Republican Obstruction Will Cost Hospitals $53 Billion

Republican governors and local representatives complain about “government run healthcare,” but if they don’t get with the program, they may have no healthcare.

According to new findings by the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems (NAPH), by 2019, safety net hospitals’ uncompensated care costs will be $53 billion higher than originally estimated if states don’t opt into the voluntary expansion of the Medicaid program under Obamacare.

Safety net hospitals serve areas where, on average, 14.9 percent of the population is uninsured and 32.5 percent of the population relies on government-provided health coverage such as Medicaid. Current Medicaid reimbursements often fall short of the full cost of care, so programs such as federal DSH funding help make up the difference. Obamacare cuts DSH funding in half by 2019 in an effort to reduce national hospital payments — but only because the cuts to safety net hospitals were intended be offset by the vastly expanded pool of newly insured low-income Americans.

In hindsight making the expansion of Medicaid voluntary may not have been ideal, but making it mandatory also may have lead to the entire law being struck down. Because even in its current iteration, the Affordable Care Act survived by a razor-thin margin and ultimately relied on Chief Justice John Roberts having a last-minute change of heart.

With that said, I expect much of the opposition to the expansion of Medicaid will fade away after election season is over, and will almost entirely disappear in 2014 when the remainder of the law comes into effect.

This study, conducted by the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, suggests they simply won’t be able to afford not to. And perhaps more importantly, refusing to expand Medicaid will be very bad for business.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://profile.yahoo.com/U4BHCFE5U2XM3XYHH2D6PKJDYY J

    Thankfully I live in a state (Florida) that’s sane and rational enough to point the blame at men like Rick Scott and not Obamacare, the President, etc.

    It’s sick.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      And yet, Florida voted for Rick Scott even knowing that he ran a company involved in the nation’s largest Medicare fraud case.

    • D_C_Wilson

      When did Florida become sane and rational?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/U4BHCFE5U2XM3XYHH2D6PKJDYY J

        Pure satire, I promise. This state is an insane asylum all in itself.

  • bphoon

    …but if they don’t get with the program, they may have no healthcare.

    It’s a slightly different issue, but this irony extends to the healthcare exchanges and is totally lost on the rwnj’s propagating it.

    Here in Kansas, our esteemed Gov. Brownback decided to turn down the federal government’s offer of $31million to set up the state’s healthcare exchange under the ACA. His reason? He was convinced that the law would be struck down by the Supreme Court, so why take money when it wouldn’t be necessary to spend it? When the Court upheld the law, the governor, when told there was still time to file an application to partner with the feds to set up a state healthcare exchange, said he wasn’t going to do anything until after the election even though that would put Kansas past that deadline. His reasoning? He said–this is a quote from the Topeka Capital Journal–that he’s willing to “gamble” that Romney would be elected and get the ACA repealed so, again, why do anything when the law will go by the wayside anyway?

    The irony here is that Kansas–dominated by the right wing of the Republican party who bemoans the “government takeover” of the healthcare system and clamors for “smaller government”–is going to end up with a healthcare exchange totally run by the federal government because of dithering by our governor.

    Sweet, huh?

    • BuffaloBuckeye

      Sounds like Brownbeck makes decisions by fiddle-fucking around.

  • nellcote

    Somewhat related from the NYT:

    U.S. Set to Sponsor Health Insurance
    : October 27, 2012

    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will soon take on a new role as the sponsor of at least two nationwide health insurance plans to be operated under contract with the federal government and offered to consumers in every state.

    These multistate plans were included in President Obama’s health care law as a substitute for a pure government-run health insurance program — the public option sought by many liberal Democrats and reviled by Republicans. Supporters of the national plans say they will increase competition in state health insurance markets, many of which are dominated by a handful of companies.

    The national plans will compete directly with other private insurers and may have some significant advantages, including a federal seal of approval. Premiums and benefits for the multistate insurance plans will be negotiated by the United States Office of Personnel Management, the agency that arranges health benefits for federal employees.
    [...]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/health/us-to-sponsor-health-insurance-plans-nationwide.html?_r=0

    • BuffaloBuckeye

      Interesting article, thanks. And I still can’t figure out the value that a private company brings to health insurance.