Monthly Archives: January 2008

Policy Brief: SCHIP Q & A

The House will soon be faced with a vote to override the President’s veto on H.R. 3963, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, legislation which would reauthorize and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), with several tax increases designed to partially offset the bill’s costs.

Does H.R. 3963 increase the scope of the SCHIP program?

Yes.  Under current law, states can cover families earning up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) or $41,300 for a family of four in 2007 or those at 50% above Medicaid eligibility.  As of 2010, H.R. 3963 increases the eligibility limit to 300% of FPL or $61,950 for a family of four while continuing the current authority for states to define and disregard (i.e. ignore) income.  As a result, H.R. 3963 places no practical limit on SCHIP eligibility since states can always manipulate the definition of income to expand coverage.  In addition, Section 116(g) of the bill overturns CMS’s current policy of requiring states to ensure that 95% of the eligible children in their state below 250% of FPL are enrolled before expanding coverage to higher incomes.

Does H.R. 3963’s increased spending violate the spirit of PAYGO?

Yes.  H.R. 3963 provides $35.4 billion over five years and $71.5 billion over ten years in new mandatory spending.  This new spending is only partially offset by tax increases on cigarettes of 61 cents to $1 per pack, and a cigar tax up to $3 per cigar, supposedly (see below) generating $35.5 billion over five years and $71.7 billion over ten years.  However, this CBO score overlooks a major gimmick which the bill employs to lower its costs.  The bill dramatically lowers the SCHIP funding in the fifth year by 80%, from $13.75 billion in the first six months to $1.75 billion.  In all likelihood, such a reduction will never take effect, which would make this an effort to generate unrealistic savings in order to artificially comply with PAYGO rules.

Does H.R. 3963 raise taxes?

Yes.  H.R. 3963 increases the cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack, and the cigar tax up to $3 per cigar.  Some conservatives may be concerned that the bill increases taxes on low-income individuals in order to pay for the expansion of SCHIP, which is designed to assist low-income families.  In addition, this revenue source is constantly declining as fewer and fewer individuals begin to smoke, since placing a tax on cigarettes will likely deter sales, leading some to question the efficacy of the offset.  According a study by the Heritage Foundation, “To produce the revenues that Congress needs to fund SCHIP expansion through such a tax would require 22.4 million new smokers by 2017.”

Will H.R. 3963 decrease private insurance participation in the market?

Yes.  Expanding SCHIP will generate a substantial shift away from the private health insurance market, by encouraging more and more children to obtain health care coverage from the federal government.  According to CBO, under H.R. 3963, two million children will shift from receiving private health insurance to government health insurance.  This means that they may get worse health care service and become increasingly dependent on the federal government.  In addition, as H.R. 3963 begins to reduce SCHIP funding in 2012, some note that states may shift these children who would be newly eligible for a government program into Medicaid.

Would H.R. 3963 bar illegal immigrants from receiving benefits?

No.  While H.R. 3963 states that “nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents,” the bill actually weakens existing law by removing the documentation requests under the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), specifically the burden that citizens and nationals provide documentation proving their citizenship in order to be covered under Medicaid and SCHIP.  Instead, the bill would require that a name and Social Security number be provided as documentation of legal status to acquire coverage and that those names and Social Security numbers be submitted to the Secretary to be checked for validity.    It is unclear what substantive changes were made to the original bill the President vetoed (HR 976) beyond the cosmetic with regard to citizenship certification.  Some conservatives may remain concerned that a Social Security number and name are not sufficient for proof of citizenship.  For instance, according to a recent letter from Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael Astrue, a Social Security number would not keep someone from fraudulently receiving coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP (if they claimed they were someone they were not).

Does H.R. 3963 contain earmarks?

Yes.  H.R. 3963 contains at least three authorizing earmarks.  First, the bill disregards “extraordinary employer pensions” as income.  According to CMS, only one state would fall into this category—Michigan, due to the presence of many auto manufacturers.  In addition, the bill sets the disproportionate share hospital (DSH) allotments for Tennessee at $30 million a year beginning in FY 2008, and sets the DSH allotment increases for Hawaii beginning in FY 2009 and thereafter as the allotments for low DSH states.

