• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Governors to Congress: We Could Do Better If Washington Got Out of the Way

    On Tuesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing to explore the impact of Obamacare on the states and the federal roadblocks to state-based reforms.

    Front and center at the hearing was Medicaid. Obamacare puts an additional 18 million people in this federal–state health care program for the poor. According to a report from the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce Committees, this will burden states with at least $118 billion in additional costs through 2023.

    Medicaid is already on track to put state budgets deep in the red, leading to greater deficits, higher taxes, or neglect of other state priorities, like education. At the same time, beneficiaries face huge obstacles to receiving quality care. Instead of adding millions to this broken program, as done under Obamacare, Congress and the states must work together to reform the program.

    At the hearing, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (R) outlined ways in which his state could improve Medicaid and create savings. One small change—requiring beneficiaries to obtain annual physicals—would advance preventive care and also reduce costs. But, said Barbour, federal law prohibits this.

    Barbour also emphasized the need for reform of long-term care coverage. It costs Mississippi five times more to provide nursing home care than home- or community-based care, yet federal mandates encourage use of the more expensive option. By encouraging the less expensive option except in the cases of greatest need, Medicaid would see savings and allow patients to receive care in a more comfortable setting.

    States could further benefit by offering its healthy beneficiaries the chance to purchase private insurance and by applying co-payments to create incentives for beneficiaries to spend their health dollars wisely. But, as Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R) reiterated, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services make it almost impossible for states to innovate. The result, according to Barbour, is that “states are often forced to arbitrarily limit services or cut provider reimbursement rates to control costs. These approaches are not ideal, but they are often the only path the federal government allows.”

    The creation of new exchanges under Obamacare will tie states’ hands even tighter. The states must set up exchanges or have Washington do it, but they have little say in how the exchanges will operate. Instead, they are held to strict federal rules and regulations.

    While Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D) defended the direction taken in the Obamacare exchanges, Herbert pointed out that Utah’s exchange was designed to meet the unique meets of his state: “Unlike many other states,” he said, “a majority of Utah’s uninsured population are employed. Most work for small businesses which do not offer health insurance benefits.” Moreover, Utah has the youngest population in the country. It is thus no wonder that Utah’s exchange differs greatly from Massachusetts’s Connector. So it should be with all state exchanges—and that’s if states even consider it necessary to have one as part of reform.

    Since before passage of Obamacare, it has been clear that the law’s proponents do not consider state flexibility and innovation as imperative to successful reform. According to Herbert, governors “were never invited to the table when it was being proposed by the Obama Administration or debated in Congress.”

    Nevertheless, the White House continues to insist that states will have flexibility under the new law. But like Herbert said, “Just as Henry Ford offered his customers a choice of any color car they wanted as long as that color was black, [Obamacare] allows states flexibility in constructing their exchanges as long as they do it the way Washington tells them.” This is not the way to achieve reform that best meets the varied needs of Americans across the country.

    Amanda Rae Kronquist contributed to this post.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Governors to Congress: We Could Do Better If Washington Got Out of the Way

    1. T.Newman - Newport B says:

      Since we now have a Federal Judge that has declared the whole law un-constitutional, we should no longer refer to this as a "law" but rather a

      "man – made disaster"

    2. Pingback: » Financial and World News Update – 03/02/11 NoisyRoom.net: The Progressive Hunter

    3. Texas John says:

      I have said it over and over, wake up America, Obamas' agenda is to destroy our once great nation. Look at everything that he has done since he has been in office, and I mean everything, it has all had negative effects on our economy, security, etc. and most of all, our constitution.

    4. Sandra Lee Smith, Ca says:

      This is working on the assumption that Obamacare is about providing quality health care that's affordable for people, which is an error in thinking. ALL this law was ever intended for is to assume greater control over the lives of the citizens, aiming toward socialized medicine and a one world order. It can and will only stifle the quantity and quality of medical care in this nation, which will be strictly rationed according to the bean counters' bottom line; how your life measures against the cost of the treatment needed; and if they deem you NOT worth that cost, YOU don't get treated. But if your doctor SHOULD try to do so, he/she will be fined $1,000 the first time and jailed the second such effort. So of course there's no flexibility in it, nor was there ever intended to be. And any who believe Obama made some concession to the states recently, don't be fooled; all he did is drive the date for full socialized medicine closer.

    5. Pingback: Top Down Mandates or Bottom-Up Choice? « American Elephants

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.