Repealing the Affordable Care Act Would Devastate New Jersey

 

ACA repeal main-01

Imagine, in 2019: 58,000 Hudson County residents losing Medicaid coverage. 19,000 Ocean County residents losing access to Marketplace insurance plans. 22,000 Bergen County seniors losing invaluable prescription drug coverage. $350 million in lost federal funds in Middlesex County. 48 deaths in Union County.

In county after county, the numbers are clear: repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) without an adequate replacement would devastate New Jersey.

The greatest harm would be caused by repealing the Medicaid expansion, which would terminate health coverage for about 550,000 low-income New Jerseyans and cost the state about $3 billion in federal funds each year. Despite threats by Congress and the President to end the Medicaid expansion, participation increased by another 12,000 in the enrollment period ending last month, demonstrating the urgent need for this coverage. In addition, up to about 300,000 New Jerseyans who signed up for a plan in the Marketplace would lose their coverage, and with it a billion dollars in federal funds that pay for premium subsidies to make insurance affordable. That is a total $4 billion loss to New Jersey which would result in an estimated loss of about 86,000 jobs and 84 deaths due to lack of insurance.

Both of those cuts affect mostly working New Jerseyans who are struggling to get by in a state with one of the highest costs of living in the nation, but the elderly would also be harmed by the proposed repeal of the ACA. For example, seniors have benefited from the closing of the gap in prescription drugs in Medicare, often referred to as the “donut hole.” Over 200,000 seniors would lose this assistance that enables them to pay for prescriptions that are often life-saving. If this benefit is eliminated the average senior would have to pay $1,241 more each year which would force them to choose between paying for their medications or rent.

Click here for the impact in each county:

Atlantic | Bergen | Burlington | Camden | Cape May | Cumberland | Essex | Gloucester | Hudson | Hunterdon | Mercer | Middlesex | Monmouth | Morris | Ocean | Passaic | Salem | Somerset | Sussex | Union | Warren

Methodology

Medicare Donut Hole

Each county’s share of annual enrollment for all Medicare prescription drugs from The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Yearly Medicare Enrollment Counts State and County (2015) was applied towards total persons receiving Medicare donut hole coverage in New Jersey and the total federal expenditures in New Jersey from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Compilation of State Data on the Affordable Care Act (2015).

Marketplace

Total enrollees taken from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Plan selections by County and Zip Code in the Health Insurance Marketplace (March 2016), and lost federal funds were calculated based on total subsidies received (adjusting for inflation) using the March 2015 and March 2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Effectuated Enrollment Snapshot, applied towards the number of estimated participants in the Marketplace for each county.

Medicaid Expansion

Number of adults enrolled in the expansion taken from New Jersey’s Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services’ NJ FamilyCare enrollment website (January 2017), and the prorata share of enrollment in each county was applied towards the total federal funds for the Medicaid expansion estimated for state fiscal year 2019 by the New Jersey Department of Human Services in Discussion Points prepared for the Office of Legislative Services for the fiscal year 2016 Budget, adjusted to take into account higher enrollment in January 2017.

Jobs and Deaths

To estimate the number of jobs lost, the county share of total federal funds lost was applied to the estimated total jobs lost in The Commonwealth Fund’s Repealing Federal Health Reform: Economic and Employment Consequences for States (January 2017). The death rates for uninsured are based on Health Insurance and Mortality in US (December 2009), with the death rate applied to the total number of uninsured due to ACA as estimated in the same Commonwealth Fund report. Estimated deaths are over a 12-year period (consistent with the Health Insurance and Mortality in US report). Deaths for each county were calculated by applying the share of persons losing benefits in the Marketplace and Medicaid in each county applied towards the total deaths in the state.

Don’t Take My Son’s Life-Saving Health Care Away

This op-ed appeared in the February 5, 2017 edition of the Star-Ledger

As Congress inches toward repealing the Affordable Care Act with no apparent replacement, the health and lives of tens of millions of Americans hangs in the balance. My 4-year-old son is one of them, and I urge New Jersey’s four congressmen who recently voted to advance repeal to hear his story, to think about his future and to explain why they want to take away his affordable and life-saving coverage.