Would H.R. 3963 encourage additional SCHIP spending?

Yes.  H.R. 3963 shortens from three to two years the amount of time a state has to spend its annual SCHIP allotment.  Under current law, states are given three years to spend each year’s original allotment, and at the end of the three-year period, any unused funds are redistributed to states that have exhausted their allotment or created a “shortfall,” i.e. commitments beyond the funding available.  In addition, the bill establishes a process through which any unspent funds would be redistributed to any states with a shortfall.  Some conservatives may be concerned that this process provides incentives both for states to spend their allotment quickly and to extend their programs beyond their regular allotments into shortfall, so as to be relieved by the unspent funds of other states.

Do conservatives support the SCHIP program?

Most conservatives support enrollment and funding of the SCHIP program for the populations for whom the SCHIP program was created.  That is why in December the House passed, by a 411—3 vote, legislation reauthorizing and extending the SCHIP program through March 2009.  That legislation included an additional $800 million in funding for states to ensure that all currently eligible children will continue to have access to state-based SCHIP coverage.

Legislative Bulletin — H.R. 3963, Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act

Order of Business:  Today the House will consider the President’s second veto of SCHIP legislation, H.R. 3963.  This bill passed the House by a vote of 265-142 on October 25, 2007, and was vetoed by President Bush on December 12, 2007.  On December 12, 2007, the House by a 211-180 vote postponed consideration of the President’s veto until today.

An earlier version of SCHIP legislation, H.R. 976, was vetoed by President Bush on October 3, 2007.  This bill was originally passed in the House by a vote of 265-159 on September 25, 2007.  On October 18, 2007, the House sustained the President’s veto of H.R. 976 by a vote of 273–156 (needing 2/3 to override a veto).

On December 19, 2007, the House passed by a 411—3 margin S. 2499, which was signed into law by President Bush on December 29, 2007.  This legislation reauthorized the SCHIP program through March 2009, and included $800 million in additional funding to ensure that all states would have sufficient funds to cover existing populations through the 18 months of the authorization.

Summary:  H.R. 3963 reauthorizes and significantly expands the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), while increasing cigarette taxes to supposedly offset the bill’s costs.  The legislation follows closely the recently-vetoed version of SCHIP reauthorization.  Highlights of the revised legislation are as follows:

Cost:  H.R. 3963 provides $35.4 billion over five years and $71.5 billion over ten years in new mandatory spending—this spending is on top of the $25 billion over five years that would result from a straight extension of the program.

The new spending is partially offset by increasing taxes on tobacco products (see below).  However, this CBO score overlooks a major gimmick which the bill employs to lower its costs.  The bill dramatically lowers the SCHIP funding in the fifth year by 84%, from $13.75 billion in the first six months to $1.15 billion.  In all likelihood, such a reduction would not actually take effect, which would make this a gimmick to generate unrealistic savings in order to comply with PAYGO rules.  To that end, H.R. 976 is technically compliant with PAYGO.

Block Grant:  Under current law, a federal block grant is awarded to states, and from the total annual appropriation, every state is allotted a portion for the year according to a statutory formula.  The bill extends the SCHIP block grants from FY 2008-12.  In addition, the bill also creates a new Child Enrollment Contingency Fund capped at 20% of the total annual appropriation, for states that exhaust their allotment by expanding coverage, and Performance Bonus Payments comprised of a $3 million lump sum in FY 2008 plus unspent SCHIP funds in future years.

Expansion to Higher Incomes:  Under current law, states can cover families earning up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) or $41,300 for a family of four in 2007 or those at 50% above Medicaid eligibility.  However, states have been able to “disregard” income with regard to eligibility for the program, meaning they can purposefully ignore various types of income in an effort to expand eligibility.  For instance, New Jersey covers up to 350% of FPL by disregarding any income from 200-350%, allowing them to cover beyond 200% with the enhanced federal matching funds that SCHIP provides.

