Tuesday, 10 July 2012

Expanding Medicaid: The Choice is Clear

The Supreme Court on June 28th ruled that while the federal Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion is constitutional, in the event that a state does not implement the expansion, it would be unconstitutional to withdraw all Medicaid funding from that state. The ruling appears to leave intact both the mandatory nature of the expansion and the other remedies that the federal Medicaid authorities might use to enforce it. The states, however, might view the removal of the most aggressive remedy (full Medicaid defunding) as opening up some additional degree of choice about whether to forego the expansion and risk whatever lesser penalties federal authorities may impose (such as a partial withholding of funds). In Illinois, as in any other state, it is clear that expanding the Medicaid program on schedule in 2014 is by far the smart and right thing to do, regardless of the potential federal penalties for not expanding.
1.  The ACA’s expansion is aimed at covering some of the most vulnerable low-income adults who are otherwise unable to afford private insurance. Not all low-income Illinoisans are currently eligible for Medicaid. Instead, right now, to qualify for Medicaid, a low-income person must fit into a “category,” such as being 65 or over, or totally and permanently disabled, or pregnant, or a child under age 19, or a parent or caretaker relative of a child under age 19. But if you are a single, childless, non-disabled adult without a penny to your name, you do not qualify for Medicaid. This expansion adds another category—having household income less than 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), which would apply to an estimated 500,000 individuals in Illinois. People in a wide range of circumstances will belong to the “newly eligible” group. Many will be low-wage, part-time workers. Some will be unemployed, either recent or long term. Some will have health conditions that, if addressed by consistent medical care, could and would allow them to get jobs. Some are really destitute, even homeless. Some are young adults, perhaps having aged off Medicaid, which they received as children, but are not fortunate enough to have parents with insurance that would cover them until they turn 26. Others are middle-aged or close to 65. Some are people who had insurance coverage, but lost it through changes in circumstances such as job loss or divorce. 
Of the newly eligible population in Illinois, an estimated 431,000 Illinoisans with household incomes less than 100% FPL will be left in the cold without the Medicaid expansion. The ACA envisioned that these folks would qualify for Medicaid. That’s why the federal subsidy to help pay for private insurance premiums starts at 100% FPL and goes to 400% FPL. So, without the Medicaid expansion, these folks will likely be priced out of affordable health insurance through the Exchange because they won’t qualify for the federal financial help (unless they are lawfully residing residents ineligible for Medicaid). They will have to continue to access safety-net providers and emergency rooms for care, driving up costs for these providers and showing up sicker. And, these folks are still held responsible under the individual mandate to prove insurance coverage or why they are exempt.
2.  Minimal state investment will reap overwhelming benefit. The ACA increased the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rates for the newly eligible individuals under the expansion to 100 percent for calendar years 2014 through 2016, and then gradually declining to 90 percent in 2020 where it remains indefinitely. By 2020, when Illinois will pay just 10 percent of the cost of care for this new population, the annual state cost is estimated at $157 million. (This is 10% of the current cost per adult beneficiary in Illinois, $3,157, times 500,000 new beneficiaries). But even as this cost will rise due to inflation, it will also be offset by benefits such as larger state tax revenues from increased employment and provider income and an increased insured population. It will also be offset by increased efficiencies due to the new system to simplify and coordinate eligibility and enrollment for Medicaid and the Exchange, which is nearly entirely paid for by the federal government. It may also be offset by the stabilization of the health of almost half of the newly eligible population in the event that the federal government gives permission for Cook County to expand Medicaid early, this year or next. If Cook County is allowed to expand Medicaid early, an estimated 250,000 folks will have medical homes and coordinated care, which would likely stabilize chronic conditions, prevent disabilities, and therefore reduce future Medicaid costs. Finally, state costs can be further minimized by increasing efficiency through care coordination initiatives, especially for persons with chronic conditions and for dual eligibles (persons eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare). The Lewin Group estimates that the ACA will increase Illinois’s Medicaid spending by just 2.8% between 2014 and 2019. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ACA would impose less than a 1% increase in state Medicaid costs.  Moreover, these high federal matching rates are highly likely to stay. In Medicaid’s close to 50-year history, Congress has never decreased FMAP levels in Medicaid other than to allow the expiration of temporary FMAP increases enacted as parts of stimulus packages in recessions. The more states that adopt the “newly eligibles” expansion, the more members of Congress who will resist any reduction below 90% down the line. In fact, with sufficient support, Congress could amend the matching rate, keeping it at 100% indefinitely.
3. Expanding Medicaid creates jobs. We know from our recent past that an increased federal matching rate in the Medicaid program has an enormously significant economic impact—called amultiplier effect—throughout the economy and positively impacts jobs. When Congress included an increase in the federal Medicaid matching rate in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act from 50% to 61.88% from October 2008 through December 2010, $1.2 billion per year for that period flowed into Illinois. For FY 2009, one estimate places the value of the wages generated from the Medicaid program that included the enhanced match as high as $15.8 billion, supporting as many as 385,742 jobs. The job growth and wages generated are likely to be much more substantial under the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, since the federal matching rate under the ACA is 100% from 2014 through 2016 and an additional roughly 500,000 newly eligible Medicaid patientsare expected to enroll. State and local revenue increases when Illinois residents pay income, sales, and other taxes generated by the federal funding for the Medicaid expansion; this revenue would offset much, perhaps all, of the additional costs.
