Ken Kusmer, writing for the AP, has an article indicating that state lawmakers are looking to cut Medicaid benefits in the upcoming session. This makes sense, since it’s a huge part of the budget. However, the noises some are making about opting out of Medicaid strike me as just so much grandstanding.
The federal government picks up about 2/3 of the tab for our state’s Medicaid program. That money comes with a lot of strings attached about what services you have to offer and to whom as part of your Medicaid program. I’m sure those strings chafe a little, but if you want to provide medical services to poor people in your state (a big “if,” I suppose in some quarters), then you just have to put up with the red tape if your money is getting matched 2-to-1.
As Sen. Kenley says, Medicaid is the elephant in the room. It’s very expensive, because health care is very expensive. Medicaid is getting more expensive, because Indiana – contrary to the assertions of a certain Indiana state Governor – is not on an economic “hot streak” and is not an “island of growth.” The economy is tough, people are getting poorer, and they are becoming eligible for Medicaid.
One thing that raised a flag for me, however, was that a lot of this discussion seems to be driven by some projections put together by FSSA in reaction to the national health care reform bill. Gov. Daniels opposition to health care reform has a very significant political component to it, and I would take projections on the legislation from his agencies with a grain of salt, if not an entire salt lick.
I agree that we have to work to keep medical costs under control. Spiraling health care costs seem to be a parasite, sucking the life out of our economy. Health care is killing us, as it were. But, if all we have is opposing national health care reform and opting out of Medicaid, what we’re left with is “don’t get sick, and if you do, die quickly.”
Identity not disclosed for reasons of having grandchildren involved with medicaid—two in counselling with bill of $125-$250 dollars per hour charged to medicaid. One has been diagnosed as ADHD—1/2 hour visit with doctor billed at $400. So, it would seem that the benefits paid to providers seems very generous.
They are cutting the Medicaid reimbursement to Oral Surgeons. Apparently, adults over 21 will not only be allowed $600 worth of dental work per year and that now includes extractions. Oral Surgeons have been exempt from that $600 in the past. Interestingly, teeth can still be pulled “in emergency situations.” Jason will have to stop pulling all those good teeth from the mouths of his Medicaid patients. I’m interested to see what the lawmakers of Indiana will do when the ERs are full of people with horrible infections because they could not get their teeth pulled before it was an “emergency.” That should be cheap for the state.
Teeth are luxuries, apparently.
(And, yeah, it’s not just the teeth – not dealing with oral infections can spread pretty quickly. I actually hadn’t been too aware of this until I read some cases having to do with inmates who weren’t given much in the way of proper dental treatment.)
Doug: Many attorneys are familiar with the results of the ABA’s accreditation of more and more schools: too many lawyers, and lowering pay scales. While I don’t suggest we dilute doctors to the same degree we are diluting lawyers, why not force the accreditation of more medical schools, thus causing more supply, and lowering costs?
Might be a valid recommendation. Licensure laws help protect public health and safety by helping to ensure certain minimum levels of competence. But, they also artificially restrict the marketplace; and striking the correct balance is tricky (both practically and politically.)