Warren Advisor Admits Her Health Plan Raises Middle Class Taxes

That didn’t last long. Five days after Sen. Elizabeth Warren released a health plan (chock full of gimmicks) that she claimed would not raise taxes on the middle class, one of the authors of that plan contradicted her claims.

In an interview with Axios published on Wednesday, but which took place before the plan’s release, Warren advisor and former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Donald Berwick said the following:

Q: Many people may not know their employers cover 70% or more of their entire premium — money that otherwise would go to their pay. Is this the main problem when talking about reforms?

DB: The basics are not that complicated. Every single dollar — every nickel spent on health care in this country — is coming from workers. There’s no other source. [Emphasis mine.]

Compare that phraseology to what Joe Biden’s campaign spokesperson said on Friday about Warren’s plan and its effects:

For months, Elizabeth Warren has refused to say if her health care plan would raise taxes on the middle class, and now we know why: Because it does….Senator Warren would place a new tax of nearly $9 trillion that will fall on American workers. [Emphasis mine.]

In response to the Biden campaign’s criticism, Warren said last Friday that her health plan’s projections “were authenticated by President Obama’s head of Medicare”—meaning Berwick. Unfortunately for Warren, Berwick, by virtue of his comments in his interview with Axios, also “authenticated” Biden’s attack that her required employer contribution will hit workers, and thus middle-class families.

Warren also tried to defend her plan on Friday by claiming that “the employer contribution is already part of” Obamacare. Obamacare does include an employer contribution requirement, but that requirement:

  • Is capped at no more than $3,000 per worker, far less than the average employer contribution for workers’ health coverage—$14,561 for family coverage as of 2019— which will form the initial basis of Warren’s required employer contribution;
  • Does not apply to employers at all if the firm offers “affordable” coverage—an option not available under Warren’s plan, which would make private insurance coverage “unlawful;” and
  • Will raise an estimated $74 billion in the coming decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office—less than 1 percent of the $8.8 trillion Warren claims her required employer contribution would raise.

While Obamacare and Warrencare both have employer contributions, the similarities pretty much end there. Calling the two equal would equate a log cabin to Buckingham Palace. Sure, they’re both houses, but differ greatly in size. Warren’s “contribution”—which Berwick, her advisor, admits will fall on middle-class workers—stands orders of magnitude greater than anything in Obamacare.

Public Accountability?

In the same Axios interview, Berwick highlighted what he termed a tradeoff “between public accountability and private accountability.” He continued: “By not having a publicly accountable system, we are paying an enormous price in lack of transparency.”

His comments echo prior justification of his infamous “rationing with our eyes open” quote in a 2009 interview. As he explained to The New York Times as he departed CMS in late 2011, “Someone, like your health insurance company, is going to limit what you can get….The government, unlike many private health insurance plans, is working in the daylight. That’s a strength.”

Except that Berwick, as CMS administrator, went to absurd lengths to hide from public scrutiny after his series of remarks. He would gladly meet with health-care lobbyists behind closed doors, but refused to answer questions from reporters, going so far as to duck behind curtains and request security escorts to avoid doing so.

Warren apparently has taken a lesson in opacity from Berwick’s time as CMS administrator. At first, she avoided releasing a specific health care proposal at all, only to follow up by issuing a “plan” containing so many absurd assumptions as to render it irrelevant as a serious blueprint for legislating.

Unfortunately for her, however, Berwick committed the unforgivable sin of speaking an inconvenient truth about the effects of her proposal. Eight years after leaving office as CMS administrator, Berwick, however belated and however unwittingly, delivered some much-needed public accountability for Warren’s health plan.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Analyzing the Gimmicks in Warren’s Health Care Plan

Six weeks ago, this publication published “Elizabeth Warren Has a Plan…For Avoiding Your Health Care Questions.” That plan came to fruition last Friday, when Warren released a paper (and two accompanying analyses) claiming that she can fund her single-payer health care program without raising taxes on the middle class.

Both her opponents in the Democratic presidential primary and conservative commentators immediately criticized Warren’s plan for the gimmicks and assumptions used to arrive at her estimate. Her paper claims she can reduce the 10-year cost of single payer—the amount of new federal revenues needed to fund the program, over and above the dollars already spent on health care (e.g., existing federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, etc.)—from $34 trillion in an October Urban Institute estimate to only $20.5 trillion. On top of this 40 percent reduction in the cost of single payer, Warren claims she can raise the $20.5 trillion without a middle-class tax increase.

Independent Report Shows How Socialism Will Raise Your Taxes

Democratic candidates for president continue to evade questions on how they will pay for their massive, $32 trillion single-payer health care scheme. But on Monday, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) released a 10-page paper providing a preliminary analysis of possible ways to fund the left’s socialized medicine experiment.

Worth noting about the organization that published this document: It maintains a decidedly centrist platform. While perhaps not liberal in its views, it also does not embrace conservative policies. For instance, its president, Maya MacGuineas, recently wrote a blog post opposing the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, stating that the bill’s “shortcomings outweigh the benefits,” because it will increase federal deficits and debt.

Everyone’s Taxes Will Go Up—a Lot

Consider some of the options to pay for single payer CRFB examines, along with how they might affect average families.

A 32 percent payroll tax increase. No, that’s not a typo. Right now, employers and employees pay a combined 15.3 percent payroll tax to fund Social Security and Medicare. (While employers technically pay half of this 15.3 percent, most economists conclude the entire amount ultimately comes out of workers’ paychecks, in the form of lower wages.) This change would more than triple current payroll tax rates.

Real-Life Cost: An individual earning $50,000 in wages would pay $8,000 more per year ($50,000 times 16 percent), and so would that individual’s employer.

Real-Life Cost: An individual with $50,000 in income would pay $9,450 in higher taxes ($50,000 minus $12,200, times 25 percent).

