Back in January, a group of current and former Republican
Governors sent a letter to Congress asking for “flexibility” to ignore
the stability protections in the Affordable Care Act. Today, the Energy and
Commerce Committee is holding a hearing that will focus, in part, on this
request.
Let’s look a little more closely at the states pushing
for this “flexibility.” Of the states signing the letter:
- NINE (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Texas) do not provide any optional coverage to
parents or other non-disabled adults.
This leaves them with few options except to target significant numbers
of children or to roll back coverage for seniors in need of long-term care. - TEN (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Michigan,
New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) are proposing tax cuts in their budgets. For example, Governor Scott of Florida has proposed
cutting the corporate income tax to 3% (and eliminating it by 2018), costing
the state $459 million in FY 2012 alone. - SIX (Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South
Dakota, and Texas) have substantial “rainy day” funds (substantial meaning that
they equal at least 5% of the current year expenditures). Of these states, only
Nebraska has proposed drawing down some of its rainy day fund to help fill its
budget gap.
The following chart provides a quick comparison of the states signing the flexibility request and the budget choices they have made. (Click on the chart for a full-sized version.)
We recognize that states are facing tough budget
pressures, but focusing their attention on the need for increased “flexibility”
in Medicaid ignores the options they already have, both within the program and in their full budgets. It also jeopardizes the coverage
of millions of children, families, pregnant women, seniors, and people with
disabilities who rely on Medicaid for the insurance coverage they need.