They are U.S. Reps. Frank LoBiondo (R-2nd Dist.), Chris Smith (R-4th Dist.), Leonard Lance (R-7th Dist.) and Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11th Dist.).

In 2015, when he was just 2, my son Michael wasn’t doing well. He was lethargic, he was eating a ton but not gaining any weight and he was urinating excessively. Imagine our shock when we found out he had Type 1 diabetes, and was not just under the weather but nearly dead — his life saved only by the quick and decisive actions of our family pediatrician.

Before we get much further, let’s clear things up: Type 1 diabetes is not the same as Type 2 diabetes. Michael will have Type 1 diabetes forever, unless a cure is found. No amount of “diet and exercise” will make his chronic condition go away.

And no, Michael’s Type 1 diabetes wasn’t caused by him being overweight. It’s a genetic and autoimmune disease that about 40,000 children and adults are diagnosed with each year. In all, nearly 1.3 million Americans are living with Type 1 diabetes.

In other words, in the parlance of the Affordable Care Act, my 4-year-old son has a “pre-existing condition.” And he will forever.

This condition, I should note, is really expensive. Michael is kept alive by a vial of insulin, since his pancreas doesn’t produce a drop of the stuff. The insulin that flows into his little body through a mechanical pump has nearly tripled in cost in the past decade, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Just last week, a class-action lawsuit was filed accusing three manufacturers of this life-sustaining drug of conspiring to drive up the costs of insulin.

Whether or not that’s true, the fact remains: This drug — and the laundry list of other drugs and supplies we have to keep to ensure our 4-year-old son stays alive — is not affordable without excellent health insurance. Luckily, we have been able to find affordable and comprehensive coverage for Michael on the ACA’s health insurance exchange.

In the past, insurers could discriminate against people like my son; their pre-existing conditions often led to higher premiums, or denial of coverage altogether. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, that’s no longer legal.

As he gets older, and potentially faces a variety of serious medical complications from his diabetes, he’ll become a less and less “attractive customer” to health insurers whose primary concern is protecting their bottom lines. If the Affordable Care Act is no longer there to protect him from the vagaries of an industry with a long track record of putting profits before people, he will face enormous bills for health coverage. And that’s if he’s lucky enough to even be approved for coverage.

Make no mistake: Michael is not alone. In fact, over 52 million non-elderly Americans — including 1.2 million New Jerseyans — had declinable pre-existing conditions in 2015, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Also unmistakable is the fact that, overall, Michael is very lucky. His parents (my wife and me) are middle-class professionals able to pay for his nonsubsidized insurance on the exchange. He’s not among the 14 million Americans — including more than half a million New Jerseyans, of whom about 100,000 are children — who have obtained coverage due to the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, people whose coverage will likely disappear after repeal takes effect.

And he’s not among the other 60 million low-income Americans (and 1.3 million New Jerseyans, of whom over 600,000 are children) on “pre-expansion” Medicaid (and NJ FamilyCare) who face grave threats to coverage, in the form of “block grants” that would lead to devastating cuts in service or eligibility as the federal government reduces spending on Medicaid by $1 trillion or so over 10 years.

As members of Congress move to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they need to be clear of the consequences. Repeal without an adequate and robust replacement will take affordable coverage away from my 4-year-old son and millions of others just like him. Putting their lives in jeopardy in order to score political points is not only a terrible way to make public policy, it’s immoral.

Our congressional leaders must stand up against this destruction.

GOP Governors are Standing Up for Obamacare

This op-ed appeared in the Sunday, January 15, 2017 edition of the Star-Ledger.

With this week’s late-night Senate vote, lawmakers in D.C. have begun their attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion. As the prospects of repeal have become more realistic, some courageous Republican governors are pressing Congress to protect the health coverage of millions of their constituents.

