House memo reveals GOP leaders' caution against Medicaid growth, predicts higher costs
HARRISBURG — With the Senate likely to vote next week on Medicaid expansion, House Majority Leader Mike Turzai told other leaders on Friday that he does not intend to run an expansion bill.
His comments followed a memo by House Health Committee Chairman Matthew Baker, R-Tioga County, on Thursday to Republican members, cautioning that program expansion could cost more than studies indicated and might require a state tax hike.
The state “is already struggling with an $8 billion program, which expanded greatly under the (Gov. Ed) Rendell administration,” Turzai, R-Bradford Woods, wrote in an email.
Pennsylvania spends $7,400 per recipient, compared with a national average of $4,000 to $5,000 per recipient, Turzai noted.
Medicaid is government-subsidized health insurance for low-income people, and proponents say expansion could add 600,000 of the uninsured through increased federal funding for states under the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
The law gives states the choice to expand or not. About half of the states have agreed. Republican Gov. Tom Corbett is negotiating with the federal government to gain flexibility and reduce state costs for Pennsylvania's program.
Any bill the Senate approved would come to Baker's committee.
“I want to publicly announce that I stand firmly beside the majority leader in his view that Medicaid expansion is wrong for Pennsylvania and would result in dire financial struggles for the commonwealth in the near future,” Baker wrote.
Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson County, said any bill developed by the Senate needs fiscal controls. He said he's not interested in a bill that merely authorizes expansion.
Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills, said he believes senators will reach agreement on a Medicaid bill, and that a universal deal is possible with Corbett and the House.
The potential for Senate passage rests with at least three Republicans joining 23 Democrats.
Supporters say expanding Medicaid would provide $2 billion more annually to the state, create jobs and reduce so-called “uncompensated care,” or state reimbursements to hospitals and health facilities for services provided to the uninsured.
At a hearing before Baker's panel Thursday, “Experts from the federal government, state lawmakers, health care policy groups and physicians cautioned Pennsylvania legislators from moving forward with Medicaid expansion,” Baker told his colleagues.
“Their testimony raised grave concerns about the number of enrollees in the Medicaid program and the cost to the state,” he wrote.
“The committee also heard testimony which set the commonwealth's cost for Medicaid expansion at $5.8 billion in the first 10 years,” Baker wrote. “Other studies, such as the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Urban Institute, project the cost to the commonwealth at about $4 billion over 10 years. This cost will need to come from new state tax dollars and does not account for the tax dollars sent by Pennsylvania to the federal government to pay for Medicaid expansion.”
A federal official from Health and Human Services, the agency overseeing Medicaid, said states were offered a “very favorable deal,” in which the government pays 100 percent of expansion costs the first three years and 90 percent thereafter.
Brad Bumsted is Trib Total Media's state Capitol writer. Reach him at 717- 787-1405 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Penguins notebook: Bennett a healthy scratch
- Wall Street closes January on down note; Dow sheds 251 points
- Derail ‘fast track’
- Walker preps for potential campaign
- Punishing innocents
- Catholic Education Week: School choice & more
- Right on radar searches
- Who’s hiding?
- Saturday essay: A new (& blue) feeder
- In memory of ‘Lee’ Elby
- Rushing to stop Obama