• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. keep building.

Dear Washington Post, you are the darkness now.

I am pretty sure these ‘journalists’ were not always such a bootlicking sycophants.

In my day, never was longer.

Let me file that under fuck it.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to become the ultimate, unaccountable arbiter of everything.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

The real work of an opposition party is to oppose.

If you are still in the gop, you are either an extremist yourself, or in bed with those who are.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

Marge, god is saying you’re stupid.

Of course you can have champagne before noon. That’s why orange juice was invented.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

Trump should be leading, not lying.

The current Supreme Court is a dangerous, rogue court.

Come on, man.

Conservatism: there are people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

Republicans do not pay their debts.

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

American history and black history cannot be separated.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Anderson On Health Insurance / Medicaid Partial Expansion and the Counterfactual

Medicaid Partial Expansion and the Counterfactual

by David Anderson|  February 28, 20197:54 am| 8 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance

FacebookTweetEmail

What is the counterfactual?

That is the critical question in evaluating any policy. What are the policy outcomes being compared against? Is the counterfactual current law/current guidance of the law? Is the counterfactual current local policy? Is the counterfactual something else? These are all valid counterfactuals for a variety of questions. Choosing one counterfactual over another sometimes will not matter. Sometimes it matters a great deal.

It matters a great deal when analyzing the implications of Medicaid Partial Expansion. The relevant counterfactual will be different depending on the state. Massachusetts should have a counterfactual of current law of full expansion while Georgia should have a counterfactual of current law and local policy of no expansion. Utah is a special case and I’m not sure what the right counterfactual is.

Why does this matter?

Healthcare Dive is highlighting a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation:

Partial Medicaid expansion with Affordable Care Act matching funds could limit state spending, but it will come at the cost of fewer people insured than full Medicaid expansion, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Yes, partial Medicaid expansion will cover fewer people than full Medicaid expansion. If that is not the case, someone is doing partial wrong. But is that the relevant counterfactual in states like Georgia or Tennessee?

I don’t think it is the right counterfactual.

Right now, it does not look like full expansion of Medicaid to adults earning no more than 138% federal poverty level(FPL) is on the table. The choice set is either a change in current policy in the form of a partial expansion of Medicaid to adults earning up to 100% FPL or no change in policy. No change in policy means people earning over 100% FPL and less than 138% FPL still qualify for exchange subsidies and out of pocket assistance. No change in policy means there is significant friction on enrollment that keeps people in this cohort from being continually covered. No change in policy means that almost everyone who earns under 100% FPL will not be exchange assistance eligible and many will not be able to be eligible for Medicaid. That, I think, is the relevant counterfactual for current non-expansion states.

Now for states that have already fully expanded Medicaid but would like to off load some costs back to the Federal government in the form of a partial expansion of Medicaid, current policy and current law is the relevant counterfactual.

Determining the right counterfactual determines the questions which determines the answers one gets. Getting the counterfactual right is critical.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « On the Road and In Your Backyard
Next Post: Yet Again, This is How You Do It »

Reader Interactions

8Comments

  1. 1.

    Uncle Cosmo

    February 28, 2019 at 8:47 am

    O/t but – may I make a friendly suggestion? Have you considered emulating Cheryl by starting your own healthcare policy blog & crossposting here? IMO you’d stand a much better chance of getting some meaningful discussion going. Here most of your threads are met with stunned silence because only a very very few jackals are (again in my estimation) ready & willing & able to accompany you on deep dives through the major & minor arcana of the subject. (E.g., I hold a master’s in applied statistics, so in theory I should be able to follow the material, but TBH my eyes usually glaze over by the third para.)

  2. 2.

    rikyrah

    February 28, 2019 at 9:27 am

    Can you talk about how it’s legal with states trying to limit Medicaid after the voters VOTED to expand Medicaid.

  3. 3.

    Barbara

    February 28, 2019 at 9:44 am

    I had a long comment that got eaten, so I am shortening it. The answer from a health policy perspective is easy, but you are wrong to see this as primarily an issue of health policy. We have a way of expressing the collective will, and that is through the enactment of statutes by Congress. These states have always been (a) net federal tax recipients and (b) incredibly stingy with providing Medicaid coverage. They turned down free money because they didn’t like the policy bargain that was enacted. They should not be allowed to, essentially, rewrite the statute to reflect their own policy preferences when those are contrary to what Congress enacted. This isn’t just a rule of law thing. This is fundamental to the idea that individual states cannot decide to participate only in those collective actions that suit their own policy preferences.

  4. 4.

    Michael Cain

    February 28, 2019 at 10:45 am

    @rikyrah: I assume you’re talking about Utah. Ballot initiatives in the West come in all sorts of flavors. In California and Colorado, where it’s almost as easy to amend the state constitution as to pass statute, many changes are embedded in the constitution where legislators can’t touch it (Colorado’s constitution is embarrassing larded up with such). In Arizona, the constitution says the legislature can’t touch initiative statutes for five years. In Utah, statutes enacted by initiative are no different than any other statute and are fair game for the legislature. (Same thing in Montana, where the voters approved medical marijuana some years back, the legislature whittled away at it, and in 2016 the voters approved another initiative tossing the legislature’s changes.)

  5. 5.

    Matt

    February 28, 2019 at 11:22 am

    “These states are going to try to hurt their citizens no matter what, so we should evaluate policy changes positively if they make the hurt less.”

    Nope. We should continue to state loudly and clearly to citizens of GA and TN: “YOUR STATE GOVERNMENT IS FUCKING YOU OVER ON PURPOSE FOR NO GOOD REASON”.

  6. 6.

    Barbara

    February 28, 2019 at 11:43 am

    @Matt: I would just encourage everyone to understand how most of these states are already favored under the current Medicaid funding mechanisms, called FMAP, which has never had the effect of making them more generous. States are generous or not depending on whether they value Medicaid beneficiaries as citizens and voters, not whether they need the money for other things. Source

  7. 7.

    Michael Cain

    February 28, 2019 at 12:49 pm

    @Barbara: Here’s the FY2020 FMAP numbers. Wyoming is the outlier, the only state getting the minimum match that has not expanded its Medicaid program. Wyoming is peculiar in lots of ways.

  8. 8.

    Barbara

    February 28, 2019 at 1:13 pm

    @Michael Cain: It’s getting harder to compare states because the non-expansion states are now basically their own universe, but prior to expansion, the states that have not expanded yet typically had among the lowest percentage FPL coverage under the original Medicaid program. So these states are not just turning down 100% sharing, but the proportion of Medicaid eligible participants in these states is almost certainly higher as a total percentage of all Medicaid eligible adults. These are the states that would benefit the most from the expansion, in terms of additional federal dollars flowing to the state. In 2013, the states with the lowest percentage FPL thresholds for Medicaid coverage were Arkansas, Alabama, Indiana, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Virginia, Kansas, West Virginia and Missouri.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by GB in the HC (5/23)

Recent Comments

  • Spanky on Late Night Open Thread (May 24, 2025 @ 6:35am)
  • Spanky on Late Night Open Thread (May 24, 2025 @ 6:31am)
  • lowtechcyclist on Late Night Open Thread (May 24, 2025 @ 6:19am)
  • JoyceH on Late Night Open Thread (May 24, 2025 @ 5:57am)
  • Jeffg166 on Late Night Open Thread (May 24, 2025 @ 5:55am)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!