4. Participating in the Medicaid expansion will help stabilize the state budget. The budget is critically dependent on federal Medicaid funding. The Illinois Medicaid program is by far the largest source of federal revenues to the state. Federal funds also support the Department of Human Services, Department on Aging, Department of Children and Family Services, local public health departments, Cook County Health and Hospitals Systems, Illinois’s state universities, and local school districts’ special education programs, among others. The Medicaid expansion will provide crucial federal funds across the state and local governments to support programs now being delivered to the expansion population with no federal funds, or being withheld from that population due to lack of funds.
5. We pay for the health care for the uninsured in any event, so let’s use federal dollars to pay for their current uncompensated care. A Kaiser and Urban Institute report on state spending under the expansion found that under the expansion, by 2019, Illinois would have reduced its number of uninsured adults in this newly eligible population by over 42% with the federal government paying for over 94% of the cost. This could translate into a decrease in Illinois’s uncompensated care spending of as much as $1.5 billion. And any cost to the state will be there, whether or not Illinois takes the money provided for the expansion. Working Illinoisans in low-wage jobs without insurance still get sick, still get injured. But without the federal dollars from the Medicaid expansion, other Illinoisans with insurance will still have to pick up the cost of their care, to the tune of $1,000 per year in increased annual premiums. And local property taxes are strained to support the township medical assistance programs and safety net health systems that provide care for low-income uninsured people now. In fact, currently over $400 million in services for uncompensated care is being provided annually by just one hospital: Cook County’s Stroger Hospital. 
6. Illinois hospitals need the Medicaid payments to offset reductions in federal funds in other areas. Targeted hospital subsidies, known as disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments, will decline under the Affordable Care Act. The reduction was justified on the theory that the Medicaid expansion will eliminate the need for DSH subsidies by greatly reducing the burden of uncompensated care. If hospitals lose those payments, and the loss is not made up by the expansion of Medicaid, it will devastate not only hospitals, but entire communities. Many Illinois hospitals, especially in rural areas, simply are not viable if their DSH subsidies decline without being replaced by expanded Medicaid. Hospitals are among the largest employers in their communities. When a hospital closes, the community not only loses a major employer, but providers leave too, and then the community has great difficulty recruiting new industry. Additionally, expanding Medicaid will ensure that Illinois’s medical providers will have the financial support coming from the Medicaid expansion to offset the ACA’s Medicare payment reductions. Doctors and hospitals are counting on the Medicaid expansion (which will bring in revenue for services to the newly eligible and reduce the need for uncompensated care) to be in place as the Medicare payment changes are phased in.
7. Expanded coverage is the linchpin for the big picture reforms that will deliver both better health outcomes and lower costs. Coverage requires an investment (which the federal government virtually entirely funds under the ACA). But the investment will yield returns. Coverage makes possible arelationship with a regular medical provider. That, in turn, facilitates prevention, wellness advice, early detection of conditions, maintenance care (avoiding acute care), a platform for the full use of health information technology that avoids duplication and mistakes and spreads best practices, and care coordination. Coverage thus addresses the cost of health care by improving health outcomes across the system. This overall downward bending of the cost curve helps all of us, not just the newly insured. 
8. Federal Medicaid dollars will finally be paying for behavioral and mental health services for Medicaid enrollees. Under the ACA, the newly eligible population will have a benefit package that includes mental health and behavioral health services. These are costs now being borne by state and local funds, or else the services are simply not being provided—with impact on emergency rooms, state institutions and the criminal justice system. These state and local costs will be replaced with federally funded Medicaid.
9. Illinois’s veterans deserve health insurance. Not all veterans are able to get care at a Veterans Affairs hospital. And, in fact, roughly 43,000 Illinois veterans are uninsured (along with 25,000 of their family members). Illinois needs to take care of veterans, and the ACA’s Medicaid expansion will do just that. At implementation in 2014, nearly half of uninsured veterans will likely qualify forexpanded Medicaid coverage. Illinois should serve these veterans, just like they served its citizens.
10. Does Illinois really want to subsidize health care in other states? As Justice Scalia stated in his dissent, “Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion.” So if Illinois does not take advantage of the federal 100%/90% funding for the Medicaid expansion, other states that chose to expand will get the benefit of Illinoisans’ federal tax dollars.
11. Expanding Medicaid coverage helps the financial viability of community clinics.Clinics are our best—really only—strategy for providing health care to the uninsured outside of emergency rooms. There will still be plenty of uninsured after the ACA is implemented, plus many of the newly insured Medicaid beneficiaries will get their care from clinics. The only way that clinics can serve the uninsured is by serving a critical percentage of patients who have coverage. The Medicaid reimbursement for covered patients allows the clinic to also serve the uninsured. With a high percentage of patients covered, the clinics will be able to expand capacity to serve the uninsured as well as those newly coverage by Medicaid.   
12. The Medicaid expansion is simply the right thing to do. We have a chance, through the incredible leveraging of federal funds, to provide health coverage—and the chance for better health and upward mobility—to hundreds of thousands of our state’s most vulnerable, needy residents. We can create a system that expands its circle of moral concern to include the uninsured, recognizing as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in N.F.I.B. v. Sebelius, that “[v]irtually everyone … consumes health care at some point in his or her life.”


