Download: RSS | Email Alerts | Text Alerts | Mobile
 

Ark. DHS: $372M in savings from Medicaid expansion


Story Comments Share
(File)
(File)
Tags:
Updated: 7/17/2012 9:13 pm Published: 7/17/2012 9:11 pm
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - Arkansas would save $372 million over the next several years if it goes forward with an expansion of Medicaid under the federal health care law after the savings from the law and new state tax revenue are factored in, state officials said Tuesday.

The Arkansas Department of Human Services released the new numbers as Gov. Mike Beebe weighs whether to agree to the expansion. The U.S. Supreme Court last month upheld the health care law, but justices said the federal government could not take away states' existing federal Medicaid dollars if they refused to widen eligibility.

Human Services officials said the cost to the state would be more than offset by the financial benefits it would see under the health care law.

"We think the state comes out way ahead financially," Human Services Director John Selig told reporters late Tuesday afternoon.

Under the health care law, the federal government agreed to pay the full tab for the Medicaid expansion when it begins in 2014. But after three years, states must pay a gradually increasing share that tops out at 10 percent of the cost.

Human Services officials said the net cost to the state would reach about $4 million in 2021.

The agency's estimates factor in savings that they say would result from the federal health care law.

For example, they estimate that between 2014 and 2021, the state will save $359 million in spending on uncompensated care at hospitals and will see $254 million in state tax revenue connected to the additional health care spending in the state. Before the savings are factored in, the state's new Medicaid expenditures would be $684 million, the department said.

Beebe, a Democrat, has said he's inclined to go forward with the Medicaid expansion. The Health Services Department said the expansion would add 250,000 Arkansas residents to the Medicaid rolls who had not previously been covered.

A spokesman for Beebe said the governor is still leaning toward the Medicaid expansion, but said he still has questions on whether Arkansas has to continue with it later even if it faces financial problems in future years.

"Is this something we're locked into or is there some flexibility down the line?" Beebe spokesman Matt DeCample said.

Republicans in the majority-Democrat Legislature have opposed the expansion, and they expressed skepticism about the latest figures.

"I find those numbers hard to believe," said Sen. Michael Lamoureux, R-Russellville. "It would be surprising if you add people to the Medicaid rolls and cut the costs."

The department also indicated that the Medicaid expansion could help with a shortfall of up to $400 million that the state expects in the program starting in the budget year that begins July 1, 2013. Department officials said the state would see nearly $39 million in savings if it went along with the Medicaid shortfall that year.

(Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
Story Comments Share
4 Comment(s)
Comments: Show | Hide

Here are the most recent story comments.View All

The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of FOX16 - Breaking News and Weather to Plan Your Day for Little Rock and Central Arkansas

tz123 - 7/18/2012 3:09 PM
0 Votes
What happens when a cost currently borne by the states is shifted to the federal government? State politicians treat it as “free money”, but it certainly is not. The cost must be paid by some means. It may be paid by higher taxes, by debt (future taxes), or by printing money (a hidden tax paid through the devaluation of the currency). If the feds can perform whatever function is involved more efficiently than the states (national defense for example), the shift makes sense. However, it is rarely the case that the feds do something more efficiently than the states, so the transfer is almost always harmful in total. Because the costs and the benefits of such programs are not distributed via the same mechanism, individual states may gain (get disproportional benefit) and others may lose. State politicians may do the calculation and conclude that they will be winners, but that is only true to the extent that someone else is harmed. Generally, politically powerful states benefit, while less powerful states suffer. Anyone who thinks that Arkansas is a favored state, especially with a Democrat in the White House, is foolish.

wpsark - 7/18/2012 1:08 PM
0 Votes
Obamacare is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that manbearpig named Elana kagan should have recused herself b/c she prepped the legal defense for obamacare..

itsjustme - 7/18/2012 9:35 AM
1 Vote
If we are not going to be taxed at the state level for this, we are going to be taxed at the federal level. Just so Obama's unemployed and his illegal aliens can get free medical. There is not a win win here at all, especially for the tax payer. I'm sick and tired of paying 40% of my income for taxes that go towards giving those without a job and not willing to get a job a free ride.

Tired - 7/18/2012 6:42 AM
1 Vote
less see here...add people...don't add any money...and we'll have more money...hmmm those special magic democrat numbers again
The links below are paid advertisements. FOX16 is not responsible for their content.
Current Conditions
67°
High: 75° | Low: 59°
Mostly Cloudy
Inergize Digital This site is hosted and managed by Inergize Digital.
Mobile advertising for this site is available on Local Ad Buy.