A 42 percent Value Added Tax (VAT). This change would enact on the federal level the type of sales/consumption tax that many European countries use to support their social programs. Some proposals have called for rebates to some or all households, to reflect the fact that sales taxes raise the cost of living, particularly for poorer families. However, using some of the proceeds of the VAT to provide rebates would likely require an even higher tax rate than the 42 percent CRFB estimates in its report.

Real-Life Cost: According to CRFB, “the first-order effect of this VAT would be to increase the prices of most goods and services by 42 percent.”

Mandatory Public Premiums. This proposal would require all Americans to pay a tax in the form of a “premium” to finance single payer. As it stands now, Americans with employer-sponsored insurance pay an average of $6,015 in premiums for family coverage. (Employers pay an additional $14,561 in premium contributions; most economists argue these funds ultimately come from employees, in the form of lower wages—but workers do not explicitly pay these funds out-of-pocket.)

Real-Life Cost: According to CRFB, “premiums would need to average about $7,500 per capita or $20,000 per household” to fund single payer. Exempting individuals currently on federal health programs (e.g., Medicare and Medicaid) would prevent seniors and the poor from getting hit with these costs, but “would increase the premiums [for everyone else] by over 60 percent to more than $12,000 per individual.”

Reduce non-health federal spending by 80 percent. After re-purposing existing federal health spending (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid), paying for single payer would require reducing everything else from the federal budget—defense, transportation, education, and more—by 80 percent.

Real-Life Cost: “An 80 percent cut to Social Security would mean reducing the average new benefit from about $18,000 per year to $3,600 per year.”

The report includes other options, including an increase in federal debt to 205 percent of gross domestic product—nearly double its historic record—and a more-than-doubling of individual and corporate income tax rates. The impact of the last is obvious: Take what you paid to the IRS on April 15, or in your regular paycheck, and double it.

In theory, lawmakers could use a combination of these approaches to fund a single-payer health care system, which might blunt their impact somewhat. But the massive amounts of revenue needed gives one the sense that doing so would amount to little more than rearranging deck chairs on a sinking fiscal ship.

Taxing Only the Rich Won’t Pay for Single Payer

CRFB reinforced their prior work indicating that taxes on “the rich” could at best fund about one-third of the cost of single payer. Their proposals include $2 trillion in revenue from raising tax rates on the affluent, another $2 trillion from phasing out tax incentives for the wealthy, another $2 trillion from doubling corporate income taxes, $3 trillion from wealth taxes, and $1 trillion from taxes on financial transactions and institutions.

Several of the proposals CRFB analyzed would raise tax rates on the wealthiest households above 60 percent. At these rates, economists suggest that individuals would reduce their income and cut back on work, because they do not see the point in generating additional income if government will take 70 (or 80, or 90) cents on every additional dollar earned. While taxing “the rich” might sound publicly appealing, at a certain point it becomes a self-defeating proposition—and several proposals CRFB vetted would meet, or exceed, that point.

Socialized Medicine Will Permanently Shrink the Economy

The report notes that “most of the [funding] options we present would shrink the economy compared to the current system.” For instance, CRFB quantifies the impact of funding single payer via a payroll tax increase as “the equivalent of a $3,200 reduction in per-person income and would result in a 6.5 percent reduction in hours worked—a 9 million person reduction in full-time equivalent workers in 2030.”

By contrast, deficit financing a single-payer system would minimize its drag on jobs, but “be far more damaging to the economy.” The increase in federal debt “would shrink the size of the economy by roughly 5 percent in 2030—the equivalent of a $4,500 reduction in per person income—and far more in the following years.”

Moreover, these estimates assume a great amount of interest by foreign buyers in continuing to purchase American debt. If the U.S. Treasury cannot find buyers for its bonds, a potential debt crisis could cause the economic damage from single payer to skyrocket.

To say single payer would cause widespread economic disruption would put it mildly. Hopefully, the CRFB report, and others like it, will inspire the American people to reject the progressive left’s march towards socialism.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Pete Buttigieg’s Health Care Sabotage Strategy

After the most recent Democratic presidential debate, when South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg criticized Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren for evasiveness on her single-payer health plan, Warren’s staff circulated a Buttigieg tweet from February 2018. The tweet indicates Buttigieg’s support for single-payer 20 months ago, which makes him a hypocrite for criticizing her now, according to the Warren camp.

In response, Buttigieg claimed, “Only in the last few months did it become the case that [single-payer] was defined by politicians to mean ending private insurance, and I’ve never believed that that’s the right pathway.” Apparently, Buttigieg never read Sen. Bernie Sanders’ bill — which Sanders, a Vermont independent, introduced in September 2017 — Section 107(a) of which makes private insurance “unlawful.”

Buttigieg’s evasion follows a consistent pattern among Democrats running for president, a two-step in which candidates try to avoid angering both Americans who want to keep their current coverage and the socialist left, who view single-payer’s enactment as a shibboleth. In January, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., told the American people, “Let’s move on” from private insurance, but she later put out a health plan that she says retains a role for private coverage. Warren herself said as recently as March that she had embraced approaches other than single-payer to achieving the goal of universal coverage.

More importantly, however, Buttigieg wants to enact single-payer — and has said as much. He just wants to be stealthier than Warren and Sanders in taking away Americans’ private insurance.

‘Glide Path’: An Expressway Toward Government-Run Care

Consider a spokesman’s response to the Warren camp re-upping Buttigieg’s 2018 tweet:

Asked about the tweet, a Buttigieg aide … argued he had not changed his position, saying he supports [single-payer] as an end goal but that he wants to get there on a ‘glide path’ by allowing people to have a choice and opt into the government plan.

Indeed, the health care plan on Buttigieg’s website makes the exact same point: “If private insurers are not able to offer something dramatically better, this [government-run] plan will create a natural glide path to” single-payer.