Andrea Kovach
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law

(Original post can be found here at The Shriver Brief)

Monday, 9 July 2012

Let’s Make Sure the Affordable Care Act Lives Up to Its Name

Low-income workers received a potentially devastating blow when the US Supreme Court decided to strike down the provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) penalizing states that do not expand access to Medicaid to families earning up to 133% of the poverty line. Unless states voluntarily expand Medicaid, many low-income workers will be left to shoulder the cost of mandated insurance on their own because few are likely to be covered through their employer.

According to the administrative rules for the ACA, employers (with 50 or more employees) have to pay a “shared responsibility fee” only when they neglect to cover full-time employees. Under this new law, full-time employees are defined as those who average 30 or more hours per week, and employers are granted ample leeway in defining the time period on which eligibility is based. Research I’ve conducted in several industries indicates that work hours in today’s hourly jobs are often scarce, with many workers expressing a preference for additional hours of work for additional pay. Because employers condition access to benefits on job status and hours worked, hourly workers, especially part-time workers, are often excluded from company-sponsored health insurance. The ACA is unlikely to do much to extend employer-sponsored coverage to hourly workers and may even heighten their risk of poverty given the incentive to employers to keep work hours below 30 a week.

Let’s make sure the Affordable Care Act lives up to its name by encouraging Governor Quinn and our legislators to voluntarily expand Medicaid. Because the federal government will pick up over 90% of the tab for the expansion, it makes good fiscal sense for both Illinois taxpayers and Illinois families.

Susan Lambert
Associate Professor
School of Social Service Administration
University of Chicago

(Portions of this letter were published in the Chicago Tribune, July 6 Voice of the People here)

Friday, 6 July 2012

Five Reasons Why States Should Act Quickly to Set Up Health Insurance Exchanges

Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act, we know that insurers will no longer be able to deny people coverage or charge them more based on their health status or gender, subsidies will be available to help people with low and moderate incomes afford coverage, and a state or federal exchange will be operating in every state in 2014.

A number of states are well on their way to establishing their own exchanges. But many other states instead have dragged their feet, citing uncertainty prior to the high court’s ruling (see map). With last Thursday’s decision, however, states can no longer use that excuse as grounds to avoid implementing the law. States that have said they prefer to operate their own insurance exchanges (rather than have the federal government run the exchanges for them) must act quickly.