Time’s running out, and Gov. Chris Christie should join them now to make the urgent case to Congress and President-elect Trump to protect the most certain piece of his legacy: expanding Medicaid for over half a million low-income New Jerseyans.

In the State of the State address, Christie emphasized the critical role that the Medicaid expansion played in the state’s efforts to treat New Jerseyans addicted to opioid drugs. Over three-quarters of the funding for the governor’s major behavioral-health and substance-use disorder initiative this year was from federal Medicaid dollars. It is that very guarantee of federal matching funds for an unforeseen health crisis that Republicans in Congress want to eliminate. Yet while the governor spent the bulk of his State of the State on what he sees as the urgent need to fight addiction, he has thus far remained silent about protecting his best vehicle to fund that fight. That needs to change.

As a Republican with close ties to the Republican Party and the President-elect, Christie is in an excellent position to advocate for 530,000 struggling New Jerseyans who are at risk of losing the only health insurance if the Medicaid expansion is repealed. At the very least, the governor should tell New Jersey’s Republican Congressmen that it would be the height of irresponsibility to repeal Obamacare without replacing it at the same time.

In addition to preserving health care for hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans, Christie has a lot riding on this issue because his decision to opt for the Medicaid expansion could arguably be considered his most important legacy as governor. The benefits to New Jersey have been stunning and unprecedented. Over a half million low-income, mostly working, residents have obtained health coverage, the primary explanation for the historic one-third decrease in the state’s uninsurance rate.  His decision has generated over $3 billion annually in federal funds for health care, which has helped create thousands of good jobs; and it has saved the state about $700 million each year, helping to balance the state budget.

The governor – one of 16 Republican governors who expanded Medicaid – is aware of the benefits to New Jersey, and in the past has enthusiastically defended his decision. Now, with the threat to health care access rising to new heights, it is time for him to do so again. By doing so, he’d be joining some of his fellow Republican governors from around the country, like Doug Ducey from Arizona, Ohio’s John Kasich and Rick Snyder from Michigan, who have already pressed Congress to spare their programs from repeal.

Christie’s case would be especially compelling because losing the Medicaid expansion would cause much greater harm to New Jersey than most other states. New Jersey saw the ninth largest increase in Medicaid enrollment in the nation due to the expansion. Taking away health coverage from hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans could create a health care crisis of historic proportions, while a loss of up to $3 billion loss in federal funds would also wreak havoc in the state’s health care industry and its fragile budget and economy.

These are arguments that New Jersey’s Republican Representatives should listen to – especially if they are made by a fellow home-state Republican. In addition, they know the tremendous harm that such a loss in health care would mean in their districts. In fact, 145,000 New Jerseyans who are now covered under the Medicaid expansion live in their districts.

Christie also should urge New Jersey’s Congressional delegation to not repeal the ACA without first replacing it with something better. This goes far beyond the Medicaid expansion and includes the fate of the health insurance market, consumer protections and even Medicare improvements. A recent poll found that three in four Americans either do not want the ACA repealed or repealed without a replacement at the same time.

But that is not what the Republicans in Congress are planning; they want to repeal now, and then figure out how best to replace later. Since Congressional Republicans haven’t been able to agree on a replacement for the last six years, even though they have voted to repeal the ACA over 60 times, a healthy dose of skepticism regarding their interest in, or capacity to, enact a replacement is warranted.

And the proposals they have discussed – like more tax breaks for the wealthy, high deductibles for bare- bone plans, and reducing essential insurance benefits – would all be bad news for struggling New Jerseyans only making matters worse. The most damaging idea is a Medicaid block grant, which would permanently cap funding at a sharply reduced level. Medicaid is the major health safety net for 1.8 million New Jerseyans. This plan would not only threaten the working poor in the Medicaid expansion, it could result in devastating cuts to health care for seniors, people with disabilities and children for generations to come.