The details of his health care proposal reveal Buttigieg’s “glide path” as an expressway to government-run care, time and time again favoring the government-run plan over private insurance. Consider the following references to the government-run plan in the health care proposal:

  • “Individuals with lower incomes in states that have refused to expand Medicaid will be automatically enrolled in the [government-run plan].”
  • “Individuals who forgo coverage through their employer because it’s too expensive will be able to enroll in the [government-run plan] and receive access to income-based subsidies that help guarantee affordability.”
  • “Anyone eligible for free coverage in Medicaid or the [government-run plan] will be automatically enrolled.” The plan goes on to admit that “individuals could opt out of public coverage if they choose to enroll in another insurance plan,” but the government-run plan would serve as the default “option.”
  • “Individuals with no coverage will be retroactively enrolled in the [government-run plan].”

By automatically enrolling people in the government-run plan — not private insurance, not the best insurance, not the most affordable insurance, but in the government-run insurance plan — Buttigieg wants to make that “option” the only “choice for Americans.”

In 2009, independent actuaries at the Lewin Group concluded that a government-run plan paying doctors and hospitals at Medicare rates, and open to individuals with employer plans — a policy Buttigieg endorsed in his campaign outline — would siphon 119.1 million Americans away from their private coverage, and onto the government-run plan:

Buttigieg calls his plan “Medicare for All Who Want It.” But given the biases in his plan in favor of government-run coverage, another description sounds more apt: “Medicare: Whether You Want It or Not.”

Opportunistic Flip-Flops

Buttigieg sees political value in hitting Warren from the right on health care. But recall that Barack Obama did the same thing in the 2008 presidential primaries, decrying Hillary Clinton’s proposal to require all Americans to purchase health coverage:

Obama used those attacks to wrest the nomination from Clinton, and ultimately capture the presidency. Once he did, he flip-flopped on the coverage requirement, embracing the individual mandate he had previously attacked during the election campaign.

Buttigieg wants to force all Americans into government-run care. He has said as much repeatedly. His attacks on Warren represent an attempt to sound moderate and draw necessary political distinctions ahead of the Democratic primaries.

While he may moderate his tone to get elected, don’t think for a second he would moderate his policies or do anything other than sabotage private health coverage once in office. We’ve seen this show before — but whether we will see it again remains in the hands of the American people.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

The Left’s Health Care Vision a Prescription for Brute Government Force

Even as Democrats inveigh against President Trump for his alleged norm-shattering and contempt for the rule of law, their health care plans show a growing embrace of authoritarianism. For instance, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) recently dubbed the President’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “a classic mafia-like shakedown.” He knows of which he speaks, because the Democratic agenda on health care now includes threats to destroy any entities failing to comply with government-dictated price controls.

The latest evidence comes from Colorado, where several government agencies recently submitted a draft report regarding the creation of a “state option” for health insurance. The plan would not create a state-run health insurer; instead, it would see agencies dragooning private sector firms to comply with government diktats.

The plan would “require insurance carriers that offer plans in a major market,” whether individual, small group, or large group, “to offer the state option as well.” In these state-mandated plans insurers must offer, carriers would have to abide by stricter controls on their administrative costs, in the form of medical loss ratio requirements, than those dictated by Obamacare.

For medical providers, the Colorado plan would use “payment benchmarks” to cap reimbursement amounts for doctors and hospitals. And if hospitals decline to accept these government-imposed price controls, the report ominously says that “the state may implement measures to ensure health systems participate.”

In comments to reporters, Colorado officials made clear their intent to coerce providers into this price-controlled system. Insurance Commissioner Michael Conway admitted that “If our hospital systems don’t participate, this won’t work….We can’t allow that to happen.” The head of Colorado’s Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, Kim Bimestefer, said that “if we feel that the hospitals are not going to participate, we will require their participation.”

State officials did not elaborate on the mechanisms they would use to compel participation in the state option. But they could attempt to require hospitals and insurers to participate in the new plan to maintain their license to operate in Colorado—a likely unconstitutional condition of licensure.

In threatening this level of coercion—agree to price controls, or we’ll shut down your business—Colorado Gov. Jared Polis imitated his fellow Democrat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi’s proposed drug pricing bill, up for a vote in the House as soon as next month, would impose excise taxes of up to 95 percent of a drug’s sale price if companies refuse to “negotiate” with the federal government.

In its analysis of Pelosi’s legislation, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) noted that, because drug makers could not deduct the 95 percent excise tax for income tax purposes, “the combination of income taxes and excise taxes on the sales could cause the drug manufacturer to lose money if the drug was sold in the United States.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, CBO concluded that the excise tax would not generate “any significant increase in revenues,” as “manufacturers would either participate in the negotiating process”—because they have no effective alternative—“or pull a particular drug out of the U.S. market entirely.”

CBO also noted, in a classic bit of understatement, that Pelosi’s bill “could result in litigation,” for threatening losses on any company that dares defy the government’s offer of “negotiation.” But the left seems uninterested in abiding by limits on government power—or the consistency of its own arguments. As I noted this spring, other proposed legislation in Congress would abolish the private health care market. Less than one decade after forcing all Americans to buy a product for the first time ever, in the form of Obamacare’s insurance mandate, liberals now want to prohibit all Americans from purchasing care directly from their doctors.

These recent proposals continue a virulent strain of authoritarianism that has permeated progressivism’s entire history. Franklin Roosevelt threatened to invoke emergency powers during his first inaugural address, and Rahm Emanuel infamously said during the Great Recession that “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Make no mistake: The health care system needs patient-centered reform. But the true crisis comes from the progressives who would utilize blunt government force to seize control of one-fifth of the nation’s economy.

This post was originally published at The Daily Wire.

Medicare for Pets IS as Crazy as You Think

Recently, business writer David Lazarus penned a column in the Los Angeles Times called “Medicare for Pets—It’s Not as Crazy as You Think.” The column argued for a “Peticare for all” program (I’m not making that up—that’s really what he called it) of mandatory insurance for pets.

Unfortunately for Lazarus, the idea is as exactly as crazy as one might think: Both an impractical and unwise use of government resources. But the fact that he would propose such a concept—and that a major newspaper would devote column inches to the idea—shows how people now expect government to solve their every waking problem.

