Economic Impact of Medicaid Expansion Remains Elusive
Economists, meeting as the Financial Impact Estimating Conference, could not reach consensus on the impact on the state budget and overall economy of a proposed constitutional amendment to expand Medicaid.
August 07, 2019 at 02:05 PM
4 minute read
State economists agreed to disagree when it comes to the financial impact that a proposed constitutional amendment to expand Medicaid would have on Florida.
Economists, meeting as the Financial Impact Estimating Conference, could not reach consensus on the impact of the proposed amendment on the state budget and overall economy.
The decision means that if the amendment appears on the November 2020 ballot, voters won’t see a 150-word summary explaining the impact. Instead, they would see a statement that says, “The financial impact of this measure, if any, cannot be reasonably determined at this time.”
It is the first time members of the FIEC have been unable to reach an accord, according to Amy Baker, coordinator of the Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research.
Baker said Medicaid is a complicated issue and determining the impact of an expansion of the health care safety net program isn’t an easy task.
“What you personally feel is probably different for every individual,” Baker told The News Service of Florida following the panel’s meeting. “And there were many, many different moving parts to this.”
Baker’s team had come up with estimates that showed it would cost the state roughly $339 million to expand Medicaid to low-income uninsured childless adults. But the expansion would draw down nearly $4.7 billion in federal money.
The overall effect on the budget would be a nearly $4.38 billion positive increase, according to Baker’s analysis.
But the assumptions were based on complex calculations and weeks of economic analyses looking at issues such as the number of newly eligible people who would actually enroll in Medicaid and the movement to Medicaid of an estimated 593,525 people who get coverage on a health-insurance exchange that is part of the federal Affordable Care Act.
Disagreements also centered on the number of people who would be affected by the proposed amendment. Baker’s estimates showed that 1,072,483 people would be impacted by the program.
Baker’s team predicted that 29% of the population that would become newly eligible for Medicaid would actually enroll in the program, or 245,842 people.
But Eric Pridgeon, who is the House’s top budget staff member and serves on the FIEC, thought the figure was too low. Moreover, Pridgeon was concerned about last-minute testimony offered by the state Office of Insurance Regulation.
“It seems like the more digging we do the more questions pop up,” Pridgeon said.
Pridgeon’s comments were echoed by panel members representing the Senate and the governor’s office.
The political committee Florida Decides Healthcare is trying to get the proposed constitutional amendment on the 2020 ballot after years of the Republican-controlled Legislature rejecting a proposed expansion of Medicaid eligibility. Such an expansion is allowed under the ACA, better known as Obamacare, with the federal government picking up most of the tab.
It remains unclear whether FDH will gather enough petition signatures to qualify for the 2020 ballot. A spokesman said recently the initiative might be pushed backed to 2022.
Anne Swerlick, a longtime health care advocate who is working with FDH, expressed disappointment Tuesday that the FIEC couldn’t come to agreement.
“While we appreciate all the hard work of the estimating conference, we’re disappointed that they could not reach consensus on the millions of dollars of savings Florida could realize if it expanded Medicaid,” Swerlick said. “Multiple studies show how expansion increases access to affordable health care, improves health and financial security for families, and positively impacts state and local economies.”
Christine Sexton reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readTrump's Lawyers Speak Out: 'The President Had the Confidence to Retain Me'
FTC Receiver Eyes Fraudulent Messages Ecommerce Company's Clients
Trending Stories
- 1Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 2These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 3'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
- 4Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
- 5Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250