In his final year in office, Christie has a chance to do what’s right and clearly beneficial for New Jersey. Will he seek to protect essential health care for struggling residents of his home state, or will he sit on the sidelines while his party destroys a lifeline for millions of Americans?

Lawmakers Act to Defend the ACA After NJPP Report

New Jersey Policy Perspective is gaining traction in the fight to defend the Affordable Care Act – and the thousands of New Jersey residents who rely on it for health care coverage.

Last month, NJPP released a groundbreaking report that showed the devastating impact repealing the Medicaid expansion portion of the Affordable Care Act would have on New Jersey residents.

That report is getting results.

This week, the New Jersey legislature acted on one of NJPP’s key recommendations: It passed a resolution urging Congress and the President not to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The resolution, which was overwhelmingly passed in both houses, cites many of the key findings of NJPP’s report.

On Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell cited NJPP’s findings in a letter to Gov. Christie, in which he urged the governor to make clear to Congressional leaders (who are soliciting feedback from governors nationwide) that repealing the health care law – and particularly the Medicaid expansion – “would have a disastrous impact on our state.” Using NJPP’s report, the Congressman’s letter makes a compelling case that protecting the Affordable Care Act and the Medicaid expansion is good for New Jersey’s low-income families, its state finances and economy, and its hospitals and health care providers. 

This report is the first of many steps that NJPP plans to take to oppose efforts by Congress and the Trump administration to return to the days when most New Jerseyans were either uninsured or underinsured. These steps will include a series of reports on the devastating consequences of repealing the ACA without an adequate replacement, public forums on the most pressing issues, and other actions.

To learn more about how you can support NJPP’s work on this front, please email Carly Rothman Siditsky at carly@njpp.org.

NJPP’s Ray Castro on Medicaid Block Grant Proposal

On Friday, NJTV News put together a segment about the national proposals to turn Medicaid health coverage into a block grant – a proposal that Gov. Christie has been promoting as something that will give states “much greater flexibility.” But as NJPP senior policy analyst Ray Castro notes, capping the program’s funding, which is essentially what shifting to block grants will do, could harm hundreds of thousands of New Jersey’s most vulnerable residents.

“We now receive about $3 billion additional in the Medicaid program,” he says. “The Medicaid program itself is around a $15 billion program so even if you get a one or two percent cut that’s hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s a cost that’s shifted to the states. The original proposal for block grants down in Washington cut the program by one trillion dollars nationwide over ten years, so you can see what the disastrous consequence of that could be for our state.”

Repealing the Medicaid Expansion: The Wrong Prescription for New Jersey

President-elect Donald Trump’s proposal to repeal the Medicaid expansion as part of rolling back most of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would harm New Jersey far more than most other states, Congressman Frank Pallone, health care policy experts and advocates representing Garden State consumers and hospitals said on a press conference call today.

“I want to thank New Jersey Policy Perspective for sounding the alarm and providing crucial insight as to the harm repealing Medicaid expansion would cause in New Jersey. More than half a million adults in New Jersey would lose their healthcare if the Medicaid expansion is ended,” said Congressman Pallone. “In just the district I represent, almost 40,000 adults would lose Medicaid coverage. Two-thirds of those people are low-wage workers, or are in a household in which an adult works. These individuals would have no other affordable healthcare option. As Ranking Member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I will work tirelessly to protect the Medicaid expansion and so many other important provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are under threat by the President-elect.”

The press call coincided with the release of a new report from New Jersey Policy Perspective, which lays out in stunning detail the damage such a repeal would have on the state.

The report finds that repealing the Medicaid expansion would:

  • Cause over a half million low-income residents to lose health coverage

  • Cost the state about $3 billion a year in federal funds

  • Reverse the historic progress New Jersey has made in reducing the number of residents without insurance

  • Deepen the state’s severe financial and budget crisis

  • Harm New Jerseyans across the state, as well as hospitals and other health care providers

“Repealing the Medicaid expansion would cause major harm for many struggling working New Jerseyans who are just trying to get by in a state with one of the highest costs of living in the nation,” said Ray Castro, NJPP Senior Policy Analyst and author of the report. “Most of these residents are working but they’re paid so poorly that, without Medicaid, they simply would have nowhere to turn for their basic health care needs.”