H.R. 3963 increases the eligibility limit to 300% of FPL or $61,950 for a family of four but also continues the current authority for states to define and disregard income.  States which extend coverage beyond 300% of FPL would receive the lower Medicaid match rate.  The bill limits states from expanding their programs above 300% of FPL through an income disregard whereby they block “income that is not determined by type or expense or type of income.”  However, a state could get around this restriction in a host of ways by disregarding specific types of income, such as income paid for rent or transportation or food.  Practically speaking, H.R. 3963 still places no limit on SCHIP eligibility since states can still manipulate the definition of income to expand coverage, and CMS is limited in its ability to reject such determinations. [New Jersey would be grandfathered from this limitation until 2010, but they would then have to ensure that they are in the top ten of states with the highest coverage rate for low-income children.]

Furthermore, Section 116 overturns CMS’ current policy of requiring states to ensure that 95% of the eligible children in their state below 250% of FPL are enrolled before expanding coverage to higher incomes.  As a result, some conservatives may be concerned that this does not adequately ensure that SCHIP funding targets truly low-income children.

Unlike past legislation, the bill would not grandfather New York’s proposed plan (seeking to cover 400% of FPL or $82,600 for a family of four).  However, New York could merely use specific income disregards to effectively cover up to 400% of FPL.  Some conservatives may be concerned that a family with an income of $82,600 will still potentially be eligible for SCHIP funding after this bill is enacted.

Childless Adults:  The earlier bill phased adults off of the program within two years.  H.R. 3963 would remove childless adults from the program (all would be off by 2009), while allowing parents of eligible SCHIP kids to continue receiving healthcare under SCHIP.  According to CBO estimates, there will still be approximately 700,000 (roughly 10% of total SCHIP enrollees) adults (parents of eligible kids and pregnant women) enrolled in SCHIP by 2012.

H.R. 3963 states that no new waivers for non-pregnant childless adults will be granted to states, and any currently existing waivers will be extended through FY 2008 (terminating such waivers at the end of FY 2008).  H.R. 3963 states that any current state waiver for non-pregnant childless adults which expires before January 1, 2009 may be extended until December 31, 2008 to retain all currently covered non-pregnant childless adults on the program until the end of FY 2008.  The bill extends enhanced FMAP to apply to such waivers through December 31, 2008.

H.R. 3963 grants states the opportunity to apply for a Medicaid waiver for non-pregnant childless adults by September 30, 2008, for those whose SCHIP coverage will end December 31, 2008, and requires that the Secretary approve such waivers within 90 days or the application is automatically deemed approved.

Parents:  The bill provides a two year transition period and automatic extension at the state’s discretion through FY 2009 for the currently covered parents of SCHIP eligible/covered kids, and states that no new waivers be granted or renewed to states to cover the parents of SCHIP kids if such waivers do not currently exist.  Similar to what would be done with non-pregnant childless adults, H.R. 3963 states that any current state waiver for parents of SCHIP kids which expires before October 1, 2009 may be extended until September 30, 2009 to retain all currently covered parents on the program until the end of FY 2009.  The bill states that the enhanced FMAP shall apply to these expenditures under an existing waiver for parents of eligible SCHIP kids during FY 2008 and 2009.

H.R. 3963 requires that any state which provides coverage under a currently existing waiver for a parent of an SCHIP child may continue to provide such coverage through FY 2010, 2011, or 2012, but such coverage must be paid for by a block grant funded from the state allotment.  If the state makes the decision to continue the coverage of parents through 2012, the Secretary may set aside for the state for each fiscal year an amount equivalent to the federal share of 110% of the state’s projected expenditures under currently existing waivers.  The Secretary will then pay out such funds quarterly to the state.  States that enhanced FMAP only applies in fiscal year 2010 for states with “significant child outreach or that achieve child coverage benchmarks.”

In addition, H.R. 3963 retains the statement from H.R. 976 that states there shall be no increase in income eligibility level for covered parents (i.e. no expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage to a parent of a “targeted low-income child” whose family income exceeds the income eligibility level applied under the applicable existing waiver).

