Sign up for our daily briefing

Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa Bay news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Charlotte news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

David Eggert / AP

The Medicaid spending reductions in the Senate health care bill would force states to choose between multiple unpleasant options when it comes to covering even traditional enrollees like the aged and disabled.

The bottom line: The bill's per-capita caps reduce the amount the government spends on Medicaid by about $180 billion compared to current law, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That means states — which must balance their budgets — must choose between three main options: raise taxes, cut spending elsewhere (like education), or cut Medicaid eligibility, benefits or provider payments. The best case scenario is that some states may be able to make their programs more efficient.

Why this matters: It's the reason why some moderates are so uncomfortable with the GOP bill. The Medicaid cuts are too painful for them.

What the bill does: Beginning in 2020, federal Medicaid funding switches from its current open-ended matching system to the per-person funding cap. At first, it grows with medical inflation, but then slows down in 2025 to grow with normal inflation.

This substantially reduces the amount of funding available over time, particularly once the growth rate slows. This funding reduction applies to most Medicaid enrollees, including the elderly, the disabled, pregnant women and children — not just the Affordable Care Act's expansion population.

"The challenge with Medicaid is there are benefits you can cut and don't result in people dying, but those don't save you any money," said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, which has said the cuts in the bill are too deep.

"And then there are benefits that save you a lot of money, but what, are you going to cut prescription drugs? Are you going to cut home and community services? That's hard to do."

Unlike the federal government, states have to balance their budgets every year. Medicaid is one of the biggest spenders already, and taking on a greater responsibility for the program means states would be hard-pressed to figure out how to make the numbers work.

And the cuts probably wouldn't spare the elderly and people with disabilities — because while they make up less than a quarter of Medicaid enrollees, they're responsible for more than 60 percent of spending. "Why do you have to cut services to the elderly and disabled? Because those are where the big dollars are," said Diane Rowland of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Here are the options:

Option 1: Raise state revenues, aka taxes. Some states would be more prone to do so than others.

Option 2: Cut spending elsewhere, and then use that money for Medicaid instead. But it's not like most state budgets are teeming with obvious places to cut spending. It'd be from programs like education or infrastructure.

Option 3: Make changes to the Medicaid program itself. There are several ways to do this.

  • Cut eligibility and/or benefits: State Medicaid programs cover certain mandatory groups, but others are optional. The same is true of benefits. For example, while it requires certain elderly and disabled people to qualify for coverage, others above certain income levels are optional. And while Medicaid has to cover hospital benefits, prescription drug coverage is optional.
  • Cut provider reimbursement rates: Medicaid already pays providers less than private insurance. The problem with cutting these rates even more is that it could make it difficult for enrollees to find doctors and hospitals that accept Medicaid.
  • Institute payment reforms and other cost-control measures: Many states are already doing this, said Lanhee Chen, a member of the Axios board of experts and a Stanford University research fellow. "The reality is it depends on what state you're talking about," he said, adding that many states can make their systems more efficient without making painful cuts. "The notion that states don't have any options at all is a false notion."

Yes, but: Because of these politically tough decisions, "it's going to be really hard for Congress to actually have that thing go into effect," said Ben Ippolito, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "Even if it gets passed, in my view, it's not necessarily a done deal."

Go deeper

Axios-Ipsos poll: Trust in federal coronavirus response surges

Data: Axios/Ipsos survey; Chart: Danielle Alberti/Axios

Trust surged in the federal government since President Biden's inauguration when it comes to COVID-19 — but that's almost entirely because of Democrats gaining confidence, according to the latest installment of the Axios/Ipsos Coronavirus Index.

The big picture: Americans reported the biggest improvement in their mental and emotional health since our survey began last March, and the highest trust levels since April about the federal government providing them accurate virus information and looking out for their best interests.

7 hours ago - Politics & Policy

McConnell drops filibuster demand, paving way for power-sharing deal

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (R) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell attend a joint session of Congress. Photo: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has abandoned his demand that Democrats state, in writing, that they would not abandon the legislative filibuster.

Between the lines: McConnell was never going to agree to a 50-50 power sharing deal without putting up a fight over keeping the 60-vote threshold. But the minority leader ultimately caved after it became clear that delaying the organizing resolution was no longer feasible.

8 hours ago - Technology

Scoop: Google won't donate to members of Congress who voted against election results

Sen. Ted Cruz led the group of Republicans who opposed certifying the results. Photo: Stefani Reynolds/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

Google will not make contributions from its political action committee this cycle to any member of Congress who voted against certifying the results of the presidential election, following the deadly Capitol riot.

Why it matters: Several major businesses paused or pulled political donations following the events of Jan. 6, when pro-Trump rioters, riled up by former President Trump, stormed the Capitol on the day it was to certify the election results.