Advocates representing consumers and hospitals joined the call to warn of the negative consequences from repealing the expansion.

“Repealing the Affordable Care Act without an appropriate replacement would take us back to a place where hundreds of thousands of uninsured New Jerseyans receive care primarily in emergency rooms and charity care services top $1 billion annually,” said Betsy Ryan, President and CEO at the New Jersey Hospital Association. “The financial burden on hospitals would be tremendous, and we would all feel the impact through increased healthcare costs and reduced access to care.”

Repealing the Medicaid Expansion Would Reverse Health Coverage Gains & Deepen New Jersey’s Financial Crisis

To read a PDF version of this report, click here.


text-box-medicaid-repeal-01President-elect Donald Trump’s proposal to repeal the Medicaid expansion as part of rolling back most of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would harm New Jersey far more than most other states, causing over a half million low-income residents to lose health coverage and costing the state about $3 billion a year in federal funds. This would reverse the progress New Jersey has made in reducing the number of residents without insurance while deepening the state’s severe financial and budget crisis. New Jerseyans across the state, as well as hospitals and other health care providers, would be harmed.

The option for states to expand Medicaid took effect January 1, 2014 and allows them to raise eligibility to a higher, uniform national level and, for the first time, include adults without children at a much higher federal matching rate to make it easier for states to cover more Americans.

Given the threat the Trump proposal poses to New Jersey, the state’s Congressional delegation must strongly oppose any repeal of the Affordable Care Act, including the Medicaid expansion; Gov. Christie should use his influence to ensure that the expansion stays in place; the legislature should hold hearings and urge Congress to keep the expansion intact; and the state should stay the course and help more uncovered people enroll.

About 10 Percent of New Jersey Adults Would Lose Health Coverage

Repealing the Medicaid expansion would cause about 528,000 adult New Jerseyans – or 10 percent of all non-elderly adults in the state – to lose their health coverage. This is because so many New Jerseyans have benefitted from the Medicaid expansion – far more than originally anticipated. In fact, New Jersey has the eighth highest number of new participants.

Prior to the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid enrollment was decreasing but when the expansion became available, an additional 480,000 New Jerseyans signed up – increasing total enrollment by 37 percent over just three years.

medicaid-enrollments-2016-01

But it’s not just most of these new enrollees who are at risk of losing coverage. Many adults who had coverage in NJ FamilyCare before the Medicaid expansion, are also at risk because waivers that were granted by the federal government to assist them have since expired. In other words, the state could end up with fewer New Jerseyans in Medicaid than it had prior to the Medicaid expansion if it is repealed.

If all of these New Jerseyans lose their health coverage, it would reverse the historic gains the state has made in reducing the number of residents without health insurance. The Medicaid expansion and other parts of the ACA have caused the state’s uninsurance rate to drop by 34 percent in just two years, falling to an unprecedented 8.7 percent in 2015 from 13.2 percent in 2013. Now just 771,000 residents lack insurance, compared to 1,160,000 in 2013.[1]

The Medicaid expansion has helped drive this unprecedented progress in health coverage for New Jerseyans, much more so than the federal health insurance marketplace. More than twice as many New Jerseyans are in the Medicaid expansion than the marketplace; far fewer of them had health insurance prior to the ACA; they have lower incomes and therefore fewer insurance alternatives; and, as mentioned above, an entirely new group of New Jerseyans would become uninsured.

uninsured-reduction-01

Many At-Risk New Jerseyans Are Low-Paid Workers Trying to Get By in High-Cost New Jersey

Nearly two-thirds of the adults who are at risk of losing coverage under the repeal of the Medicaid expansion are working, or living in households where someone works.[2] These workers are paid very low wages and cannot afford even minimal medical care without assistance.

