The table below uses fiscal year 2017 Medicaid expenditure data from Kaiser Family Foundation inflated by 4 percent a year to project the extra funds that would be provided to each state in fiscal year 2020 if the House Democrats’ 8 percent FMAP bump up lasted the entire year.
It also includes the number of uninsured Americans per state in 2018. As a way of making comparisons across states, the final column shows the extra funding per uninsured individual. Importantly, it does not account for the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion population. If that group is also subject to the 8% bump up, the disparities would be even more pronounced since richer states were more likely to adopt the expansion and those states have fewer number of uninsured.
As the table shows, the average spending per uninsured would be about $1,575. The variability in federal aid would be enormous, however.
For example, Massachusetts, New York, and the District of Columbia would collectively stand to receive $8.1 billion in funds, or about $6,700 per uninsured individual. In fact, these two states plus Washington, D.C., would collectively receive more funding than Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Utah, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Nevada—the bottom 10 states in terms of dollars per uninsured—combined. These latter states have roughly 9.4 million more uninsured people than Massachusetts, New York, and D.C.
| State | FY ’20 Extra Funds | % of Funds | # of Uninsured | % Uninsured | $ per Uninsured |
| District of Columbia | $212,394,858.7 | 0.5% | 21,200 | 0.1% | $10,019 |
| Massachusetts | $1,414,540,075.1 | 3.2% | 181,200 | 0.6% | $7,807 |
| New York | $6,479,216,640.0 | 14.6% | 1,006,900 | 3.6% | $6,435 |
| Vermont | $124,673,941.5 | 0.3% | 24,500 | 0.1% | $5,089 |
| Rhode Island | $196,729,795.7 | 0.4% | 40,900 | 0.1% | $4,810 |
| Minnesota | $886,477,799.7 | 2.0% | 238,700 | 0.8% | $3,714 |
| Connecticut | $573,652,743.4 | 1.3% | 185,100 | 0.7% | $3,099 |
| Pennsylvania | $2,038,174,710.5 | 4.6% | 692,400 | 2.4% | $2,944 |
| Hawaii | $147,526,579.5 | 0.3% | 52,200 | 0.2% | $2,826 |
| Kentucky | $630,027,579.5 | 1.4% | 240,800 | 0.9% | $2,616 |
| Wisconsin | $767,846,735.6 | 1.7% | 313,600 | 1.1% | $2,448 |
| Maine | $244,242,719.2 | 0.5% | 102,000 | 0.4% | $2,395 |
| West Virginia | $256,519,736.9 | 0.6% | 108,200 | 0.4% | $2,371 |
| Delaware | $126,513,175.1 | 0.3% | 54,000 | 0.2% | $2,343 |
| Maryland | $763,448,319.4 | 1.7% | 350,200 | 1.2% | $2,180 |
| New Hampshire | $147,787,170.0 | 0.3% | 68,200 | 0.2% | $2,167 |
| Ohio | $1,561,833,105.9 | 3.5% | 735,400 | 2.6% | $2,124 |
| Michigan | $1,117,021,286.2 | 2.5% | 526,500 | 1.9% | $2,122 |
| California | $5,857,360,054.6 | 13.2% | 2,774,100 | 9.8% | $2,111 |
| Iowa | $317,139,746.7 | 0.7% | 151,100 | 0.5% | $2,099 |
| Louisiana | $742,820,077.4 | 1.7% | 358,700 | 1.3% | $2,071 |
| Oregon | $548,089,678.0 | 1.2% | 295,900 | 1.0% | $1,852 |
| New Mexico | $333,563,058.1 | 0.7% | 190,900 | 0.7% | $1,747 |
| Alaska | $144,986,402.6 | 0.3% | 85,400 | 0.3% | $1,698 |
| Arkansas | $404,202,087.6 | 0.9% | 242,000 | 0.9% | $1,670 |
| New Jersey | $1,068,113,288.4 | 2.4% | 647,600 | 2.3% | $1,649 |
| Missouri | $911,085,180.6 | 2.0% | 556,600 | 2.0% | $1,637 |
| Washington | $782,655,102.3 | 1.8% | 481,700 | 1.7% | $1,625 |
| North Dakota | $86,576,588.6 | 0.2% | 56,300 | 0.2% | $1,538 |
| Indiana | $769,497,505.1 | 1.7% | 549,200 | 1.9% | $1,401 |
| Mississippi | $493,091,000.6 | 1.1% | 352,800 | 1.2% | $1,398 |
| Colorado | $580,302,687.4 | 1.3% | 425,200 | 1.5% | $1,365 |
| Tennessee | $821,082,094.3 | 1.8% | 670,300 | 2.4% | $1,225 |
| Montana | $102,047,833.1 | 0.2% | 83,900 | 0.3% | $1,216 |
| Nebraska | $188,589,289.9 | 0.4% | 158,100 | 0.6% | $1,193 |
| Illinois | $1,036,912,692.6 | 2.3% | 877,700 | 3.1% | $1,181 |
| Kansas | $288,814,375.3 | 0.6% | 245,500 | 0.9% | $1,176 |
| Virginia | $816,060,953.4 | 1.8% | 710,500 | 2.5% | $1,149 |
| North Carolina | $1,180,664,804.5 | 2.7% | 1,090,100 | 3.9% | $1,083 |
| South Carolina | $558,128,450.3 | 1.3% | 517,100 | 1.8% | $1,079 |
| Arizona | $777,166,440.9 | 1.7% | 743,500 | 2.6% | $1,045 |
| Alabama | $501,274,998.1 | 1.1% | 483,400 | 1.7% | $1,037 |
| South Dakota | $79,372,914.5 | 0.2% | 79,400 | 0.3% | $1,000 |
| Idaho | $170,919,107.3 | 0.4% | 191,700 | 0.7% | $892 |
| Wyoming | $51,042,170.8 | 0.1% | 59,200 | 0.2% | $862 |
| Oklahoma | $448,944,345.1 | 1.0% | 521,400 | 1.8% | $861 |
| Utah | $226,024,367.9 | 0.5% | 279,300 | 1.0% | $809 |
| Florida | $2,134,760,815.9 | 4.8% | 2,741,500 | 9.7% | $779 |
| Texas | $3,253,663,468.7 | 7.3% | 4,957,500 | 17.5% | $656 |
| Georgia | $920,340,876.6 | 2.1% | 1,406,800 | 5.0% | $654 |
| Nevada | $218,920,779.7 | 0.5% | 338,700 | 1.2% | $646 |
| United States | $44,502,840,208.6 | 28,264,700 | $1,575 |
Sources: Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicaid Spending FY 2017 and Health Insurance Coverage of the Total Population. Uninsured numbers are for 2018. Kaiser reported excessively high FY 2017 Medicaid-spending numbers for New York; in their place, an estimate of $72 billion has been used, evenly divided between New York and the federal government.
Kaiser reported numbers for New York that were excessively high for fiscal year 2017. I replaced those with an estimate of $72 billion of New York Medicaid spending in fiscal year 2017, evenly divided between New York and the federal government.