iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Health Care Law Glitch Opens Medicaid To Millions Of Middle-Class Americans

Obama Health Care Law Medicaid Glitch

RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR   06/21/11 10:34 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.

The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.

After initially downplaying any concern, the Obama administration said late Tuesday it would look for a fix.

Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps.

Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster says the situation keeps him up at night.

"I don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense," Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting.

"This is a situation that got no attention at all," added Foster. "And even now, as I raise the issue with various policymakers, people are not rushing to say ... we need to do something about this."

Administration officials said Tuesday they now see the problem. "We are concerned that, as a matter of law, some middle-income Americans may be receiving coverage through Medicaid, which is meant to serve only the neediest Americans," said Health and Human Services spokesman Richard Sorian. "We are exploring options to address this issue."

Administration officials and senior Democratic lawmakers initially defended the change, saying it wasn't a loophole but the result of a well-meaning effort to simplify the rules for deciding who would get help under the new health care law. Instead of a hodgepodge, there would be one national policy.

But Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, called the situation "unacceptable" and said he intended to look into it.

Governors have been clamoring for relief from Medicaid costs, complaining that federal rules drive up spending and limit state options. The program is now one of the top issues in budget negotiations between the White House and Congress. Republicans want to roll back federal requirements that block states from limiting eligibility.

Medicaid is a safety net program that serves more than 50 million vulnerable Americans, from low-income children and pregnant women to Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes. It's designed as a federal-state partnership, with Washington paying close to 60 percent of the total cost.

Early retirees would be a new group for Medicaid. While retirees can now start collecting Social Security at age 62, they must wait another three years to get Medicare, unless they're disabled.

Some early retirees who worked all their lives may not want to join a program for the poor, but others might see it as a relatively painless way to satisfy the new law's requirement that most Americans carry health insurance starting in 2014. It would help tide them over until they qualify for Medicare.

The actuary's office said the early retirees eligible for Medicaid would be on top of an estimated 16 million to 20 million new people that Obama's law already brings into the program, by opening it to childless adults with incomes near the poverty level.

It's unclear how much it would cost to cover the retirees. Federal taxpayers will cover the entire initial cost of the expansion.

Republicans already see a problem.

Former Utah governor Mike Leavitt said bringing early retirees in will "just add fuel to the fire," bolstering the argument from Republican governors that some of Washington's rules don't make sense.

"The fact that this is being discovered now tells you, what else is baked into this law?" said Leavitt, who served as Health and Human Services secretary under President George H.W. Bush. "It clearly begins to reveal that the nature of the law was to put more and more people under eligibility for government insurance."

The Medicare actuary's office roughed out some examples to illustrate how the provision would work. A married couple retiring at 62 in 2014 and receiving the maximum Social Security benefit of $23,500 apiece could get $17,000 from other sources and still qualify for Medicaid with a total income of $64,000.

That $64,000 would put them at about four times the federal poverty level, which for a two-person household is $14,710 this year. The Medicaid expansion in the health care law was supposed to benefit childless adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level. A fudge factor built into the law bumps that up to 138 percent.

The actuary's office acknowledged its $64,000 example would represent an unusual case, but nonetheless the hypothetical couple would still qualify for Medicaid.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they dis...
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they dis...
Filed by Alexander Belenky  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8,086
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (116 total)
10:24 PM on 07/14/2011
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (HR 3590) signed into law (Obama Care) in March of 2010 does much to increase access to health care, the cost associated with equal access is poorly managed and with an implementation plan sure to be worse than our current health care system.

H.R. 3590 will do much damage beyond the health care system and impacts in relation to deficits, entitlement spending and debt ceilings. While universal access to essential health care services should be everyone’s right, mankind simply has not found a viable way to bring this need to all mankind in a cost efficient, fair and sustainable approach.

Read more on my blog due to word limitations: www.BenFrasier.com/blog
photo
smitty101
Tell Vlad I can be more flexible after the electio
01:25 AM on 07/06/2011
I guess this must be one of the things Pelosi was talking about, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" LOL I guess we are finding out.
07:32 PM on 06/26/2011
High-end Social Security from high-end jobs. Why wouldn't the actuarial math include the economic assumption of high-end investment income? How much investment income does it take to get to the 17K ineligibility? Of course, it is more fun to to play party paranoia and label a narrower-than-we-thought unintended consequence as the deliberate cramming of more people into public welfare programs. Surely there are real wrongs we can talk about.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Royal Payne
10:21 PM on 06/25/2011
OMG, I feel like the Virgin Mary and I was never kissed.
05:31 PM on 06/25/2011
Wait. Since when did $64,000 gross income for a couple -- minus income taxes (yes you pay taxes on Social Security income - trust me) -- minus the current Medicare monthly premiums of about $256 per beneficiary (trust me - I know this too), put a couple like this, with this income, those income tax liabilities, and these healthcare costs - in a solid middle class status and too well off for other benefits? I don't know...doesn't sound like much net to live on if you ask me.

"Former Utah governor Mike Leavitt said adding early retirees will "just add fuel to the fire," bolstering the argument from Republican governors that some of Washington's rules don't make sense."

If they feel that way, they can go on Social Security, get their $23,500 max yearly benefit, pay income taxes on it, AND pay the current $256/mo of their SS benefit income in Medicare premiums. (Not to mention co-pays, drug costs, hospital stays...ad nausea.)

BUT...not being subject to this citizen's retirement "entitlement" in their line of work, what's the chance they are under some delusion that all this is income tax free and free of health care costs too? I can only speculate, but I'm sensing double standard in this....