The Medicaid expansion extended health coverage to individuals up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, or an approximate annual income of $15,800 for an individual and $23,800 for a single parent with two children. Adults earning this little in New Jersey – the equivalent to between $8.50 and $15 for full-time, year-round work – are struggling every day just to pay for food and housing in a state with one of the highest costs of living in the nation.[3]

These New Jersey residents work in jobs we see every day: they are the servers at our local diner, the teachers at our child care center, the cashiers at the grocery, the salespeople at our favorite department store, our kid’s school bus drivers. In fact, the New Jerseyans in the Medicaid expansion work in nearly 300 different industries. Much of the comprehensive health care they are now able to receive is essential for them to continue to work, such as treatment, which was enhanced in the Medicaid expansion for the growing problems of substance abuse and mental illness.

industries-medicaid-expansion-01

New Jerseyans All Over the State Would Lose Coverage, but the Impact Would Be Most Severe in Urban Counties and Major Cities

Some New Jersey’s counties are among the wealthiest in the nation yet many of their residents would lose Medicaid if Trump’s proposal is adopted. The number of adults losing coverage ranges from 3,100 in Hunterdon County to 67,000 in Essex County. (For a full breakdown, which includes the number of parents at risk and the potential loss of federal funds by county, see the Appendix.)

medicaid-expansion-repeal-map-01

medicaid-expansion-cd-table-01The dangers posed by repealing the Medicaid expansion should be considered a bipartisan issue because the lack of health care harms Americans regardless of their political party affiliation. Although more New Jerseyans at risk of losing health coverage live in Democratic districts, 145,000 of them live in Republican districts.[4]

While the damage from repealing the Medicaid expansion would be felt in all parts of the state, it would be felt most keenly in many of New Jersey’s major cities.

A total of 163,000 adults – or about a third of the statewide total – are at risk of losing coverage in ten cities alone. In these cities, between one in three and one in seven adults are at risk. Newark has the most at-risk adults total (36,751), while Camden has the greatest share of at-risk adults (about one in three).

ten-cities-medicaid-repeal-01

New Jersey Would Suffer its Greatest Loss in Federal Funds Ever, Deepening its Financial Crisis

Repealing the Medicaid expansion would cause New Jersey to lose about $3 billion in federal funds each year starting in 2018 assuming the cuts take effect that year. This loss would total $11 billion over just four years. Such a large loss in federal funds would have what economists call a “multiplier effect,” resulting in a first-year loss of $4.1 billion in economic activity and many jobs, particularly in the health care sector.[5] Since the Medicaid expansion and the marketplace started in 2014, 24,000 health jobs have been added in New Jersey, many of which would be eliminated if the Medicaid expansion is repealed.

medicaid-repeal-cumulative-loss-01

state-costs-and-savings-medicaid-01This loss in federal funding would directly blow a big hole in New Jersey’s budget.

While there have been modest state costs due to the Medicaid expansion, on the whole the expansion has saved the state money. New Jersey has already saved $1 billion in the last three years thanks to the expansion, which has been used to balance the chronically unbalanced and underfunded state budget. New Jersey is also projected to save nearly half a billion dollars annually in the future – but that would not happen if the Medicaid expansion is repealed.

The reason for this windfall is that New Jersey was using state funds to help cover 167,000 childless adults and parents prior to the Affordable Care Act; the Medicaid expansion replaced those state funds entirely with federal funds. Prior to the ACA, New Jersey had paid for all the costs for childless adults receiving General Assistance. In addition, under a waiver, the state was responsible for a 35 percent match to obtain 65 percent matching federal funds for parents in NJ FamilyCare, which has since expired.

New Jersey’s finances are already at rock bottom, with the state unable to meet promised obligations, invest in the assets that can grow the state’s economy or ensure a strong safety net. Repeal of the Medicaid expansion would dig this very deep hole even deeper.

