GEORGE KENNEDY: Medicaid panels not likely to bring results

Friday, August 2, 2013 | 6:00 a.m. CDT; updated 9:54 a.m. CDT, Friday, August 2, 2013

COLUMBIA — When legislators find themselves frustrated by a particularly touchy problem, their default reaction is to form a special committee and take testimony. So it was earlier this year with the Missouri legislature and Medicaid expansion.

As you’ll recall, Gov. Jay Nixon recommended – even urged – that the legislature take the steps specified in the Affordable Care Act, more popularly known as Obamacare. That would have led to Medicaid coverage for upward of 400,000 currently uninsured Missourians, with the feds picking up the entire bill for three years and 90 percent of it thereafter.

A study by the university’s School of Medicine calculated that the expansion would, while improving health care for the newly enrolled, create 24,000 new jobs over a 6-year period, generate more than $800 million in new taxes and save the holders of private insurance close to $1 billion in lower premiums once they don’t have to cover the costs of the uninsured. The expansion would more than pay for itself.

This was as close to a pure win-win situation as you’re ever likely to see.

So, of course, the Republicans who control the legislature refused. Indeed, the proposed legislation that House Republicans supported would have actually reduced the number of children covered.

When the Senate declined to consider the issue, House Speaker Tim Jones created not one but three interim committees to take the public’s pulse and come up with recommendations. Mr. Jones made it clear that he was more interested in “reforming” the program than in expanding it.

Last Saturday morning, in the meeting room of the Columbia Public Schools administration building, dozens of speakers told the awkwardly named Interim Committee on Citizens and Legislators Working Group on Medicaid Eligibility and Reform the same things members had heard at two previous hearings.

In the three hours I listened, not a single witness expressed support for the Republican approach. Alan Zagier of the Associated Press sat through the whole six hours; and I judge from his report, which the Missourian published Sunday, that nobody did after I departed.

Instead, physicians, patients insured and uninsured, hospital managers, disability advocates and at least one preacher variously pleaded, reasoned or argued that expanded coverage would yield great benefits at reasonable cost.

Joe Hardy, the first speaker, identified himself as a Howard County farmer and retired teacher. He pointed out that a failure to adopt the expansion is likely to cost the state jobs and imperil our smaller hospitals. He reminded the committee that this “huge impact” would fall most heavily on the state’s rural areas, where the population tends to be older, poorer and sicker. He didn’t note that those rural areas are mostly represented by Republicans.

Dr. Andy Quint, medical director of the federally supported Family Health Center in Columbia, told the committee that about half his patients have Medicaid and about one-quarter are uninsured. The uninsured, he said, are more likely to skimp on preventative care, more likely to not fill or stretch out prescriptions, less able to take advantage of expensive tests or high-tech treatment.

His uninsured patients are the most likely to turn to emergency rooms for treatment or wind up hospitalized for conditions that could have been prevented. Hospital care, he pointed out, is the most expensive kind.

Most are the working poor. In fact, he said, most personal bankruptcies are the result of medical bills.

He summed up, “Without health insurance, people suffer needlessly and die prematurely.” Expansion of Medicaid, he said, “is the right thing to do medically, morally and economically.”

Contrary to the Republican refrain that reform must trump expansion, several physicians agreed, as one of them put it, that Medicaid actually “works pretty well.”

The CEO of a medical center in West Plains testified that his center, which serves 11 Ozark counties, provided $10.1 million worth of uncompensated care in 2012. He didn’t add that the costs of such care are typically recouped by higher charges to patients with private insurance, which is more generous with its payments than Medicaid or Medicare.

The West Plains center is participating in one of the several pilot programs already underway in the state that are aimed at improving outcomes and cutting costs.

Now the hearings are over. The public has spoken. The question is whether the Republican legislators were listening.

I worry that we can guess the answer.

George Kennedy is a former managing editor at the Missourian and professor emeritus at the Missouri School of Journalism.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Jimmy Bearfield August 2, 2013 | 10:37 a.m.

I know a lady who has diabetes. She doesn't have health insurance, suffers needlessly and probably die prematurely, all because she can't afford the meds and care that would enable her to manage her condition. The "needlessly" aspect comes from the fact that she always finds money to go to the boat and bars. She also spent her 2012 tax refund on a big-screen TV.

How will the ACA weed out people who are that irresponsible? I don't think it will, as long as the only criterion for subsidies is income. The system needs to dig deeper to analyze spending.

Anyone who believes such stories are lies just needs to look around. One place to start is the Missourian archives. Look up "Ignoring the odds" from the Jan. 4, 2007, edition.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith August 2, 2013 | 12:58 p.m.

Jimmy Bearfield & George Kennedy:

Jimmy asks how the program will weed out irresponsible claimants. The answer is that in its present form IT WILL NOT, nor was it designed to do so. The provident must pay for the improvident: CLASSIC SOCIALIST DOCTRINE. Call it by any other name you wish, that's still what it is.

"From each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her needs." (Hmmm...Who is credited with THAT saying?) And if someone's "needs" include resorting to outright fraud, we suppose that's all right.

(Report Comment)
stephen Kightlinger August 3, 2013 | 8:18 a.m.

I remember a time when anger incarnate lined up to spew all things venom at the very thought of Obamacare. Death panels! Grandmacide! Socialism! Communism! Now that they stand up a microphone for the very purpose of finding who's fer and who's agin, we get crickets from the screaming horde. And those who do attend are subjected to rational, cogent thought. But if I were a betting man (prone to the boats like Jimmy's apocryphal friend), I'd wager the silent screams of the yesteryear's yammerers will be heard and carry the day.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.