WSJ: Surging Costs for Medicaid Ravage State, Federal Budgets

[question everything]

Critical Condition

Surging Costs for Medicaid Ravage State, Federal Budgets

In Mississippi, Governor Sees 'Cancer on Our Finances' Amid $268 Million Gap

New Pressure From Bush Cuts

By SARAH LUECK
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 7, 2005; Page A1

JACKSON, Miss. -- To see how Medicaid is devouring state budgets across the country, take a look at Mississippi.

Over the past five years state and federal spending in Mississippi on Medicaid -- the health program for the poor and disabled -- has doubled to $3.5 billion. Fully one-quarter of state residents are in the program. "Medicaid is a cancer on our state finances," says Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, the former head of the Republican National Committee and a close ally of President Bush.

(snip)

Forty years ago, Congress, as an afterthought to the Medicare program for the elderly, created Medicaid to help pay for the medical needs of about four million low-income people. Today, the program covers 53 million people -- nearly one in every six Americans -- and costs $300 billion a year in federal and state funds, recently surpassing spending on the federal Medicare program. In some states, Medicaid accounts for one-third of the budget.

The benefits offered by Medicaid have steadily expanded over the decades. The program now pays for 60% of the nation's nursing-home bill. It covers eight million disabled people and 25 million children. At many hospitals that cater to indigent people, Medicaid accounts for more than 40% of the revenue. "It has become a program that takes care of the worst situations," says John Holahan, director of the Urban Institute's Health Policy Center.

Now a state-versus-federal battle over Medicaid may be looming. President Bush, faced with a swelling federal deficit, will propose Medicaid changes in the budget he sends Congress today. The administration wants to cut about $60 billion from what it projects it will spend on the program over the next decade, mostly by cracking down on techniques used by states to collect extra federal payments.

(snip)

Write to Sarah Lueck at [e-mail]

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110773763704247315,00.html

[hadrons]

1. according to Rush & Co, Mississippi as a low-tax state ...

should have plenty of revenue to cover the cost since according to them lower-tax rates = higher tax revenue ... didn't quite work out, huh

at least the morans don't have gays getting married

[papau]

2. Can we say single payer National Health -or nust we wait till we're busted

:-)

[Wright Patman]

3. I've actually heard insurance companies

argue that it would not be good public policy because tens of thousands of insurance company workers would be laid off under a streamlined single-payer system.

We should also bring back manual typewriters to create more secretarial employment. It could also be seen as an anti-obesity measure as more calories are burned up per keystroke.

[papau]

5. The insurance company non-executives continue as always under

single payer national health.

Right now Part B Medicare is not done by anyone else other than insurance company workers under a contract called "administrative services only"

Indeed many huge private companies go the ASO route.

The forms review, verification, check cutting will all still be required.

We just will not need the salesmen, advertising, and other overhead.

[bloom]

6. So they are saying

that "tens of thousands of insurance company workers" jobs (and CEOs, etc. getting millions in salary and stocks per year) is more important than (millions more) people having health care.

That is what it boils down to.


Frame the debate....

[SpiralHawk]

4. Bush & BushCo are responsible for this

This is their doing.

They are responsible.

They are to blame.

Bush did it.

[saigon68]

7. Those Damn trial Lawyers again

lol