Five reasons why states should start or resume planning activities immediately:

1. Deadlines are approaching – quickly. States must officially notify the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by November 16, 2012 – that is, in less than five months – of their intention to operate a state-based exchange and submit an application for federal approval of the exchange’s design and operations.

2. Applications alone won’t be enough. States seeking approval of their exchange proposal have to demonstrate sufficient progress to HHS by January 1, 2013 in order to prove that their state does not need a federally run exchange.

3. Operations will start before 2014. Exchanges – whether state- or federally run – will have to start enrolling individuals, families, and small businesses by October 1, 2013. States operating an exchange will also need to ensure they can determine eligibility for federal premium and cost-sharing subsidies available to individuals with low and moderate incomes who will buy coverage through the exchange. They also must be able to coordinate with their state Medicaid and CHIP programs. This means that new and improved information technology systems must be developed and tested.

4. Key policy decisions will take time. States must decide how they’ll approach and implement a wide variety of policies, such as financing operations of the exchange after 2014, selecting health plans to be sold in the exchange, conducting outreach and education to consumers, and developing services to attract small businesses.

5. Federal grant funds are available to fully fund states’ exchange set-up costs. States can apply for and receive federal funds that will finance all costs related to the design and launch of their exchanges. The funds can be used to conduct research on their insurance market, develop or upgrade their IT systems, hire and train staff, as well as support all operating costs for the exchange’s first year. The grants will be provided through 2014, as long as funds are available. But the sooner states access the funds, the sooner they can put them to work – and increase their chances of meeting all of the important implementation deadlines.

Despite these factors, leaders in several states responded to the Supreme Court decision by continuing to delay their own decisions on whether to move forward and create a state-based exchange. Because of the time crunch, this foot-dragging could effectively be a decision in itself – to forgo any chance of operating an exchange themselves and instead default to an exchange set up by the federal government.

Dave Chandra
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

(Original post can be found here on the Off the Charts Blog)

Thursday, 5 July 2012

Scariest thing in the world

Wes Craven has certainly tried hard over the years to give us scary. Joss Whedon sprinkled it with humor. Edgar Allen Poe taught us all some lessons in horror.

Then there is real scary. The kind you don't find in books or movies. The slow fear that doesn't have a release in a moment involving some guy in a mask.

For two years, I was a diabetic without health insurance. Doesn't sound like the kind of thing John Carpenter would toss out there for 90 minutes, does it? But it is, without a doubt, the scariest thing on Earth.

I was laid off in 2008, one week precisely before Lehman Brothers crumbled and the global economy with it. While I was offered COBRA and searched desperately for some way to keep my insurance, there was nothing I could qualify for as a diabetic for less than $700 a month. Unemployment insurance only added up to about $1400 a month, so to pay for insurance, I'd have to skip rent or utilities or food.

Medicaid was no help either. Illinois is a great state, but our Medicaid system here is currently set up to help only the lowest of the low. I "made too much money" on unemployment, even as a diabetic, to qualify for the program.

Yet without insurance, insulin, the very thing I need to take multiple times a day just to live, would cost me insane amounts of money. I take two types of insulin. Each bottle of insulin lasts me about two to three weeks. Each bottle without insurance costs over $110-120. It would cost me over $450 a month just for my insulin. That doesn't begin to take into account the syringes, the other pills I take to help control aspects of my health as a diabetic, or any of the other conditions that I have related to my diabetes or not.

Taking care of my health looked impossible. I was lucky though. I had some amazing doctors and nurses that did everything they could to get me insulin, that helped me navigate the systems to eventually get set up for charity care where we could, and even cajoled a few pharmacy reps I think into making sure I survived. I would not be here but for their incredible hard work and help.

Despite all that hard work, it was still not always enough. I had to pay out of pocket once, early on when I still had a small emergency reserve of money, and visit the emergency room three times to get insulin when we couldn't get it fast enough from our various alternate sources. That's three ER visits that the state had to pay for, and therefore, in the end, you footed the bill through your tax dollars in the most inefficient way possible.

