons for ACA Replacement Approaches

Image result for Pre-ACA Market Practices Provide Lessons for ACA Replacement Approaches

Significant changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are being considered by lawmakers who have been critical of its general approach to providing coverage and to some of its key provisions. An important area where changes will be considered has to do with how people with health problems would be able to gain and keep access to coverage and how much they may have to pay for it.  People’s health is dynamic. At any given time, an estimated 27% of non-elderly adults have health conditions that would make them ineligible for coverage under traditional non-group underwriting standards that existed prior to the ACA. Over their lifetimes, everyone is at risk of having these periods, some short and some that last for the rest of their lives.

One of the biggest changes that the ACA made to the non-group insurance market was to eliminate consideration by insurers of a person’s health or health history in enrollment and rating decisions.  This assured that people who had or who developed health problems would have the same plan choices and pay the same premiums as others, essentially pooling their expected costs together to determine the premiums that all would pay.

Proposals for replacing the ACA such as Rep. Tom Price’s Empowering Patients First Act and Speaker Paul Ryan’s “A Better Way” policy paper would repeal these insurance market rules, moving back towards pre-ACA standards where insurers generally had more leeway to use individual health in enrollment and rating for non-group coverage.1  Under these proposals, people without pre-existing conditions would generally be able to purchase coverage anytime from private insurers.  For people with health problems, several approaches have been proposed: (1) requiring insurers to accept people transitioning from previous coverage without a gap (“continuously covered”); (2) allowing insurers to charge higher premiums (within limits) to people with pre-existing conditions who have had a gap in coverage; and (3) establishing high-risk pools, which are public programs that provide coverage to people declined by private insurers.

The idea of assuring access to coverage for people with health problems is a popular one, but doing so is a challenge within a market framework where insurers have considerable flexibility over enrollment, rating and benefits.  People with health conditions have much higher expected health costs than people without them (Table 1 illustrates average costs of individuals with and without “deniable” health conditions). Insurers naturally will decline applicants with health issues and will adjust rates for new and existing enrollees to reflect their health when they can.  Assuring access for people with pre-existing conditions with limits on their premiums means that someone has to pay the difference between their premiums and their costs.  For people enrolling in high-risk pools, some ACA replacement proposals provide for federal grants to states, though the amounts may not be sufficient.  For people gaining access through continuous coverage provisions, these costs would likely be paid by pooling their costs with (i.e., charging more to) other enrollees.  Maintaining this pooling is difficult, however, when insurers have significant flexibility over rates and benefits.  Experience from the pre-ACA market shows how insurers were able to use a variety of strategies to charge higher premiums to people with health problems, even when those problems began after the person enrolled in their plan.  These practices can make getting or keeping coverage unaffordable.

The discussion below focuses on some of the issues faced by people with health issues in the pre-ACA non-group insurance market.  These pre-ACA insurance practices highlight some of the challenges in providing access and stable coverage for people and some of the issues that any ACA replacement plan will need to address. Many ACA replacement proposals have not yet been developed in sufficient detail to fully deal with these questions, or in some cases may defer them to the states.

We start by briefly summarizing key differences between the ACA and pre-ACA insurance market rules for non-group coverage that affect access and continuity of coverage.  We then focus on pre-ACA access and continuity issues for three different groups: (1) people transitioning from employer coverage or Medicaid to the non-group market; (2) people with non-group coverage who develop a health problem; and (3) people who are uninsured (are not considered to have continuous coverage) who want to buy non-group coverage.  After that, we discuss how medical underwriting and rating practices can segment a risk pool, initially and over time, and challenges that this poses for assuring continuous coverage.  We end by reviewing some of the policy choices for addressing the challenges that have been raised.

10 Things to Know about Medicaid: Setting the Facts Straight

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/10-things-to-know-about-medicaid-setting-the-facts-straight/?utm_campaign=KFF-2016-The-Latest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=51786609&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_oPtCIH4gD4_ZRyWy2daz24TEoKyI_CXQyh75K4bbtRgDPBGs30nDlGsRdOe65M92Zu9Dja6Bmtm3TTQoDua3ac_xORQ&_hsmi=51786609

Medicaid, the nation’s public health insurance program for low-income children, adults, seniors, and people with disabilities, covers 1 in 5 Americans, including many with complex and costly needs for medical care and long-term services. Most people covered by Medicaid would be uninsured or underinsured without it. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded Medicaid to reach low-income adults previously excluded from the program and provided federal funding to states for the vast majority of the cost of newly eligible adults.

President Trump and other GOP leaders have called for far-reaching changes to Medicaid, including caps on federal funding for the program. In the debate about Medicaid’s future, some critics of the program have made statements that are at odds with data, research, and basic information about Medicaid. To inform policy decisions that may have significant implications for Medicaid, the low-income people it serves, and the states, this brief highlights 10 key Medicaid facts.