Why It Wouldn’t Work

California law requires that all dogs over the age of 4 months be vaccinated against rabies and licensed through the local animal care agency. Many cities and counties, including Los Angeles, also require that cats be vaccinated for rabies and licensed. How about if we insure dogs and cats as part of the licensing process?

The proposal raises several obvious problems. First, confining the proposal to cats and dogs could prompt outrage from owners of non-feline, non-canine breeds, like the 9.4 million reptiles kept as pets. The most recent national pet owners’ survey reveals Americans keep more fish as pets (139.3 million) than cats (94.2 million) or dogs (89.7 million). Of course, including more species, particularly exotic ones, could make “Peticare” tougher and costlier to implement.

Pet Licensing Ineffective, So Why Would This Work?

More importantly, Lazarus didn’t mention it—perhaps he didn’t even bother to check—but a simple Google search reveals that, legal requirements notwithstanding, a large percentage of pets remain unlicensed. A 1998 House of Commons Library paper notes that Britain abolished its licensure requirement in 1987, because the license “was held by only around half of dog owners.”

More recent surveys in the United States indicate a similar rate of non-compliance with pet licensure laws. For instance, as of 2014, “98.8 percent of pets living in Richmond,” Virginia’s capital, were unlicensed, even though city code requires dog and cat owners to pay $10 annually for a license. The nearby counties of Henrico and Chesterfield, which require licenses for dogs but not cats, fared little better, with compliance rates of only about 50 percent and 34 percent, respectively.

Britain’s Kennel Club opposes a renewal of that country’s dog licensing laws, because “it is the responsible dog owner who will end up paying a further tax on dog ownership, whilst the irresponsible will continue to flout the law.” Adding an insurance requirement to go with the licensing fee would only compound the incentives for individuals to disobey—and compound the financial punishment inflicted on those law-abiding individuals who comply.

Lazarus’ concept of linking pet insurance to licensure would only work if government officials created a massive (and expensive!) bureaucracy to enforce those requirements. One can easily see how this “nanny state” proposal would cause all sorts of ramifications—neighborhood disputes escalating as someone reports “uninsured” pets to the authorities, for instance. Libertarians have already outlined good reasons to forgo pet licensure, with this proposal to add an insurance requirement merely the latest.

Big Government Has Gone to the Dogs

Apart from the fact that the “Peticare” proposal wouldn’t work, the fact that some people might take it seriously speaks to the desire for government to solve all their problems. Lazarus began his article by telling the story of a woman whose dog could well need a hip replacement, but whose pet insurance policy won’t cover the treatment because it’s a pre-existing condition. The owner asked Lazarus, “If you’re going to have loopholes for pre-existing conditions, why offer insurance at all?”

The question has a simple answer—albeit one the owner likely does not want to hear. If a health condition pre-exists the issuance of the policy, then by definition covering it doesn’t constitute insurance. Insurance consists of protection against an event that could occur in the future but that has not occurred yet. The problem occurs when individuals want “insurance” for conditions they (or in this case, their pets) have already developed.

And that’s the problem: People who want, or worse yet expect, government—meaning someone else—to solve their problems, and give them something for “free.” Lazarus’ “Peticare” represents a more absurd manifestation of that desire, but by no means the only one.

After all, if people didn’t expect something for nothing from the federal government, future generations wouldn’t face the prospect of paying off nearly $23 trillion in debt for things other people got and they won’t.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

In Fourth Dem Debate, Warren Maintains Her Health Care Evasion

On Tuesday, Sen. Sherrod Brown—a notable leftist who has said he supports a single-payer health care system in theory—said in a CNN story that “it’s a terrible mistake if the Democratic nominee would publicly support ‘Medicare for All.’” On Tuesday evening, two of the party’s leading contenders for that nomination, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, redoubled their commitment to such a policy, with Warren drawing fire from all sides about her lack of detail surrounding the issue.

As she had in previous debates, Warren refused to get into specifics about how she would pay for the single-payer plan that Sanders has introduced as legislation, and which Warren has endorsed. Sanders has previously admitted that taxes on the middle class would go up under his plan.

Warren would not admit that taxes on the middle class would go up under single payer. She claimed that costs for the middle class would go down on net under her plan, and that she would not sign any legislation that raised costs on the middle class.

However, even this supposed promise raised additional questions:

  1. Who qualifies as middle class in Warren’s estimation? A family making under $50,000, a family making under $250,000, or somewhere in between?
  2. Does Warren’s promise mean that no middle-class families will see their costs go up on net? If so, that seems like an impossibly high bar to clear, as virtually every major law creates both winners and losers. Even though the left tries to turn the federal government into another version of “Oprah’s Finest Things”—“You get a car! You get a car! You get a car!”—it rarely works out that way in practice.
  3. In September 2008, Barack Obama made a “firm pledge” that he would not raise taxes on families making under $250,000 per year—“not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” That promise lasted for less than a month of his administration. On February 4, 2009, two weeks after taking office, Obama signed a children’s health insurance reauthorization that included a large increase in tobacco taxes—taxes that hit working class families hardest. Given how quickly Obama did an about-face on his campaign promise, why should the American people take Warren’s word any more seriously than they did Obama’s “firm pledge?”

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg also chimed in on the funding discussion. He had previously characterized Warren as “extremely evasive” on the issue during the last debate, and released ads prior to this debate questioning Warren’s and Sanders’ proposals to prohibit private health insurance. During the CNN debate, he pressed both issues, noting (as this commentator has) that Warren has “a plan for everything, except this.” With that, Warren derided Pete’s plan as “Medicare for all who can afford it.”