The Affordable Care Act changed all of that. I was one of the first to sign up for the "high-risk pool", IPXP here in Illinois, that was set up to help get those of us with pre-existing conditions in the individual market into plans that could help us until the health insurance exchanges start in 2014. I stood side-by-side with Governor Quinn as he announced the program to the public, and I defend it to this day as an important stop-gap measure.

Thanks to the subsidies made available through Obamacare, IPXP only costs me about $150 a month instead of the $700 I was quoted before. It'll be more now that I've celebrated my 35th birthday, going up to $200 a month, but that's still far better than not having insurance at all.

I got a job after three years of looking, one year after I got into the IPXP plan, but it was a contractor position that didn't offer benefits. I kept the IPXP plan through that year of employment, and I didn't have to worry about trying to wait until a job came along that offered health benefits. Now that I'm once again in the job market, I seamlessly have nothing to worry about from IPXP as it stays with me. This is what everyone can look forward to with the exchanges starting in January 2014.

One of the last fears I had left was washed away when the Supreme Court declared the ACA constitutional and upheld the law. (See my reaction to the ruling here) It's not the last hurdle, but it is one of the most important ones. There is no doubt now that Obamacare is the rightful law of the land and can help 32 million previously uninsured Americans just like me to ensure that health care is a right, not a privilege.

There are still challenges, and I hope you'll stand with me to ensure that I, and so many more just like me, never face that fear again. We will talk about many of those challenges in the days ahead, no doubt. Thank you for being interested in my story and for doing your part to ensure health care for all.

David Zoltan,
Guest Blogger for Illinois Health Matters

Sunday, 1 July 2012

Since When is 2% Considered Massive?

I don't know about you but I've been enjoying watching all of the reactions to yesterday's decision. In addition to the chuckle I got when a few major news outlets got it wrong, I've been smirking about opponents' claims that the law places a "massive tax" on all Americans.

Let's just put things in perspective here: Only a tiny fraction of people will be impacted by the individual responsibility provisions - those who can afford coverage but choose not to buy it.

What is that "tiny fraction" you ask? Researchers at the Urban Institute told us earlier this year that only TWO out of one hundred would be impacted (more here on this from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities). And again: These are people who can afford coverage but choose not to buy it.

What IS massive? The millions of Americans who now have peace of mind that they will have access to secure health coverage even when they get sick, change jobs, ore face challenging health conditions. They can rest assured that getting the health treatment they need won't bankrupt their families.

Elisabeth Burak
Senior Program Director
Georgetown University Center for Children & Families

(originally posted here on the Say Ahhh! Children's Health Policy Blog)

Friday, 29 June 2012

The Affordable Care Act Upheld: Addressing America's Health Care Crisis

Today’s Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius means that the Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land. As Chief Justice Roberts said in the majority opinion, Congress has the power to enact the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion, the two provisions challenged in the case.

People with insurance and people without insurance should be relieved that the process of reform can now move forward and make health care more secure. All of them have spent sleepless hours worried about the cost, lack of control, lack of choice, and absence of peace of mind associated with our current system. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has tools to address all of these issues, although much still depends on decisions made at the state and local level, where officials must now continue implementing this important work.

The Court’s decision means that the benefits of the Affordable Care Act that are already in place will not have to be reversed.

Looking down the road a bit, the Court’s decision means that the full benefits of the law will be implemented on schedule:


Starting in 2014, the Affordable Care Act expands Medicaid to cover all 16 million Americans with incomes under 138% of the federal poverty level who are not currently eligible for Medicaid. The Act provides 100% federal funding to cover the costs of this expansion for the first years, and then settles in at 90% funding after five years. The Supreme Court’s decision today upholds Congress’s power to enact this expansion, and we encourage all the states to take full advantage of this wonderful opportunity.

The decision, however, also says that the federal government may not take away all of a state's existing Medicaid funding if it decides not to participate in the expansion. Medicaid law has always provided that, if states disobey the conditions Congress has imposed on the receipt of Medicaid funding, the federal government has several different remedies, one of which is to withdraw all federal funds. That remedy has never actually been used by the federal government, even though there have been many disputes involving state noncompliance with Medicaid conditions. So the threat that the federal government might deploy that remedy if a state failed to carry out the ACA's Medicaid expansion was highly theoretical. In today's decision, however, the Court ruled that a state's refusal to adopt the ACA's Medicaid expansion cannot trigger the removal from a state of all of its existing Medicaid funding. The ruling is unclear about exactly what the states' options are and what other remedies the federal government may have in those circumstances. As we study the decision further, we will address these Medicaid issues more in depth in future blogs. Of course, we urge all states to take advantage of the federally funded Medicaid expansion to bring coverage to their lowest income uninsured.