Hospitals and Health Care Providers Would Be Significantly Harmed

medicaid-expansion-spending-01Most of the medical services low-income New Jerseyans have received under the Medicaid expansion prevent more expensive hospitalizations. About three-quarters of the funding that is spent for the medical care they receive is for pharmacy, primary care, outpatient and other services that prevent more costly medical conditions and reduce the incidence of hospitalization. With repeal, thousands of primary doctors, specialists and pharmacists would be put in the very tough position of having to tell their patients they no longer can assist them, no matter how serious their condition, or continue to care for them without getting paid.

Hospitals would have their own set of major challenges. Under New Jersey law, residents cannot be charged for any emergency and other care in a hospital if their income is below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (residents between 200 to 300 percent of the federal poverty level also get some help but pay a sliding-scale fee). To help ensure that hospitals were able to provide this care, the state has historically had a line item in the budget for “charity care,” which is half paid for with state funds and half federal, and is distributed to all acute-care hospitals in the state.

But in the past few years, New Jersey has cut this charity care funding by more than half (to $302 million by the 2017 budget from $650 million in the 2015 budget). The Christie administration’s rationale was that hospitals would need less funding for charity care since more New Jerseyans had coverage through the Medicaid expansion (this was a bit misleading since the state never fully compensated the hospitals for their charity care in the first place).

If the Medicaid expansion is repealed, many of the newly uninsured would return to the hospital emergency rooms for their care even though charity care funds to serve them would no longer be sufficient. State policymakers would have to either replace these funds – at the very same time budget pressures would increase due to the reduction in federal Medicaid funds – or put the financial solvency of many of these hospitals in jeopardy. New Jersey’s hospitals employed 118,000 people and paid out $8 billion in salaries in 2014, and are often the largest employer in the towns in which they are located.[6] Undermining hospital finances would also harm local economies with immediate and consequentially negative ripple effects.

New Jersey’s Leaders Must Act to Preserve Coverage

1. New Jersey’s Congressional delegation must strongly oppose the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, including the Medicaid expansion.

Every Senator and member of the House that represents New Jersey should fight to preserve the Medicaid expansion for the sake of the tens of thousands of constituents in every Congressional district whose coverage is at stake. It will be particularly important that New Jersey’s House Republicans take the lead on this, since they are in the majority party in Congress.

At the very least, the Congressional delegation needs to oppose repeal until a suitable replacement is identified. Congressional leaders and President-elect Trump have said that they intend to repeal the Affordable Care Act first and worry about how to replace it later, before the repeal becomes effective (possibly in two years). The problem is these opponents of the ACA have yet to come up with a clear and adequate replacement. All of their suggestions so far, such as Health Savings Accounts, high-risk insurance pools and tax credits for premiums, would only benefit higher-income Americans and would be of virtually no help for the poorest Americans who benefit from the Medicaid expansion.

2. Gov. Christie should use his influence to ensure that the expansion stays in place.

While its unclear exactly how much influence Gov. Christie has with the President-elect, the governor was one of Trump’s close advisors during the campaign and a big supporter. This, and his embrace of the Medicaid expansion despite overall opposition to the ACA, makes Gov. Christie well-suited to highlight the special significance of the Medicaid expansion and help convince both the Trump administration and Congress to not repeal it.

3. The New Jersey legislature should hold hearings and urge Congress to maintain the Medicaid expansion.

The legislature should provide an opportunity for the Christie administration to explain how the state could respond to the possible repeal of the Medicaid expansion and/or how they will fight it in Congress. Since the governor has advocated for the repeal of the ACA, it is important that his administration provide an alternative that the state can implement to avoid the loss of health coverage to a half-million New Jerseyans. It will also be critical to understand how New Jersey can respond to the elimination of budget savings resulting from the Medicaid expansion and how the state can replace the cutbacks in charity care to avoid the possible closing of some hospitals.

4. The state should not start winding down the Medicaid expansion in anticipation of repeal.

New Jersey officials should stay the course on the Medicaid expansion and continue enrolling residents who need coverage, even with the threat of repeal on the horizon. It would be irresponsible for the state to prevent low-income residents from obtaining coverage – if even for a short time – or to turn down billions of dollars in federal funds while they are still available.