It seems particularly noteworthy that Warren wants to enact a major expansion of the federal government’s role—the largest expansion of government’s role ever, in both its financial scope and massive reach into every American’s life—yet cannot find a sufficient justification to admit the middle class will pay even a little bit more in taxes to fund this socialist utopia. The former speaks volumes about the left’s ultimate objective—full, unfettered power over the economy—and the latter speaks to the deception they are using to obtain it.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

The Broken Promises of Louisiana’s Medicaid Expansion

Some in Louisiana want to claim that the state’s expansion of Medicaid to able-bodied adults represents a success story. The facts indicate otherwise. Medicaid expansion has resulted in large costs to taxpayers, significant amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse, and tens of thousands of able-bodied adults shifting from private coverage to government insurance—even while individuals with disabilities continue to wait for care. On issue after issue, Medicaid expansion has massively under-performed its sponsors’ own promises:

The Issue: Enrollment

The Claim: “The Department [of Health] had originally based its projections based on U.S. Census data that counted about 306,000 people as uninsured.” – New Orleans Times-Picayune[1]

The Facts:

  • Even though the Department of Health tried to increase its projected enrollment numbers as soon as it made its first estimate, the expansion population has soared well past even these higher claims.[2]
  • As of April 2019, 505,503 individuals had enrolled in Medicaid expansion—65.2% higher than the Department’s original estimate, and 12.3% higher than the Department’s revised enrollment estimate of 450,000 individuals.[3]
  • Medicaid enrollment has declined slightly since April 2019, but only because the Department of Health removed tens of thousands of ineligible individuals from the rolls that were receiving benefits they likely did not deserve.[4]
  • In the spring of 2019, the Department of Health commissioned several LSU researchers to project Medicaid enrollment in future years. The researchers concluded that participation in Medicaid expansion would bounce back from recent enrollment declines to reach an all-time high this year of 512,142 individuals. The researchers also concluded that Medicaid expansion enrollment would continue to increase in future years. Despite spending a total of $71,120 of federal and state taxpayer dollars on this report, the Department of Health has yet to release it publicly.[5]
  • The fact that the Department of Health cited Louisiana’s uninsured population as only 306,000, and yet enrollment has far exceeded that number, further demonstrates that Medicaid expansion has led residents to drop their private insurance to go on to the government rolls—and encouraged people who do not qualify for subsidized coverage to apply anyway.[6]

The Issue: Costs and Spending

The Claim: “In Fiscal Year 2017, Medicaid expansion saved Louisiana $199 million. Beginning July 1, 2017, these savings are expected to surpass $350 million.” – John Bel Edwards[7]

The Facts:

  • Louisiana’s Medicaid expansion has cost far more than expected, placing a higher burden on taxpayers.
  • In 2015, the Legislative Fiscal Office estimated that expansion would cost around $7.1 billion-$8 billion over five years, or approximately $1.2 billion-$1.4 billion per year.[8]
  • For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, Medicaid expansion cost taxpayers an estimated $3.1 billion—more than twice the Legislative Fiscal Office’s original estimates.[9]
  • Because most Louisiana residents also pay federal taxes, shifting spending from the state to the federal government does not “save” Louisianans money. Rather, it means Louisiana taxpayers will continue to pay for this skyrocketing spending, just through their federal tax payments instead of their state tax bills.

The Issue: Fraud

The Claim: “Louisiana Medicaid is tough on fraud….When it comes to getting tough on Medicaid fraud, Louisiana is among an elite group of states leading the way by doing the right thing.” – John Bel Edwards[10]

The Facts:

  • Because Louisiana rushed its way into Medicaid expansion without first building a proper eligibility system, the state has spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars providing subsidized health insurance to ineligible individuals.
  • More than a year after Gov. Edwards made his claim about Medicaid fraud, the Legislative Auditor found that numerous individuals with incomes well above the maximum eligibility thresholds had applied for, and received, subsidized Medicaid benefits.[11] One household sampled in the audit claimed income of $145,146—more than Gov. Edwards’ annual salary of $130,000.[12]
  • Belatedly, the Department of Health finally removed approximately 30,000 ineligible individuals from the Medicaid rolls, including 1,672 individuals with incomes of over $100,000.[13]
  • The Medicaid program spent approximately $400 million less in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, in large part due to the disenrollments—suggesting that in prior years, Louisiana taxpayers had spent hundreds of millions per year providing subsidized health coverage to ineligible individuals.[14]

The Issue: Efficient Use of Taxpayer Dollars

The Claim: “I know that any misspent dollar is one that could have paid for health care services for those truly in need. My top priority is to ensure every dollar spent goes toward providing health care to people who need it most.” – Health Secretary Rebekah Gee[15]

The Facts:

  • Internal records indicate that Secretary Gee’s own Department knew that tens of thousands of individuals were dropping private coverage to enroll in government-run Medicaid—yet did little about it.
  • For much of 2016 and 2017, the Louisiana Department of Health compiled data indicating that several thousand individuals per month dropped their existing health coverage to enroll in Medicaid expansion.[16]
  • At the end of 2017, the Department of Health stopped compiling data on the number of people dropping private coverage, claiming the data were inaccurate. However, the Department’s stated reasoning for its action suggests that, to the extent the data were inaccurate, they likely under-estimated the number of people dropping private coverage to enroll in Medicaid.[17]
  • Based on the program’s average cost per enrollee, Medicaid has paid hundreds of millions of dollars per year subsidizing the coverage of people who previously had health insurance.[18] This spending comes over and above taxpayer dollars paid to cover individuals ineligible for benefits, as outlined above.

The Issue: Uncompensated Care

The Claim: “Disproportionate share payments to hospitals have decreased as the uninsured population decreased.” – Louisiana Department of Health[19]

The Facts:

  • Uncompensated care payments to hospitals have remained broadly flat since expansion took effect, and by some measures have actually increased.
  • During the three fiscal years prior to expansion, the state paid an average of $1,039,444,880 to Medicaid providers for uncompensated care—$1,011,324,118 in Fiscal Year 2014, $1,000,502,910 in Fiscal Year 2015, and $1,106,507,612 in Fiscal Year 2016.[20]
  • In the fiscal year ended on June 30, 2019, Medicaid spent an estimated $1,056,458,352 on uncompensated care payments—greater than the average spent on uncompensated care in the three years prior to expansion.[21]
  • The meager $50 million in uncompensated care savings between Fiscal Year 2016 and Fiscal Year 2019 does not even begin to match the more than $3.1 billion annual cost to taxpayers of expansion.[22]
  • Even if the Department of Health wants to claim the modest reduction in uncompensated care from Fiscal Year 2016 to Fiscal Year 2019 as “savings,” that means the Medicaid program is spending approximately $62.03 for every dollar it “saves” in uncompensated care payments.

