Aa
AP Exclusive: Medicaid for the middle class?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110621/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_health_overhaul_glitch
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press – Tue Jun 21, 6:01 pm ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.
After initially downplaying any concern, the Obama administration said late Tuesday it would look for a fix.
Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps.
Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster says the situation keeps him up at night.
"I don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense," Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting.
"This is a situation that got no attention at all," added Foster. "And even now, as I raise the issue with various policymakers, people are not rushing to say ... we need to do something about this."
Administration officials said Tuesday they now see the problem. "We are concerned that, as a matter of law, some middle-income Americans may be receiving coverage through Medicaid, which is meant to serve only the neediest Americans," said Health and Human Services spokesman Richard Sorian. "We are exploring options to address this issue."
Administration officials and senior Democratic lawmakers initially defended the change, saying it wasn't a loophole but the result of a well-meaning effort to simplify the rules for deciding who would get help under the new health care law. Instead of a hodgepodge, there would be one national policy.
But Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, called the situation "unacceptable" and said he intended to look into it.
Governors have been clamoring for relief from Medicaid costs, complaining that federal rules drive up spending and limit state options. The program is now one of the top issues in budget negotiations between the White House and Congress. Republicans want to roll back federal requirements that block states from limiting eligibility.
Medicaid is a safety net program that serves more than 50 million vulnerable Americans, from low-income children and pregnant women to Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes. It's designed as a federal-state partnership, with Washington paying close to 60 percent of the total cost.
Early retirees would be a new group for Medicaid. While retirees can now start collecting Social Security at age 62, they must wait another three years to get Medicare, unless they're disabled.
Some early retirees who worked all their lives may not want to join a program for the poor, but others might see it as a relatively painless way to satisfy the new law's requirement that most Americans carry health insurance starting in 2014. It would help tide them over until they qualify for Medicare.
The actuary's office said the early retirees eligible for Medicaid would be on top of an estimated 16 million to 20 million new people that Obama's law already brings into the program, by opening it to childless adults with incomes near the poverty level.
It's unclear how much it would cost to cover the retirees. Federal taxpayers will cover the entire initial cost of the expansion.
Republicans already see a problem.
Former Utah governor Mike Leavitt said bringing early retirees in will "just add fuel to the fire," bolstering the argument from Republican governors that some of Washington's rules don't make sense.
"The fact that this is being discovered now tells you, what else is baked into this law?" said Leavitt, who served as Health and Human Services secretary under President George H.W. Bush. "It clearly begins to reveal that the nature of the law was to put more and more people under eligibility for government insurance."
The Medicare actuary's office roughed out some examples to illustrate how the provision would work. A married couple retiring at 62 in 2014 and receiving the maximum Social Security benefit of $23,500 apiece could get $17,000 from other sources and still qualify for Medicaid with a total income of $64,000.
That $64,000 would put them at about four times the federal poverty level, which for a two-person household is $14,710 this year. The Medicaid expansion in the health care law was supposed to benefit childless adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level. A fudge factor built into the law bumps that up to 138 percent.
The actuary's office acknowledged its $64,000 example would represent an unusual case, but nonetheless the hypothetical couple would still qualify for Medicaid.
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press – Tue Jun 21, 6:01 pm ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.
After initially downplaying any concern, the Obama administration said late Tuesday it would look for a fix.
Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps.
Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster says the situation keeps him up at night.
"I don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense," Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting.
"This is a situation that got no attention at all," added Foster. "And even now, as I raise the issue with various policymakers, people are not rushing to say ... we need to do something about this."
Administration officials said Tuesday they now see the problem. "We are concerned that, as a matter of law, some middle-income Americans may be receiving coverage through Medicaid, which is meant to serve only the neediest Americans," said Health and Human Services spokesman Richard Sorian. "We are exploring options to address this issue."
Administration officials and senior Democratic lawmakers initially defended the change, saying it wasn't a loophole but the result of a well-meaning effort to simplify the rules for deciding who would get help under the new health care law. Instead of a hodgepodge, there would be one national policy.
But Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, called the situation "unacceptable" and said he intended to look into it.
Governors have been clamoring for relief from Medicaid costs, complaining that federal rules drive up spending and limit state options. The program is now one of the top issues in budget negotiations between the White House and Congress. Republicans want to roll back federal requirements that block states from limiting eligibility.
Medicaid is a safety net program that serves more than 50 million vulnerable Americans, from low-income children and pregnant women to Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes. It's designed as a federal-state partnership, with Washington paying close to 60 percent of the total cost.
Early retirees would be a new group for Medicaid. While retirees can now start collecting Social Security at age 62, they must wait another three years to get Medicare, unless they're disabled.
Some early retirees who worked all their lives may not want to join a program for the poor, but others might see it as a relatively painless way to satisfy the new law's requirement that most Americans carry health insurance starting in 2014. It would help tide them over until they qualify for Medicare.
The actuary's office said the early retirees eligible for Medicaid would be on top of an estimated 16 million to 20 million new people that Obama's law already brings into the program, by opening it to childless adults with incomes near the poverty level.