Private Insurance Crowd-Out:  According to CBO, under H.R. 3963, 2 million children will still shift from receiving private health insurance to government health insurance.  This means that they may get worse health care service and become increasingly dependent on the federal government.  In addition, as H.R. 3963 begins to reduce SCHIP funding in 2012 (if such a reduction is actually intended, see above), some have noted that states may shift these children made newly eligible for a government program into Medicaid.  This phenomenon takes place despite a provision in H.R. 3963 to offer a premium assistance subsidy under SCHIP for employer-sponsored coverage.  A qualifying employer-sponsored plan would have to contribute at least 40 percent of the cost of any premium toward coverage.  The bill includes new language requiring the Secretary, in consultation with the states, to measure crowd-out and to develop best practices designed to limit it.  States would then be required to limit SCHIP crowd-out and incorporate those best practices.  However, many conservatives are likely to be concerned that this language is not enough of protection when CBO maintains that two million will lose their health insurance under this bill.

Legal Immigrants and Citizenship Certification:  H.R. 3963 states that “nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents.”  However, the bill weakens existing law by removing the documentation requests under the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), specifically the burden that citizens and nationals provide documentation proving their citizenship in order to be covered under Medicaid and SCHIP.  Instead, the bill would require that a name and Social Security number be provided as documentation of legal status to acquire coverage and that those names and Social Security numbers be submitted to the Secretary to be checked for validity.  If a state is notified that a name and Social Security number do not match, the state must contact the individual and request that within 90 days the individual present satisfactory documentation to prove legal status.  During this time, coverage for the individual continues.  If the individual does not provide documentation within 90 days, he is “disenrolled” from the program but maintains coverage for another 30 days (after the 90 days given to come up with proper documentation), giving the individual up to four months of coverage on a false identity.

It is unclear what substantive changes were made to the vetoed bill beyond the cosmetic, with regard to citizenship certification.  Some conservatives may be concerned that a Social Security number and name are not enough for a proof of citizenship and that more documents should be required to determine eligibility.  For instance, according to a recent letter from Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael Astrue, a Social Security number would not keep someone from fraudulently receiving coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP (if they claimed they were someone they were not).  Thus, this bill may allow illegal aliens the opportunity to enroll falsely in Medicaid or SCHIP and retain coverage for an undetermined amount of time before they are disenrolled for lack of proper identification.

Tax Increase:  H.R. 3963 increases the cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack, and the cigar tax up to $3 per cigar, supposedly generating $35.5 billion over five years and $71.1 billion over ten years.  It is important to note that this is a substantial tax increase on low-income individuals in order to pay for an expansion of SCHIP to higher income levels, which it was not initially designed for.  In addition, this revenue source is constantly declining as fewer and fewer individuals smoke, and since placing a tax on cigarettes will likely deter sales, some have questioned the efficacy of the offset.  According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, “To produce the revenues that Congress needs to fund SCHIP expansion through such a tax would require 22.4 million new smokers by 2017.”  The bill also changes the timing for some corporate estimate tax payments.

Encourages Spending:  H.R. 3963 shortens from three to two years the amount of time a state has to spend its annual SCHIP allotment.  Under current law, states are given three years to spend each year’s original allotment, and at the end of the three-year period, any unused funds are redistributed to states that have exhausted their allotment or created a “shortfall,” i.e. making commitments beyond the funding it has available.  In addition, the bill establishes a process through which any unspent funds would be redistributed to any states with a shortfall.  Some conservatives may be concerned that this process provides incentives both for states to spend their allotment quickly and to extend their programs beyond their regular allotments into shortfall, so as to be relieved by the unspent funds of other states or the new Contingency Fund.

Other Provisions:

  • Disregarding of Pension Contributions as Income.  The bill disregards “extraordinary employer pensions” as income.  According to CMS, only one state would fall into this category—Michigan, due to the auto manufacturers.  Some conservatives may view this as an authorizing earmark.
  • Name Change.  H.R. 3963 renames the program the “Children’s Health Insurance Program.”
  • Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Allotment for TN and HI.  The bill sets the DSH allotments for Tennessee at $30 million a year beginning in FY 2008, and sets the DSH allotment increases for Hawaii, beginning in FY 2009 and thereafter, as the allotments for low DSH states.  Some conservatives may view these provisions as authorizing earmarks.
  • Premium Assistance and Health Savings Accounts.  The bill streamlines procedures for states to provide premium assistance subsidies for children eligible to enroll in employer-sponsored coverage, rather than placing such children in a state-sponsored SCHIP program.  However, all high-deductible health insurance plans and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) would be ineligible for premium assistance, even if employers and/or states chose to make cash contributions to the HSA up to the full amount of the plan’s high deductible.  Some conservatives may be concerned that these restrictions would undermine the recent growth of HSAs and consumer-driven health care plans.

Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal Government?:  Yes, the bill would expand the SCHIP program by $35 billion over five years and loosen the program’s eligibility requirements.

Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or Private-Sector Mandates?:  A detailed CBO cost estimate with such information is not available.

Policy Brief: Medicare Funding Warning

Background:  Enactment of a prescription drug benefit as part of Medicare proved controversial to certain segments of the conservative community.  While President Bush and a Republican Congress campaigned in 2000 and 2002 on a promise to extend prescription drug coverage to American seniors, some conservatives retained concerns about a significant expansion of government-financed entitlement spending, even though the benefit itself would be delivered through the private sector.  While conservatives generally admired proposals such as Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and other similar innovations designed to control the growth of health care spending, the size of the prescription drug benefit ultimately enacted—$400 billion in spending over ten years, and nearly $8 trillion in unfunded liabilities over 75 years—prompted calls for more comprehensive reforms to Medicare than those included in the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA).

At the behest of the Republican Study Committee, the funding warning mechanism was included as one device to help alleviate conservatives’ concerns about Medicare’s long-term solvency and ensure that Medicare’s claims on general budgetary revenues would not overwhelm either other federal budgetary priorities or the national debt.  By providing “fast-track” procedures for considering bills to improve the program’s solvency, the Medicare trigger also provides conservatives with another opportunity to examine more fundamental reforms to the way seniors’ health care is financed and delivered.

Funding Warning Defined:  Section 801 of the Medicare Modernization Act provides that a funding warning will be issued if two consecutive annual reports by the Medicare trustees determine that general revenue Medicare spending—that is, Medicare spending not financed by payroll taxes, or by beneficiary premiums and co-payments—will exceed 45% of total Medicare outlays for the current fiscal year, or any of the following six fiscal years.  The April 2006 trustees report noted that Medicare outlays minus dedicated revenues were expected to exceed 45% of total outlays in 2012, and the April 2007 report concluded that Medicare outlays minus dedicated revenues are expected to exceed 45% of total outlays in 2013.  Thus, two consecutive trustees reports have indicated that Medicare will be deriving excess revenues from the general fund within the next seven years—triggering the expedited procedures provided as part of MMA.

Democrats have argued that the 45% measure for excess general revenue Medicare spending is “an artificial and misleading measure of Medicare’s fiscal health,” and Section 902 of the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act (H.R. 3162)—considered and passed by the House in July—would have repealed the excess funding warning mechanism entirely.[1]  However, the Medicare trustees report indicates that the percentage of Medicare spending taken from general revenues—which to date has never exceeded 45%—“is projected to continue growing throughout the 75-year period, reaching 63% of total outlays in 2031 and 73% in 2081.”[2]  With trustees noting that the Medicare trust funds require an additional $40.9 trillion in funding over the next 75 years to meet current obligations, most conservatives would argue that repealing the trigger provisions—which all Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee opposed in mark-up last year—would not represent sound fiscal policy.[3]

Expedited Procedures:  Sections 802 through 804 of MMA describe the expedited procedures by which the President and Congress will address the Medicare funding warning triggered by the April 2007 trustees report.  The process outlined in the statute includes the following steps:

  • Within 15 days of submitting his next budget to Congress, the President will also propose legislation to respond to the warning.  As the President’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget is expected to be released on February 4, 2008, the Medicare legislation should be received by the end of February.
  • Party leaders in both the House and Senate will introduce the President’s legislation within three legislative days of its submission, and the legislation shall be referred to the relevant Committees (Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce in the House, Finance in the Senate).
  • Committees in both the House and Senate shall report Medicare funding legislation to the floor of each chamber by June 30; if they do not, the relevant Committees may be discharged from consideration under special procedures.
  • In the House, one-fifth of the membership (87 Members) can move to discharge the President’s Medicare funding legislation, or any other legislation that remedies the Medicare funding warning, after July 30.  In the event that the motion to discharge is successful, the Medicare funding legislation shall be considered by the full House within three legislative days under procedures established in statute.
  • In the Senate, any Senator may move to discharge Medicare funding legislation after June 30, and such a motion will be considered under strict time limits precluding a filibuster.