The Issue: Jobs

The Claim: “An analysis by LSU estimates that Medicaid expansion created more than 19,000 jobs and generated $3.5 billion in economic activity in 2017 alone.” – Health Secretary Rebekah Gee[23]

The Facts:

  • Since Medicaid expansion took effect in July 2016, Louisiana’s economy has created only 2,700 jobs—less than one-seventh of the jobs the LSU study claimed expansion would create.
  • In June 2016, the month before expansion took effect, Louisiana’s non-farm payrolls totaled 1,979,100.[24] According to federal data, as of July 2019 Louisiana’s non-farm payrolls now stand at 1,981,800—a meager increase over more than three years.[25]
  • One year before expansion took effect, in July 2015, Louisiana had nearly 10,000 more jobs (1,991,500) than it does today (1,981,800).[26]
  • Since Medicaid expansion took effect, the total labor force within the state has declined by more than 65,000 individuals, or more than 3%—from 2,161,299 in June 2016 to 2,095,844 today.[27]
  • Within days of the LSU report’s release in April 2018, the Pelican Institute published a rebuttal demonstrating that the LSU researchers likely omitted key facts in their calculations, which meant the study made inaccurate and inflated claims about the fiscal impact of Medicaid expansion.[28]
  • Following an exhaustive series of public records requests with LSU, the university finally admitted that the researchers did indeed omit a key data source from their calculations, leading to inflated claims in their study.[29] While the researchers conceded in one document that their 2018 report “overstate[d] the economic impact of” Medicaid expansion, they have yet to admit this error publicly, and the Department of Health has refused to release the document in which they admitted their error.[30]

The Issue: Vulnerable Individuals Waiting for Care

The Claim: “It’s inconvenient that the facts don’t follow this story. [The Department of Health] ended the wait list for disabilities last year in partnership with the disability community. #Fakenews.” – Health Secretary Rebekah Gee[31]

The Facts:

  • While the Department of Health may have changed the name from a “waiting list” to a “Request for Services Registry,” nearly 15,000 vulnerable individuals continue to wait for access to care.
  • The Department of Health’s own website regarding waiver services includes the following passage: “Waiver services are dependent upon funding, and are offered on a first-come, first-served basis through the Request for Services Registry.”[32] The reference to “first-come, first-served” consideration for waiver applicants clearly indicates that vulnerable individuals continue to wait for care.
  • According to information provided by the Department of Health in response to a public records request, as of May 2019 a total of 14,984 individuals were on the “Request for Services Registry.”[33]
  • Since Medicaid expansion took effect in Louisiana, at least 5,534 individuals with disabilities have died while on waiting lists to access care—more than one-quarter of the at least 21,904 individuals with disabilities nationwide who have died while waiting for services under Medicaid expansion.[34]
  • By giving states a greater federal matching rate to cover able-bodied adults than individuals with disabilities, Obamacare has encouraged state Medicaid programs to discriminate against the most vulnerable individuals in our society.[35]

Medicaid expansion has singularly failed to its advocates’ own promises of success. Louisiana should begin the process of unwinding this failed experiment, and put into practice reforms that can reduce the cost of care for beneficiaries, while focusing Medicaid on the vulnerable populations for which it was originally designed.[36]

 

[1] Kevin Litten, “Louisiana’s Medicaid Expansion Enrollment Could Grow to 450,000,” New Orleans Times-Picayune January 20, 2016, https://www.nola.com/politics/2016/01/medicaid_expansion_500000.html.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Healthy Louisiana Dashboard, http://www.ldh.la.gov/HealthyLaDashboard/; Kevin Litten, “Louisiana’s Medicaid Expansion Enrollment.”

[4] Sheridan Wall, “GOP Legislators Renew Attacks on Medicaid Management as Data Emerges on Misspending,” Daily Advertiser April 9, 2019, https://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/louisiana/2019/04/09/gop-legislators-renew-attacks-medicaid-management-data-emerges-misspending/3418133002/.

[5] Chris Jacobs, “The Report the Department of Health Doesn’t Want You to Read,” Pelican Institute, September 26, 2019, https://pelicaninstitute.org/blog/the-report-the-department-of-health-doesnt-want-you-to-read/.

[6] Chris Jacobs, “What You Need to Know about Medicaid Crowd-Out,” Pelican Institute, May 20, 2019, https://pelicaninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/PEL_MedicaidCrowdOut_WEB-2.pdf.

[7] Louisiana Department of Health, “Louisiana Medicaid Expansion 2016-2017 Annual Report,” http://ldh.la.gov/assets/HealthyLa/Resources/MdcdExpnAnnlRprt_2017_WEB.pdf, p. 2.

[8] Louisiana Legislative Fiscal Office, Fiscal Note on HCR 3 (2015 Regular Session), http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=942163.

[9] Louisiana Department of Health, “Medicaid Forecast Report: May 2019,” June 10, 2019, http://www.ldh.la.gov/assets/medicaid/forecast/FY19MedicaidForecast-may2019.pdf, Table 3, Expenditure Forecast by Category of Service, p. 2.

[10] Louisiana Department of Health, “Louisiana Medicaid Expansion 2016-2017 Annual Report,” p. 7.

[11] Louisiana Legislative Auditor, “Medicaid Eligibility: Wage Verification Process of the Expansion Population,” November 8, 2018, https://lla.la.gov/PublicReports.nsf/1CDD30D9C8286082862583400065E5F6/$FILE/0001ABC3.pdf.

[12] Ibid., Appendix E, Targeted Selection Individual Medicaid Recipient Cases, pp. 27-29.

[13] Sheridan Wall, “GOP Legislators Renew Attacks on Medicaid Management.”