It's unclear how much it would cost to cover the retirees. Federal taxpayers will cover the entire initial cost of the expansion.
Republicans already see a problem.
Former Utah governor Mike Leavitt said bringing early retirees in will "just add fuel to the fire," bolstering the argument from Republican governors that some of Washington's rules don't make sense.
"The fact that this is being discovered now tells you, what else is baked into this law?" said Leavitt, who served as Health and Human Services secretary under President George H.W. Bush. "It clearly begins to reveal that the nature of the law was to put more and more people under eligibility for government insurance."
The Medicare actuary's office roughed out some examples to illustrate how the provision would work. A married couple retiring at 62 in 2014 and receiving the maximum Social Security benefit of $23,500 apiece could get $17,000 from other sources and still qualify for Medicaid with a total income of $64,000.
That $64,000 would put them at about four times the federal poverty level, which for a two-person household is $14,710 this year. The Medicaid expansion in the health care law was supposed to benefit childless adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level. A fudge factor built into the law bumps that up to 138 percent.
The actuary's office acknowledged its $64,000 example would represent an unusual case, but nonetheless the hypothetical couple would still qualify for Medicaid.
Yeah, I get what your saying but the Dem's should have crammed things through .....like the Republicans do when they have the majority. I just wish the Dem's would play the political game more like the Republicans sometimes. They didn't care what the American people thought....they did it and are still trying to do it. As far as Obama .....he's one of the smartest Presidents we have ever had, but like you said he can only do so much. He has Congress & Senate to deal with. I just can't stand that we don't get anything done because of the constant bickering between the 2 parties. All while the middle class is suffering and the rich get richer (and we pay for it)
@ flmagi..It's kind of hard for them to pass anything when the house is republican..Granted the house was democrat for 2 yrs but the voters were not patient enough. Everyone thinks all these issues can be solved in 1 term. It took our last President 2 terms to screw it up. He inherited a surplus and a balanced budget from the Clinton administration and left the country with an astronomical deficit, and crumbling economy and 2 wars....How can that be cleaned up in 2 yrs??? I agree. I'm an independent but I have voted Democrat just because the Republicans (whether some people like it or not) are not for the middle class or the poor....Example: President Obama HAD NO CHOICE to extend the tax cuts to the rich because the republicans would have vetoed the extension of unemployment due to the fact that they rule the house...What?????? When their President vetoed the democratic house's decision NOT to go to war in Iraq, no one saw that as a bad thing now did they???
Oh rats! Just when I thought we were getting along! ha ha. I see it differently from my end-------- but I do understand where you are coming from. You all did vote in people you thought would get the job done that you wanted. I think that playing nice was all they could do with such opposition. The country is really split which makes drastic change difficult.
Mary on Magi's puter
It really ***** that we can't run the country from Med help.lol I'm so sick of the Dem's & Repub's fighting and nothing gets done. The Dem's wasted the time we gave them. We gave them Congress, Senate and the White House and they blew it by trying to play nice. :) We should have Universal health care right now. Grrrrrrrrr I'll still vote Dem. I have too, I don't agree with Repub's on almost everything.
It really ***** that we can't run the country from Med help.lol I'm so sick of the Dem's & Repub's fighting and nothing gets done. The Dem's wasted the time we gave them. We gave them Congress, Senate and the White House and they blew it by trying to play nice. :) We should have Universal health care right now. Grrrrrrrrr I'll still vote Dem. I have too, I don't agree with Repub's on almost everything.
sorry I may sound jealous but I think I have the right to be...It's just not fair and we have people and politicians who oppose everyone having "free" healthcare...The politicians free healthcare is paid by who? THE MIDDLE CLASS!!!!
I agree with a sliding scale... I would definitely pay for it (as we do now through my husbands job) But we pay $225 a pay period (every 2 weeks) for Just medical then another $50 for dental and vision...I think that is ridiculous..Healthcare should NOT be that expensive ESPECIALLY if you are working...I know TONS of people who are NOT working and get "free" medical and let me tell you their medical is waaayyyy better than what my husbands job offers. I know a girl that just had a baby. She was working and then decided that she was "tired of working" She went to a "shady" Dr and was excused from work due to stress..Now I know there are cases where work can stress you out but in her case (like plenty of other people do) she was just "tired" of working. In any event, she collected TDI (Temporary disability) for 6 months, got pregnant while on TDI, once her TDI ran out she ended up on unemployment. She can now collect and was qualified for state medical, WIC (free formula, milk, eggs, bread and cheese), and Food stamps (because she says she's single....but explain how she got pregnant being single. They didn't probe that though!!!) She had a baby at NO CHARGE whatsoever. No co-payments, no bill after delivery....Now myself and my husband are TTC. He works very HARD and if I were to have a baby, each Dr's visit would be $25 and my out of pocket expense after give birth would be $900.00 (yes that's not bad but compared to people not paying anything and scamming the system, I say it's bad)..Tell me that's not *&^%$# up!!!
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