Tonight, people all over the country, men and women, of all ages, socioeconomic statuses, and political beliefs, can breathe a bit easier knowing that the reforms launched in March 2010 will continue and that America is moving toward quality, affordable, comprehensive health care for all.

John Bouman, President
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law

(This post was co-authored by Caitlin Padula and originally appeared in the Shriver Brief on June 28, 2012)

Thursday, 28 June 2012

Health Reform Upheld: A Summary of the Supreme Court's Decision

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited decision on the health reform bill, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, this morning. This historic decision has upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) as a whole (striking down only one penalty provision as unconstitutional), upholding measures improving access to and the quality of healthcare in the United States by expanding coverage, increasing benefits, and ensuring access to preventive services for many. This is a victory for communities and public health advocates throughout the country, and a relief for the many Americans already benefiting from some of the ACA’s programs.

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, and upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate under Congress’s Taxing Power. [See here for a table of how all of the Justices' voted]. The individual mandate provision of the ACA states that individuals shall purchase health insurance, or pay a penalty. The Court considered the substance and application of the payment, and not its label. It was noted that the payment is collected by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. While undoubtedly intended to induce individuals to purchase health insurance, that a tax may have the purpose of influencing behavior rather than generating revenue is not problematic. This payment was likened to the taxes imposed on cigarettes for the purposes of smoking deterrence. Furthermore, the fact remained that the payment for failing to obtain insurance did not amount to a punishment for unlawful activity since it was not limited to willful violations of the mandate (as unlawful actions frequently are). Consequently, the Court concluded that mandate “leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.” Page 44.

The Court was unpersuaded by the argument that the individual mandate fell within Congress's Commerce Power. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commercial activity, however, the Court found the mandate not a regulation of existing commercial activity, but instead compulsion to engage in commercial activity, an action beyond the limited power given to the government under the Constitution.

While the individual mandate was upheld, the Supreme Court, however, did strike down the penalty of the Medicaid expansion provisions of the ACA as unconstitutional. Under the Medicaid program, the federal government provides funds to participating states, and in return the states agree to follow certain standards. The ACA expanded eligibility for Medicaid, and required states to expand coverage of their state’s Medicaid programs in accordance with the ACA, or lose all federal Medicaid funding (typically 50 to 83 percent of the state’s Medicaid program spending).

Although the Spending Power grants Congress the authority to create cooperative state-federal spending programs such as Medicaid, states must voluntarily accept the terms of such spending programs. The Court held that, because the ACA penalizes states who choose not to participate in the Medicaid expansion by withholding existing federal funding under the Medicaid program, the provision was coercive. In choosing not to participate in the Medicaid expansion, states would lose over 10 percent of their overall budget (page 51), an effect the Court found to leave states with no real option but to accept the terms of the program, making participation non-voluntary and the program unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the expansion was found to be not a modification of an existing program, but instead the creation of a new one. Medicaid as initially enacted covered four distinct categories of people: “the disabled, the blind, the elderly, and needy families with dependent children.” However, the expansion changes the program into one that covers the entire nonelderly population with incomes less than 133 percent of the poverty level (or 138% FPL if you count the 5% modified adjusted gross income or MAGI). The Court found this not to be a mere modification of an existing program to provide healthcare to needy populations, but instead a transformation of the program into “an element of a national plan to provide universal health coverage.” Pages 53-54. The Court concluded by explaining that its opinion did not prevent the federal government from offering funds to expand Medicaid eligibility, only that states choosing not to participate in the new expansion could not be penalized through the loss of their existing federal Medicaid funding.

Today the United States has taken a great step towards reshaping the American healthcare system. The ACA and its reforms to the system will have a lasting affect on the way people receive and pay for personal medical care, improving access and quality while containing costs, and improving the health of our nation as a whole.

Amanda Swanson
Guest Blogger for Illinois Health Matters

*To read a summary of the Supreme Court hearings on the ACA, please see the post Supreme Court Wrap Up – A Law Student’s Perspective.