[14] Melinda Deslatte, “Louisiana Medicaid Spending $400M Less Than Expected,” Associated Press June 12, 2019, https://www.nola.com/news/2019/06/louisiana-medicaid-spending-400m-less-than-expected.html.

[15] Rebekah Gee, “Medicaid Expansion, Fighting Fraud, Equally Important,” Daily Advertiser April 21, 2019, https://www.theadvertiser.com/story/opinion/editorial/2019/04/21/medicaid-expansion-fighting-fraud-equally-imoportant/3534502002/.

[16] Chris Jacobs, “What You Need to Know about Medicaid Crowd-Out.”

[17] Chris Jacobs, “Medicaid Expansion Has Louisianans Dropping Their Private Plans,” Wall Street Journal June 8, 2019, https://www.wsj.com/articles/medicaid-expansion-has-louisianans-dropping-their-private-plans-11559944048.

[18] Chris Jacobs, “What You Need to Know about Medicaid Crowd-Out.”

[19] Louisiana Department of Health, “Louisiana Medicaid Expansion 2016-2017 Annual Report,” p. 7.

[20] Louisiana Department of Health, “Louisiana Medicaid 2016 Annual Report,” http://ldh.la.gov/assets/medicaid/AnnualReports/2016AnnualReport.pdf, Table 3, Medicaid Vendor Payments for Budget Programs by State Fiscal Year, p. 5.

[21] Louisiana Department of Health, “Medicaid Forecast Report: May 2019,” Table 2, Expenditure Forecast by Budget Program, p. 1.

[22] Ibid, Table 3, Expenditure Forecast by Budget Category of Service, p. 2.

[23] Rebekah Gee, “Medicaid Expansion, Fighting Fraud, Equally Important.”

[24] Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Regional and State Employment and Unemployment—July 2016,” August 19, 2016, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/laus_08192016.pdf, Table 5: Employees on Non-Farm Payrolls by State and Selected Industry Sector, Seasonally Adjusted, p. 13. The report for July 2016 reflects final (as opposed to preliminary) data for the June 2016 period.

[25] Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Regional and State Employment and Unemployment—August 2019,” September 20, 2019, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/laus_09202019.pdf, Table 3: Employees on Non-Farm Payrolls by State and Selected Industry Sector, Seasonally Adjusted, p. 10. The report for August 2019 reflects final (as opposed to preliminary) data for July 2019.

[26] Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Regional and State Employment and Unemployment—July 2016,” Table 5, p. 13.

[27] Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Regional and State Employment and Unemployment—July 2016,” Table 3, Civilian Labor Force and Unemployment by State and Selected Area, Seasonally Adjusted, p. 11; Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Regional and State Employment and Unemployment—August 2019,” Table 1, Civilian Labor Force and Unemployment by State and Selected Area, Seasonally Adjusted, p. 8.

[28] Chris Jacobs, “Why Expanding Louisiana’s Program to Able-Bodied Adults Hurts the Economy,” Pelican Institute, April 17, 2018, https://pelicaninstitute.org/policy-brief-debunking-pro-medicaid-report/.

[29] Chris Jacobs, “LSU, Department of Health Inflate Claims in Medicaid Expansion Studies,” Houma Today July 27, 2019, https://www.houmatoday.com/news/20190727/opinion-lsu-department-of-health-inflate-claims-in-medicaid-expansion-studies.

[30] Louisiana State University response to Pelican Institute Public Records Act request, September 23, 2019.

[31] @rebekahgeemd, May 20, 2019, https://twitter.com/rebekahgeemd/status/1130459486307667968.

[32] Louisiana Department of Health Office for Citizens with Developmental Disabilities, “Waiver Services,” http://www.ldh.la.gov/index.cfm/page/142, accessed June 15, 2019.

[33] Louisiana Department of Health, response to Pelican Institute Public Records Act request, May 21, 2019.

[34] Nicholas Horton, “Waiting for Help: The Medicaid Waiting List Crisis,” Foundation for Government Accountability, March 6, 2018, https://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/WAITING-FOR-HELP-The-Medicaid-Waiting-List-Crisis-07302018.pdf.

[35] Chris Jacobs, “How Obamacare Undermines American Values: Penalizing Work, Citizenship, Marriage, and the Disabled,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2862, November 21, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/how-obamacare-undermines-american-values-penalizing-work-marriage-citizenship-and-the-disabled.

[36] Chris Jacobs, “Reforming Medicaid in Louisiana,” Pelican Institute, January 30, 2018, https://pelicaninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/PEL_MedicaidPaper_FINAL_WEB.pdf.

Hospital’s “Egregiously Unethical” Behavior Illustrates Problems of Government-Run Health Care

Why would a hospital keep a brain-damaged patient on life support in a vegetative state for months, without so much as talking with the patient’s relatives to ascertain the family’s wishes for their loved one? Because government regulations encouraged them to do just that.

ProPublica recently profiled a pattern of troubling cases at Newark Beth Israel hospital. In several cases, physicians admitted they kept patients alive to bolster their statistics in government databases, and prevent a potential closure of the hospital’s transplant unit. The sorry tale shows but some of the perverse consequences of government-run health care—a system that the left wants to force on all Americans.

Brain-Damaged Patient Artificially Kept Alive

After suffering from congestive heart failure for years, Young, a Navy veteran and former truck driver with three children, had received a heart transplant on Sept. 21, 2018. He didn’t wake up after the operation and had been in a vegetative state ever since.

Machines whirred in his room, pumping air into his lungs. Nutrients and fluids dripped from a tube into his stomach. Young had always been fastidious, but now his hair and toenails had grown long. A nurse suctioned mucus from his throat several times a day to keep him from choking, according to employees familiar with his care. His medical record would note: ‘He follows no commands. He looks very encephalopathic’—brain damaged.

On one day this April, physicians at Newark Beth Israel discussed what to do about their brain damaged, and severely injured, patient. When asked about Young, the head of the hospital’s transplant team, Mark Zucker, had a blunt response: “Need to keep him alive ‘til June 30 at a minimum.”