In general, these special procedures seek to ensure that Members in both chambers have the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on whether or not Congress should consider legislation to remedy Medicare’s funding deficiencies.

Conclusion: The Medicare funding warning issued by the trustees last year provides an opportunity to re-assess the program’s structure and finance.  While competition among drug companies has ensured that expenditures for the MMA’s prescription drug benefit remain below the bill’s original estimates, introduction of pharmaceutical coverage has dramatically increased the overall growth of health care costs within the Medicare program, leading to the trustees’ funding warning.  The confluence of these two events should prompt Congress to consider the ways in which competition could be used to reduce the growth of overall Medicare costs, similar to the way in which the market for pharmaceutical coverage reduced the estimated cost of the Part D prescription drug benefit.

It remains to be seen whether the Administration will propose legislation that would constitute fundamental reform—either a mechanism to adjust benefits automatically in the case of funding shortfalls, or to inject greater competition into Medicare through a premium support program that would level the playing field between traditional Medicare and private insurance coverage.  Regardless, the Medicare funding warning being triggered this year affords Congress an opportunity to re-think and re-consider some of the drawbacks of the original MMA and put forth constructive alternatives to ensure Medicare’s long-term fiscal stability.

For further information on this issue see:



[1] House Report 110-284, p. 249.

[2] “2007 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Funds,” available at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2007.pdf (accessed January 20, 2008), p. 37.

[3] Ibid., pp. 190-91; House Report 110-284, p 278.

Policy Brief: Medicaid Funding

Background:  The Medicaid program, enacted in 1965, serves as a federal-state partnership providing entitlement health care coverage to certain low-income and disabled populations.  Federal funding for the program is provided on a matching basis, according to a Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) formula established in statute.  The FMAP formula is based on a three-year rolling average that compares a state’s per-capita income to national-per capita income—a formula designed to provide increased federal assistance to poorer states.  For Fiscal Year 2008, 18 states have a match rate of 50% (the statutory minimum), while seven states have match rates at or above 70%.[1]

Concerns about the FMAP Formula: For several years, health policy experts have criticized the current Medicaid FMAP formula as not meeting its original intent, creating distortionary effects on funding levels between states by providing wealthier states with a strong incentive to increase entitlement spending using federal dollars.  An independent analysis of data provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) indicates that states with higher concentrations of poverty actually have lower per-capita Medicaid spending—exactly the opposite result of FMAP’s intended goal.[2]  For instance, Vermont spent $7,508 per capita on Medicaid during 2005—the highest amount nationwide—yet its 2005 poverty level of 10.4% ranks 11th–lowest overall and nearly 30% lower than the national average of 13.3%.[3]

The prime reason for the disparity between states’ per-capita Medicaid spending and relative poverty levels—a disparity which the FMAP formula was intended to remedy—lies in the perverse incentives the Medicaid match provides to states, particularly wealthier states that can more easily finance coverage expansions, to increase entitlement spending.  Because the federal match rate cannot fall below the 50% statutory minimum, states have a diminished incentive to bring their Medicaid programs in line by controlling costs.  A state receiving the minimum 50% match would need to cut overall Medicaid expenditures by $2 million to achieve $1 million in budgetary savings, while a state with a 70% FMAP match would need to cut overall Medicaid expenditures by $3,333,333 in order to achieve the same $1 million in net state savings.  Thus the FMAP formula, by ensuring that federal expenditures will always meet or exceed state outlays, encourages states to increase their Medicaid entitlement spending during strong economic times and discourages states from enacting Medicaid reductions during times of fiscal austerity.

