Politics & Policy

Welcome to Medicaid for All

Obamacare’s expansion of poor care, dependency, and insolvency is not a recipe for success.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein has found what he thinks is a bright spot amid the gloomy Obamacare news. When you hear what he’s enthusiastic about, you’ll perhaps understand why I wonder if there is any common ground at all between liberals and conservatives. Klein reports that Obamacare’s “biggest success” is that 4 million new enrollees signed up for Medicaid as of November and the number should be even higher when December’s statistics are tallied. “If the point of health-care reform is covering people who need health insurance, the expansion of Medicaid should be a huge win.”

Sorry, but the expansion of dependence on government is never cause for rejoicing. Conservatives acknowledge that a safety net is necessary for the poor, but we regard only the number of people leaving a government program like Medicaid as cause for celebration, not adding to the numbers who receive benefits. Klein is hardly alone. Nancy Pelosi described unemployment benefits as the greatest possible “stimulus” to the economy. By that logic, we should put everyone on unemployment, right?

#ad#Why is it terrible news that millions more people are signing up for Medicaid? Here are just a few of the reasons:

Medicaid is one of the entitlements whose growth endangers national solvency. Together with Medicare, Medicaid was already consuming more than one in five federal dollars before the enactment of Obamacare. The growth in health-care spending was one of the rationales for Obamacare, but expanding Medicaid spending simply contributes to the problem.

Medicaid is plagued by fraud. Among the common scams perpetrated by enrollees, the National Council of State Legislatures lists “obtaining medications or products that are not needed and selling them on the black market, filing claims for services not received,” and more. Providers commit fraud by “billing for services not performed, billing duplicate times for the same service, ordering excessive or unnecessary tests,” and so forth. Just last month, dozens of Russian diplomats — yes, non-citizens — were charged with bilking Medicaid of $1.7 million over the course of nine years.

Medicaid is not just a program for the poor; it’s a poor program. Reimbursement rates for doctors, dentists, and other professionals are so low under Medicaid that enrollees have difficulty finding care. Having health insurance does not equate with having medical care. As Avik Roy recounts in “How Medicaid Hurts the Poor,” there is a “massive fallacy at the heart of Medicaid, and therefore at the heart of Obamacare. It’s the idea that health insurance equals health care.” In fact, people without health insurance get care in a variety of ways. The startling news is that Medicaid enrollees fare worse on health outcomes than those with no health coverage at all.

Expanding Medicaid was sold on the premise that uninsured people were driving up health-care costs by waiting until they were very sick before seeking care and thus overburdening emergency rooms. If the near-poor had Medicaid coverage, the argument went, they would see doctors before their conditions became critical and required expensive emergency-room treatment.

But research on Oregon’s program, published in the journal Science, found the reverse to be true. Tracking 25,000 enrollees for a period of 18 months, researchers found that Medicaid patients used emergency rooms 40 percent more than similarly situated adults who lacked health insurance. Having a Medicaid card did not divert people away from emergency rooms and into primary care. The number of ER visits for non-emergency matters increased. There was no change in the number of visits for non-preventable emergencies.

An earlier analysis of Oregon’s data found that having a Medicaid card did not improve health outcomes. Medicaid patients were no healthier than the uninsured, except on one measure of mental health (which might be the result of people initially feeling — however incorrectly — that they had access to good medical care).

Medicaid is a poor program because it promises benefits but squeezes provider reimbursement to keep costs down. The result is rationing. The poor are forced to wait on long lines for treatment and are sometimes denied care altogether. Ezra Klein may applaud those results, but the poor clearly don’t. Medicaid is also the model for Obamacare — top-down price fixing and mandates from Washington.

There are alternatives — like a combination of health savings accounts and catastrophic insurance — that would provide better care to the poor and an improved outlook for the nation’s fiscal health. Klein’s happy talk notwithstanding, there are no “successes” in Obamacare. Left alone, it will remake the entire health-care system in Medicaid’s image.

Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2014 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Most Popular

U.S.

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More
Film & TV

Why We Can’t Have Wakanda

SPOILERS AHEAD Black Panther is a really good movie that lives up to the hype in just about every way. Surely someone at Marvel Studios had an early doubt, reading the script and thinking: “Wait, we’re going to have hundreds of African warriors in brightly colored tribal garb, using ancient weapons, ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Science & Tech

Set NASA Free

The Trump administration has proposed shifting the International Space Station from a NASA-exclusive research facility to a semi-public, semi-private one. Its plan would nix all government funding for the ISS by 2025 and award at least $150 million per year to NASA to help with the transition. This would be a ... Read More