Zucker went on, instructing hospital staff not to raise the option of palliative care—that is, a less aggressive treatment course focused more on alleviating pain—until the one-year anniversary of Young’s transplant in September.

“It’s not as if they’re asking for this and we’re saying no, we cannot do this,” another physician said, according to a recording of the meeting. “We haven’t refused anything they’ve asked,” Zucker agreed in talking of the family’s wishes. “We just haven’t raised withdrawing” intensive treatment.

Unethical Behavior to Meet Government Targets

Beginning in 2007, as ProPublica notes, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) set quality standards for organ transplants:

Under those rules, the one-year survival rate has been ‘the magic number,’ according to Laura Aguiar, principal of consulting firm Transplant Solutions. If a program’s survival rate fell too far under its expected rate, which was calculated by a CMS algorithm, the agency could launch an audit. If the audit uncovered serious problems, CMS could pull a program’s Medicare certification, meaning that the federal health care insurer would stop reimbursing for transplants.

A hospital losing its Medicare certification could lead to the end of its transplant program, as many private insurers will only pay for procedures performed at Medicare-certified hospitals. With heart transplant survival rates already below the national averages, Newark Beth Israel feared the potential consequences of an audit if its numbers fell any further.

As a result, the hospital’s doctors decided to keep patients like Young alive to prop up its federal rankings. They took those actions without consulting Young’s family, and even though they believed Young would “never wake up or recover function.”

Hid Information from Relatives

Despite the damage to Young’s brain during the procedure, doctors never initiated a conversation with the family about options for care, such as hospice, given his poor prognosis for recovery. They failed to inform Andrea Young that her brother had contracted a dangerous drug-resistant fungal infection. During this time, Andrea also struggled to ensure the hospital staff provided basic grooming; she recounted that it took four months—four months—for staff to trim her brother’s toenails.

All the while, doctors knew they were violating their ethical duty to Darryl Young, by failing to obtain informed consent for his care. But they felt that Young and his family needed to “take one for the team”—incur more pain and heartache so the hospital could meet government targets. As transplant director Mark Zucker explained in a meeting:

This is a very, very unethical, immoral but unfortunately very practical situation, because the reality here is that you haven’t saved anybody if your program gets shut down….This guy unfortunately became the seventh potential death in a very bad year, alright, and that puts us into a very difficult spot.

Sadly, Darryl Young does not represent the only instance where Newark Beth Israel purposefully tried to boost their targets to meet government standards. ProPublica uncovered other instances where patients were kept alive, or their hospital discharge delayed, until one year after surgery. Notes in another patient’s files indicate that “he will remain hospitalized…to hit his one year anniversary.”

Government-Run Care Betrays the Vulnerable

Poor examples of government-run health care abound. As I recently noted, the United States suffers from an antiquated kidney care system—with a much smaller percentage of patients receiving at-home dialysis than a country like Guatemala—because Medicare has covered most patients with kidney disease since 1973, and the government-run program has failed to innovate since then. In the Newark Beth Israel case, an arbitrary target imposed by a government agency more than a decade ago led to patients being kept alive simply to meet that target.

Patients like Darryl Young deserve better than the care Newark Beth Israel provided to him. They also deserve better than the government-run health care that the left wants to impose on all Americans.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Separating Fact from Fiction on Trump’s Health Care Proclamation for Immigrants

On Friday, President Trump issued a proclamation requiring certain immigrants entering the country either to purchase health insurance, or demonstrate they can pay their medical bills. The order prompted no small amount of hysteria from the left over the weekend.

If you’re puzzled by this development, you might not be the only one. After all, don’t liberals want everyone to have health insurance? They have spent significant time and effort attacking President Trump for a (slight) increase in the number of uninsured people while he’s been president.

What the Proclamation Says

The proclamation itself, which will take effect on November 3 (30 days from Friday), limits “the entry into the United States as immigrants of aliens who will financially burden” the American health care system. It requires aliens applying for immigrant visas to become “covered by approved health insurance…within 30 days” of entry, or “possess…the financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs.”

The proclamation includes numerous different acceptable forms of health insurance: employer plans (including association health plans and COBRA coverage), catastrophic plans, short-term limited duration insurance, coverage through Tricare or Medicare, or visitor health coverage lasting a minimum of 364 days. The list of acceptable forms of insurance does not, however, include subsidized Obamacare exchange plans, or Medicaid coverage for individuals over age 18—likely because these options involve federal taxpayer subsidies.

What the Proclamation Doesn’t Say

It shouldn’t need stating outright, but contrary to claims that the proclamation constitutes a “racist attack on a community who deserves health care,” the order says not a word about a specific race, or national or ethnic group. It also exempts “any alien holding a valid immigrant visa issued before the effective date of this proclamation,” meaning the requirement will apply prospectively and not retrospectively.

Liberal reporters claimed that “the move effectively creates a health insurance mandate for immigrants,” after Republicans eliminated Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty. But this charge too ignores the fact that the proclamation—unlike Obamacare—includes an exception for those who “possess…the financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs.” (The proclamation does not define this term, meaning that the administration will presumably go through a rulemaking process to do so.)

The Real Story

Liberals’ hysteria over the issue demonstrates a massive shift leftward in recent years. Consider that in 1993, Hillary Clinton testified before Congress that she opposed extending benefits to “illegal aliens,” because it would encourage additional migration to the United States:

We do not think the comprehensive health care benefits should be extended to those who are undocumented workers and illegal aliens. We do not want to do anything to encourage more illegal immigration into this country. We know now that too many people come in for medical care, as it is. We certainly don’t want them having the same benefits that American citizens are entitled to have.

Even in 2009, Barack Obama felt the need to claim that his health plan wouldn’t cover those in the country illegally (even if the claim didn’t stand up to scrutiny). The fact that Democrats have now gone far beyond Obama’s position, and have attacked President Trump for ensuring foreign citizens will not burden our health care system—a position liberals claim to support for Americans—speaks to the party’s full-on embrace of both socialism and open borders.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.