Photo

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Weird homes

Home is where the heart is, no matter what unusual form that home may take.  Slideshow 

Photo

The drone wars

The frontlines of America's covert drone program.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

Arkansas health plan for poor to add limited federal costs: report

Related Topics

Arkansas governor Mike Beebe looks on during a Martin Luther King Jr. service in Little Rock, Arkansas in this January 15, 2013 Governor's office handout photo obtained by Reuters March 6, 2013. REUTERS/Arkansas Governor's Office/Handout

Arkansas governor Mike Beebe looks on during a Martin Luther King Jr. service in Little Rock, Arkansas in this January 15, 2013 Governor's office handout photo obtained by Reuters March 6, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Arkansas Governor's Office/Handout

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas | Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:27pm EDT

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (Reuters) - A cost analysis released on Monday shows that a state plan to move Medicaid-eligible low-income citizens into a "private option" under upcoming federal healthcare exchanges would result in little additional federal costs.

"These estimates find that the private option can be fully funded with existing resources at the state level and would add less than 15 percent to federal health-care costs in Arkansas," the report said. "In some realistic scenarios, there could be no additional federal costs at all."

The report by the state Department of Human Services, with input from the Arkansas Insurance Commission and consultants, addresses concerns that private insurance would cost up to 50 percent more than standard Medicaid. A Congressional Budget Office estimate last year said Medicaid costs $6,000 per enrollee versus $9,000 for private insurance.

The Arkansas proposal, the report said, would introduce 250,000 new low-income adults into the private market, creating competition and price pressure.

The report said that by including Medicaid-funded adults in the exchange, the federal treasury would spend about $700 million less on tax subsidies in Arkansas.

Arkansas state officials have created a unique plan to expand Medicaid, spearheaded by Governor Mike Beebe, a Democrat.

The governor's proposal would expand coverage to state residents who earn up to 133 percent of the poverty line, or $15,415 per year.

The Arkansas legislature did not want to expand Medicaid for those under 133 percent of the federal poverty line, an option under the Affordable Care Act. Instead, it wanted to use billions in Medicaid funding to buy private insurance for that same population.

Under a verbal agreement with Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius, state officials say they could use Medicaid funds to obtain private coverage for poor adults with incomes ranging from zero to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

The insurance would be purchased through a health insurance exchange that Washington is scheduled to begin operating with Arkansas on January 1, 2014. The online marketplace would allow people with incomes of up to 400 percent of the poverty line to obtain private coverage at federally subsidized rates.

The Arkansas deal could provide a template for other states. Ohio Governor John Kasich, a Republican, is already in talks with state legislators in Columbus about the prospects of a similar deal.

Earlier this month, hundreds of people rallied on the Arkansas state Capitol steps about Medicaid reform. Beebe said then that he and Republican lawmakers were on track to provide health coverage to more low-income Arkansans.

Conservatives like the Arkansas concept because the privatization avoids a government expansion.

Three-fourths of the state House and Senate, both of which are Republican-controlled, are needed for the package to become law.

(Additional reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Barbara Goldberg and Eric Walsh)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
morbas wrote:
The federal budget is $3.8 trillion. Federal plus state plus municipality is greater than $8.06 trillion. The sum total of all personal income is $12.98 trillion. Thus, the governments are operating at 62 percent of total personal income.
With a centralized banking system, the federal government can print more money than collected in revenue; states and municipalities cannot. Taxation at state and municipal levels is less progressive than federal, which burdens the lowest income levels with the highest effective rate; and the upper 2 percent with the lowest effective rate.
Privatization of health care places further taxation on the lower quintile. This is the aristocratic view of superiority and exemption to responsibility, aye even subjugation of Christianity itself. They would rather mint Ceasar’s denarii and subjugate humanity to a slaves wage. The top quintile income wealth is over 60% of the national income summation. And yet we tax poverty levels to hoard even that last 1% of coin. And tax least at the highest income levels.
Arkansas citizens write your federal and state legislature, stand united. These are the revenue numbers based on 2011 national personnal income.

Honorable Senator/Representative/POTUS,
Stop Sequestration.
This is a mandate for a Federal income tax system that funds Federal, Health (Obama-Care and Medicare) and Social security. One Margin level will yield the $3.8T revenue: %0-$20k 0% tax rate, $20k upwards 35% flat rate, income bundled and taxed in summation form, couples freely share, no business tax and no exemptions. The rate is less than 2011 single standard at under $200K. The Federal Reserve sets the rates, mandated to maintaining monetary value and supply.

Thank you for your immediate attention,
Your constituent [Zip Code]

Mar 18, 2013 11:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Haird wrote:
Outside of restrictive managed care programs for Medicaid, the history of substituting private insurance for public insurance has usually resulted in higher costs, as private plans require more overhead for marketing and profit, and generally lack the buying clout that public payers use to control costs. But it could be different this time.

Mar 19, 2013 11:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.