Maybe this is changing in ways I don't know of in 2014, but my figures are current year.
07:00 PM on 06/26/2011
By now, someone has alerted you that the loophole is when they are too young to qualify for Medicare, and the Medicaid window is three years. That said, the example of two people with the maximum Social Security income would have had way bigger salaries than I did. If they had the wits to earn a big income, they also have income from investment, which is taxable. Funny that the actuarial estimates, that put the high-end SS for a married couple, did not also estimate income from other sources commensurate with the SS. So how narrow is the field, and limited to three years, (with intolerable service from Medicaid providers in the experience of the high-end wage-earner), and few people at that end, and isn't it an unintended consequence anyway?
Who are these pundits and critics who conclude that the Obama Administration did this deliberately in order to get more and more people on public welfare? A headline grabbing bunch who do not put the interest of this country first.
01:28 PM on 06/28/2011
If you think about it, what these pundits and critics are really claiming is that their alleged "many more people" on welfare seems to telling. What I mean is that they recognize some notable wage differences exist for "the majority" who fall into that window. Hmm... is that like admitting that one knows salaries between "average citizens" and those in the income stratosphere, really ARE that different? Sounds to me that is the underlying unspoken premise, whether they admit it to themselves or not. I had a 401K. The 2008 recession took care of much of that. As for earning large salaries, I think that a moderate salary that climbs slowly but steadily; staying in the moderate range (we're talking no where near $100,000/year) will also put you into that upper category. I base this on my husband's earnings over 30 years. Mine, on the other hand, went up and down; at times a fourth of his; at other times exceeding his. It puts me well under what his final benefit will be.
photo
john1513
Ora et Labora
12:07 PM on 06/24/2011
Whoops! Just in time for campaign season.
10:52 AM on 06/24/2011
So, 3 million more people are likely to end up on Medicaid, a government health care plan. The dems continually getting more people dependent on government should not be considered a "glitch".
07:05 PM on 06/26/2011
Think. The highest end Social Security times two. The earned income for that was high end, too. Wouldn't such people have other income (e.g. investments) that make them ineligible for this Medicaid unintended consequence? The actual actuarial example needs an economic assumption of investment income that puts the candidates out of eligibility. "The dems" as you call "them" include other congressmen and senators. We could have a good talk about whether anyone is doing a job for "we the people."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
emilia8
01:38 AM on 06/24/2011
Every great Empire has fallen because of liberal interference. This nation is no exception. The liberals keep giving away our greatness, until we are no longer exist.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Renee150
It is what it is!
03:48 AM on 06/24/2011
Nah! The Republicans keep giving to the Rich and could care less about this nation. They have ruined the middle class and many more thing that have made America great.
07:10 PM on 06/26/2011
Think about this. Our great Empire includes a culture that thinks "rino" is an insult to the person to whom it is attached. But really, the rino usually has been seen to think outside the herd. And it is the herd mentality that would consider it wrong-headed to be a "Republican In Name Only." There are capable and intelligent Republicans (I admit there are some) who are afraid to speak their best thoughts for fear of "offending the base." Who writes this stuff that makes a sport of serious lawmaking?
07:48 PM on 06/23/2011
I am appauled with this news of possible medicaid access to millions more. I believe it is simply an end-run around the legislatur­e to get a public option. I will be contacting Senators Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman about this, maybe they can stop it. They should also be working toward increasing the fines for not having insurance.
07:15 PM on 06/26/2011
Do the math. Whoever gets maximum 23K Social Security had a really good salary or income. Whoever it is has really good investment income, too. For three years, it will still bring the taxable income into ineligibility. Shoot the people who wrote the unintended consequence into the bill if you wish, but it will draw your attention from something else that is worthy of your time.
One more thing. Do you think the person who had job perks will like the service as a Medicaid patient?
06:20 PM on 06/23/2011
The Medicare office is ridiculous on this. If they spent more time properly and fairly managing CMS then this would not be an issue.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:53 PM on 06/23/2011
I don't know what kind of infrastructure changes AOL has made to HP since they bought them out, but the site performance and usability suck worse than a bucktoothed hooker with the hiccups.
08:18 AM on 06/23/2011
This is ridiculous. You know this will be fixed. Did anyone really think that a bill of this magnitude would have no errors? This is just another way for the Obama haters to discredit him. How are we to know that on a bill this large it wasn't the GOP who wrote this in when they did some of the "editing" they did to make it more pleasing to them. It could have just been one big set up. Regardless, I'm sure 3.5 years is enough time to fix it.

Richard Forest can't sleep? Check out Foster's political party affiliation (GOP). It behooves his party for him to suffer from insomnia.

The one real question in this is why the media is playing this game when they know this oversight will not be allowed to stand? What an utter waste of time and attention.
photo
maninal2
Without knowledge action is useless
09:22 AM on 06/23/2011
Foster and the rest of the GOP can't sleep not because of HCR but because of the laughable crop of presidential candidates that have oozed to the forefront for the GOP.
barrada nicto
Optimism is necessary.
01:03 AM on 06/23/2011
Remember when teachers, public
employees, Planned Parenthood,
NPR and PBS crashed the stock
market, wiped out half of
our 401Ks, took trillions in
taxpayer funded bailouts,
spilled oil in the Gulf
of Mexico, gave themselves
billions in bonuses, and paid
no taxes?
Yeah, me neither...

So let's take away their health care.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jackbond
12:49 AM on 06/23/2011
"Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster says the situation keeps him up at night."

People getting health care keeps him up at night? He needs to take something.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dangerous Dan
Because I can!
09:15 PM on 06/22/2011
100% Democrat owned. Blame it on Obama, 2012!
photo
maninal2
Without knowledge action is useless
09:23 AM on 06/23/2011
Yep. Democrats will be known for providing health care access to millions while the GOP will be vilified for working night and day to deny Americans the basic necessities of life. Get used to Obama. You have another 4 after 2012 to adjust.