Appendix

screen-shot-2016-11-23-at-1-08-22-pm

Endnotes

 

[1] NJPP analysis of US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015.

[2]| The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, The Coverage Gap: Uninsured Poor Adults in States that Do Not Expand Medicaid, October 2016.

[3] Missouri Economic Research and Information Center, Composite Cost of Living, Third Quarter 2016.

[4] We count the fifth Congressional district – where a Democrat defeated a Republican on election day – as Democratic here, since we are looking at a proposal that could be taken up by the next Congress, not the current Congress.

[5] The methodology for converting federal funds received to economic activity and jobs was based on a report published by Families USA, New Jersey’s Economy Will Benefit from Expanding Medicaid, which contracted with the Regional Economic Model, Inc. (REMI) to estimate the impact of expanding Medicaid in New Jersey. REMI used its 51-Region PI+ Model, which includes 70 industry sectors for the Families USA report. The same ratio of federal funds to economic activity and jobs that was used in the above report was also used in this report.

[6] New Jersey Hospital Association, 2015 Economic Impact Report.

Census: More New Jerseyans Gain Health Insurance

Census Data: Number of New Jerseyans Without Health Insurance Continues to DropAffordable Care Act’s Impact Continues to Be Seen in Annual Census Reports

slide1Unprecedented progress has been made in increasing the number of New Jerseyans with health insurance as a result of the Affordable Care Act, new data from the U.S. Census Bureau released today shows. The number of people with coverage increased in 2015 for two main reasons: New Jersey’s decision to expand Medicaid to reach the poorest residents who otherwise couldn’t afford health insurance, and the success of the health insurance marketplace in making insurance more affordable for low- and moderate-income New Jerseyans. This new report is particularly important because 2015 is the first year when the ACA was fully implemented, and the census data rivals all other studies in quality because of its large sample size.

The share of New Jerseyans without insurance has dropped to 8.7 percent in 2015 from 13.2 percent in 2013 – a decrease of 34 percent. This was close to the national average percent decrease, which was 35.2 percent. The number of uninsured New Jerseyans decreased by 389,000 – just 771,000 lacked insurance in 2015 compared to 1,160,000 in 2013.

Since the Medicaid expansion started, about 480,000 additional New Jerseyans have enrolled, exceeding all projections. Thanks to New Jersey’s decision to expand Medicaid to help more people who can’t afford private insurance, more people are getting the care they need to go to work, take care of their kids, and be healthy, productive members of their community.

New Jersey is also saving about a half billion dollars a year as a result of the Medicaid expansion because it was rewarded under the ACA for expanding eligibility in NJ FamilyCare and it has reduced the state’s charity payments to hospitals. New Jersey leads the nation for its savings from the Medicaid expansion.

In spite of the fact that three insurers have recently left the marketplace, it has made revolutionary changes in New Jersey’s individual market and still offers many plans to choose from. Prior to the marketplace, the number of New Jerseyans purchasing comprehensive insurance had been decreasing for nearly two decades, owing to the nation’s highest premium rates that made this coverage unaffordable for middle-class families. The ACA changed that by making premium subsidies available to over 80 percent of everyone enrolling in the marketplace, which has helped make insurance much more affordable for about 250,000 New Jerseyans.

NJPP’s Ray Castro on Affordable Health Care

Following reports that the insurer Oscar is dropping out of New Jersey’s Affordable Care Act Marketplace next year, NJTV News took a look at the insurance landscape in the Garden State last night. NJPP’s Ray Castro told the station that this should be a “wake-up call” and that “we need to improve insurance conditions in New Jersey.”

He added that lawmakers should consider reforms that could clamp down on out-of-network billing and other issues that inflate costs.

“I think that we do need to lower the premium costs, and there are ways we can do that across federal and state levels,” Castro said. “I think there’s a solution to this problem.”