Congress to Consider Cutting Medicaid Funds by $11 Billion
WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 — Congress may vote as early as next week on a bill that would cut Medicaid by approximately $11 billion over the next five years and allow states to increase co-payments and charge monthly premiums for individuals and families just above the poverty line.
Passage of the bill, which was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week by a vote of 28-22, appears likely because it is has been proposed as a budget reconciliation measure and cannot be filibustered.
Most Republicans on the committee, like Charles Bass (R-N.H.), who are in favor of the measure, say that Medicaid reform would keep the expensive program from bankrupting the states.
“We need to ensure that the Medicaid program is available for future generations, and in its current form it is simply unsustainable,” said Bass. “Over 37 states have been forced to choose between cutting beneficiaries and cutting services-no state government should have to make that choice.”
Committee Democrats, who are united against the bill, say that Medicaid reform should not be done by cutting benefits to the poor in order to offset tax cuts to the wealthy. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) is a one of the Democrats resisting the measure.
“Last March, the Republicans passed a Budget Resolution that required $35 billion in cuts from the programs which protect the most vulnerable, including $10 billion from Medicaid, while shoveling $106 Billion out the door to the wealthiest Americans in the form of massive tax cuts,” said Markey. “If the Republicans were interested in reforming Medicaid, they would reinvest the money back into the Medicaid program to make it a stronger, more accessible, more sustainable program.”
In 2004, the Center for Budget & Policy Priorities reported that New Hampshire had approximately 96,000 persons on Medicaid. Persons 65 and older make up 10 percent of the total and persons under the age of 18 account for 60 percent, according to the center, which is a non-partisan think tank based in Concord, N.H.
Most people currently covered by Medicaid pay nothing for prescription drugs and doctor’s visits, and those who do, usually pay $3 or less. The bill would increase the $3 copay and would start charging some recipients monthly premiums.
An individual must have almost no assets in order to qualify for Medicaid. The proposal to reform the program gained momentum shortly after reports of wealthy and middle-class Americans exploiting the program by turning their assets over to family members while the state paid for their nursing fees.
“We must address the fraud and abuse in this program,” said Bass. “In order to make certain that Medicaid resources benefit our poorest and neediest citizens – not wealthy Americans seeking to exploit a system in need of reform.”
But those like Markey, who are critical of the bill, say that “Milli onaires on Medicaid” is myth unsupported by research and cite studies by the Kaiser Commission and Georgetown University which demonstrate that most middle-class seniors do not have the resources to make large gifts in anticipation of their long-term care needs.
“I support doing real Medicaid reform,” said Markey. “But this bill is not really about reforming Medicaid or thinking about the best ways to provide health care to our country’s most vulnerable populations. This bill is about trying to decide who among the least fortunate in our country-the poor, the disabled, the seniors in nursing homes-should pay for more tax cuts.”
The National Governors Association asked the House Energy and Commerce Committee for Medicaid reform because the program costs the same as K-12 education in some states, according to the association’s Web site.
But New Hampshire’s Democratic Governor John Lynch said that he opposes cuts to Medicaid.
“Governor Lynch is concerned that the federal government’s proposed cuts will hurt critical health care and other services to our most vulnerable citizens, particularly seniors and children,” said Pamela Walsh, spokeswomen for Lynch. “This is bad for New Hampshire and the wrong d irection for our country.”
####
