Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
(Al Hartmann | The Salt Lake Tribune) Vivian Lee, dean of the Univeristy of Utah Medical School, is an advocate of expanding Medicaid in Utah. "If Utah opts into the expansion, we get $3.5 billion back. If we don't , we get zero back," she said.
Medicaid expansion far from decided in Utah
Health reform » Behind-closed-doors negotiations continue with no consensus in sight.
First Published Feb 06 2014 03:19 pm • Last Updated Feb 06 2014 10:09 pm

When Utah Gov. Gary Herbert proclaimed that "doing nothing" about a possible Medicaid expansion "is not an option," low-income advocates cheered and national news outlets declared the matter decided.

But days later, House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, opened the 2014 legislative session with a hard-line response, rejecting any expansion plan that depends on federal funding.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

Since those opening salvos, negotiations over one of the most contentious and significant decisions of the session have happened behind closed doors.

"We’re kicking around various ideas but waiting for cost data on some of them. Nothing’s ready for prime time," said Rep. Jim Dunnigan, R-Taylorsville, co-chair of a legislative task force charged with recommending solutions.

Rep. Dean Sanpei, R-Provo, another task force member, said there seems to be some agreement over paying to plug a coverage gap affecting Utahns with incomes under the poverty level — who are ineligible for Affordable Care Act subsidies on the federal health exchange. The federal law excluded them, anticipating states would extend Medicaid coverage to such poor residents.

"We want to try to find a solution," Sanpei said, "but there’s not consensus on how to do that and there’s even less consensus on how to fund that."

He said there are several options: Do you give them state subsidies to buy coverage or cover them with Medicaid funds? Another idea: Cover them with some sort of extension of "UPP," a state program that uses Medicaid funds to help employees pay their monthly premium to enroll in workplace health benefits.

Also up for debate, said Dunnigan, is where these individuals would shop for insurance: Utah’s small-business exchange, Avenue H, or the federal www.healthcare.gov.

Adding another complication, according to Sanpei: "Do you treat that entire population the same or do you look at alternatives designed to target the most vulnerable in the population, like the medically frail or uninsured parents with children?"

If parents get sick and have to stop spending money on food and clothes, that hurts the children, he explained.


story continues below
story continues below

Overshadowing the entire debate, however, is the question of funding.

Tapping state funds frees Utah from certain federal constraints, giving it room to innovate.

"To the degree we only look at state dollars," Sanpei said, "then we start focusing on where the needs are greatest."

But it also means forgoing billions in funding over the next decade.

Utah taxpaying individuals and businesses (mostly in the health industry) are going to fork over $6.4 billion in federal, Affordable Care Act-related taxes during that time frame, according to University of Utah Health Care CEO Vivian Lee.

"If Utah opts into the expansion, we get $3.5 billion back. If we don’t, we get zero back," she said. "We’re subsidizing other states if we don’t do the Medicaid expansion. It’s not like we’re going to get that money back on our taxes."

Utah hospitals have voiced support for a "private option" alternative embraced by Arkansas, Iowa and a growing number of other states.

The idea is to use public dollars to buy private insurance for residents with incomes under the poverty level, leaving those who earn up to 138 percent of that level to shop with federal subsidies on the federal health exchange.

Herbert said Thursday that he likes the Arkansas plan, adding it doesn’t matter if it’s done with state or federal dollars.

Speaking for himself, Sanpei agreed, it’s "a very viable and reasonable option." But he said the feds don’t like it because subsidies are more expensive for them than funding a Medicaid expansion and it’s not how they envisioned the coverage under the health law.

If the state wanted to go that route, it would need to get a waiver from Health and Human Services, or else the feds may not foot 100 percent of the expansion bill, he explained.

Next Page >


Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.