Legislative History:  Congress has previously supported a temporary increase in the FMAP funding formula.  Title IV of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act (P.L. 108-27) included $10 billion to fund an enhanced FMAP match for 15 months, along with an additional $10 billion dedicated to “temporary state fiscal relief.”  The Title IV provisions included a 2.95% increase in FMAP rates for the last two quarters of 2003 and the first three quarters of 2004.  These provisions expired October 1, 2004 and were not renewed.

In general, House conservatives opposed this increase in Medicaid social welfare spending, but supported the underlying bill for the $350 billion in tax relief it contained, including reductions to dividend and capital gains rates which stimulated economic growth.  The FMAP provisions were added in the Senate, and maintained in conference at the behest of several Senators who, according to news reports, insisted on its inclusion to vote for the larger package, which passed the Senate on the basis of Vice President Cheney’s tie-breaking vote.

Recent State Actions:  While some states have claimed that their looming budgetary difficulties have been caused by revenue losses related to recent economic uncertainty, unwise fiscal policies in many instances bear more responsibility.  According to a November 2007 study by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, 31 states have announced Medicaid eligibility expansions during 2008, and 13 states plan benefit package expansions during this year.  By contrast, only four states have proposed Medicaid eligibility reductions this year, and no state has proposed reducing benefits.  In addition, the report notes that “few states have taken advantage of the flexibility to change benefits or impose cost sharing” as a result of provisions included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), demonstrating states’ continued focus on expanding entitlement programs rather than utilizing flexibility provided by Congress to construct new benefit packages that could reduce health costs.[4]

The state Medicaid expansions proposed for the current fiscal year follow on the heels of additional expansions implemented during the last few years of economic growth, and further illustrate the distortionary effects of the FMAP formula.  The promise of a generous federal match of at least 1:1 encourages states to expand their Medicaid populations and benefits beyond prudent limits, and slowing growth in state revenues has prompted calls for the federal government to assume yet more responsibility for states’ poor planning decisions.

Conservative Concerns: Some conservatives may be troubled by talk of another attempt to increase the Medicaid FMAP formula – which some might call a “bailout” for states which over-extended entitlement promises over the last few years.  The temporary FMAP increase enacted in 2003 over conservatives’ concerns was designed to be just that: a one-time series of relief payments to states that over-extended their budgets during the late 1990s.  A second “temporary” increase would only provide additional incentive for states to expand their Medicaid entitlement spending, knowing that the federal government will provide additional funding to make up their own budgetary shortfalls.

Including an FMAP enhancement as part of a “stimulus” package would not result in any actual economic stimulus.  A higher match rate would only substitute federal dollars for state funding, providing no net economic benefit in either the short term or the long term.  The only true effects would be long term, and potentially quite costly—increased entitlement spending at both the federal and state levels.

However, the discussion of Medicaid funding levels does provide conservatives with an opportunity to raise the important issue of entitlement reform.  Rather than providing additional federal funds to states under the current FMAP formula, a more productive solution would entail comprehensive reform of the Medicaid funding mechanism.  One possible solution would see Medicaid converted into a block grant program, allowing for predictable payments to states and enabling Congress to engage in a more rational attempt to control health care costs while setting clear national fiscal priorities.  At a minimum, the existing FMAP formula needs a significant overhaul that would eliminate incentives for states to overspend by ensuring that federal Medicaid resources are directed to targeted low-income and disabled populations, not additional expansions of government-funded health care to other populations.

For further information on this issue see:



[1] Fiscal Year 2008 FMAP Table, available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/fmap08.htm (accessed January 18, 2008).

[2] Robert Helms, “The Medicaid Commission Report: A Dissent,” (Health Policy Outlook #2, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, January 2007), available at http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25434/pub_detail.asp (accessed January 18, 2008).

[3] Ibid.; U.S. Census Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, available at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/national.cgi?year=2005&ascii=  (accessed January 18, 2008).

[4] Kaiser Family Foundation, “State Fiscal Conditions and Medicaid,” (research report 7850-02, November 2007), available at http://kff.org/medicaid/upload/7580-02.pdf (accessed January 18, 2008).