Medicaid Expansions

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling that states could decide for themselves whether to expand eligibility for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, a number of states have opted to do so using alternative approaches. Under federal waiver, these states have focused on expanding the use of private health insurance, requiring beneficiaries to pay premiums, and incentivizing them to choose cost-effective care. This new brief examines the variety of Medicaid reforms that Arkansas, Michigan, Iowa, and Pennsylvania are currently testing. By linking broader program reforms to the adult coverage expansion, these states can align Medicaid with local political conditions while extending insurance to more than 1 million adults who would otherwise lack a pathway to coverage.

This report examines the rollout of the ACA in Michigan, particularly focusing on the state’s passage of Medicaid expansion. The report outlines three key components that contributed to its successful efforts to pass Medicaid expansion – the governor's interest in pursuing the expansion, the support of a strong and vocal multi-sector coalition, and the inclusion of two federal waiver requirements – which could serve as model for other states with bipartisan or Republican-led governments seeking Medicaid expansion.

In some states, policymakers and stakeholders are considering adoption of the Basic Health Program (BHP) option permitted under the ACA. Through BHP, consumers with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) who would otherwise qualify for subsidized qualified health plans offered in health insurance marketplaces instead are offered state-contracting standard health plans that provide coverage no less generous and affordable than what have been provided in the marketplace. This paper reviews the federal BHP payment methodology; explains how state officials can use information about the characteristics of BHP-eligible consumers to estimate average federal payment amounts; and places the federal payment estimates in context, showing what they can and cannot contribute to a state’s analysis of BHP’s overall fiscal effects.

This letter provides guidance on the types of Medicaid coverage that qualify as minimum essential coverage (MEC), which includes certain coverage for low-income pregnant women, coverage for medically needy individuals, and coverage under an 1115 waiver program. This letter also clarifies how other Medicaid and CHIP coverage is regarded as MEC, and discusses related federal guidance issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to ensure pregnant women are not adversely impacted by a decision either to recognize or to not recognize certain coverage as MEC. Finally, this letter discusses hardship exemptions and the availability of special enrollment periods for individuals enrolled in Medicaid coverage that is not MEC.
 

The ACA gives states the option to implement a Basic Health Program (BHP) that covers low-income residents through state-contracting plans outside the health insurance marketplace, rather than qualified health plans (QHPs). BHP offers the prospect of improved affordability for low-income residents, fiscal gains for some states, and reduced churning. However, it also poses financial risks for states and has implications for state marketplaces. This paper summarizes the federal policies on BHP, including the requirements for BHP as well as the methodology for determining federal BHP payments. It also analyzes the key trade-offs facing states as they decide whether and, if so, how to implement BHP, with a particular focus on the impact of BHP on state budgets and the size, stability, and risk level of state marketplaces.