Expanding Medicaid Is Best Financial Option for States
Jun 3, 2013
The authors conclude that in terms of coverage, cost, and federal payments, states would do best to expand Medicaid.
3.6 Million Fewer Insured and $8.4 Billion Less in Federal Payments
Published In: Health Affairs, v. 32, no. 6, June 2013, p. 1030-1036
Posted on RAND.org on June 01, 2013
The US Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act in 2012 allowed states to opt out of the health reform law's Medicaid expansion. Since that ruling, fourteen governors have announced that their states will not expand their Medicaid programs. We used the RAND COMPARE microsimulation to analyze how opting out of Medicaid expansion would affect coverage and spending, and whether alternative policy options—such as partial expansion of Medicaid—could cover as many people at lower costs to states. With fourteen states opting out, we estimate that 3.6 million fewer people would be insured, federal transfer payments to those states could fall by $8.4 billion, and state spending on uncompensated care could increase by $1 billion in 2016, compared to what would be expected if all states participated in the expansion. These effects were only partially mitigated by alternative options we considered. We conclude that in terms of coverage, cost, and federal payments, states would do best to expand Medicaid.
As of mid-April, 2013, 14 states have said they will opt out of Medicaid expansion.
Overall, Medicaid expansion is an effective way for states to expand insurance coverage.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.