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

Galen Institute

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Mission and History
    • Grace-Marie Turner bio
    • Who was Galen?
  • Activities
    • Core Activities
    • Commentary and Oped Tutorial
    • Our Book
    • Galen Guides
  • Contact Us
  • Major Papers
  • Broadcast Interviews
  • Health Policy Consensus Group

House Coronavirus Response Disproportionately Funds Richest States

POSTED BY Brian Blase on March 13, 2020.

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. 

 StateFY ’20 Extra Funds % of Funds# of  Uninsured% Uninsured$ per Uninsured
District of Columbia$212,394,858.7 0.5%21,2000.1%$10,019
Massachusetts$1,414,540,075.1 3.2%181,2000.6%$7,807
New York$6,479,216,640.0 14.6%1,006,9003.6%$6,435
Vermont$124,673,941.5 0.3%24,5000.1%$5,089
Rhode Island$196,729,795.7 0.4%40,9000.1%$4,810
Minnesota$886,477,799.7 2.0%238,7000.8%$3,714
Connecticut$573,652,743.4 1.3%185,1000.7%$3,099
Pennsylvania$2,038,174,710.5 4.6%692,4002.4%$2,944
Hawaii$147,526,579.5 0.3%52,2000.2%$2,826
Kentucky$630,027,579.5 1.4%240,8000.9%$2,616
Wisconsin$767,846,735.6 1.7%313,6001.1%$2,448
Maine$244,242,719.2 0.5%102,0000.4%$2,395
West Virginia$256,519,736.9 0.6%108,2000.4%$2,371
Delaware$126,513,175.1 0.3%54,0000.2%$2,343
Maryland$763,448,319.4 1.7%350,2001.2%$2,180
New Hampshire$147,787,170.0 0.3%68,2000.2%$2,167
Ohio$1,561,833,105.9 3.5%735,4002.6%$2,124
Michigan$1,117,021,286.2 2.5%526,5001.9%$2,122
California$5,857,360,054.6 13.2%2,774,1009.8%$2,111
Iowa$317,139,746.7 0.7%151,1000.5%$2,099
Louisiana$742,820,077.4 1.7%358,7001.3%$2,071
Oregon$548,089,678.0 1.2%295,9001.0%$1,852
New Mexico$333,563,058.1 0.7%190,9000.7%$1,747
Alaska$144,986,402.6 0.3%85,4000.3%$1,698
Arkansas$404,202,087.6 0.9%242,0000.9%$1,670
New Jersey$1,068,113,288.4 2.4%647,6002.3%$1,649
Missouri$911,085,180.6 2.0%556,6002.0%$1,637
Washington$782,655,102.3 1.8%481,7001.7%$1,625
North Dakota$86,576,588.6 0.2%56,3000.2%$1,538
Indiana$769,497,505.1 1.7%549,2001.9%$1,401
Mississippi$493,091,000.6 1.1%352,8001.2%$1,398
Colorado$580,302,687.4 1.3%425,2001.5%$1,365
Tennessee$821,082,094.3 1.8%670,3002.4%$1,225
Montana$102,047,833.1 0.2%83,9000.3%$1,216
Nebraska$188,589,289.9 0.4%158,1000.6%$1,193
Illinois$1,036,912,692.6 2.3%877,7003.1%$1,181
Kansas$288,814,375.3 0.6%245,5000.9%$1,176
Virginia$816,060,953.4 1.8%710,5002.5%$1,149
North Carolina$1,180,664,804.5 2.7%1,090,1003.9%$1,083
South Carolina$558,128,450.3 1.3%517,1001.8%$1,079
Arizona$777,166,440.9 1.7%743,5002.6%$1,045
Alabama$501,274,998.1 1.1%483,4001.7%$1,037
South Dakota$79,372,914.5 0.2%79,4000.3%$1,000
Idaho$170,919,107.3 0.4%191,7000.7%$892
Wyoming$51,042,170.8 0.1%59,2000.2%$862
Oklahoma$448,944,345.1 1.0%521,4001.8%$861
Utah$226,024,367.9 0.5%279,3001.0%$809
Florida$2,134,760,815.9 4.8%2,741,5009.7%$779
Texas$3,253,663,468.7 7.3%4,957,50017.5%$656
Georgia$920,340,876.6 2.1%1,406,8005.0%$654
Nevada$218,920,779.7 0.5%338,7001.2%$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.  


Read the full article in National Review Online

Filed Under: Brian Blase, National Review

Primary Sidebar

Our Annual Report

Health Care Choices 20/20:

A Vision for the Future

SEARCH

Categories

  • Brian Blase
  • Consumer-Directed Care
  • Doug Badger
  • Grace-Marie Turner
  • Health Insurance
  • Health Policy Consensus Group
  • Health Savings Accounts
  • Innovation
  • Medicaid
  • Medicare
  • Newsletter
  • ObamaCare
  • Prescription Drugs
  • Published
    • Forbes
    • Fox Business
    • Health Affairs
    • LA Times
    • National Review
    • New York Post
    • RealClearHealth
    • Sun Sentinel
    • The Daily Signal
    • The Heritage Foundation
    • The Hill
    • The New York Times
    • The Wall Street Journal
    • The Washington Times
  • Reform Initiatives
  • State Issues
  • Uncategorized

LATEST NEWSLETTER ISSUES

SUBSCRIBE

Social Media

Like Us On Facebook

Twitter: @galeninstitute

 

Copyright Galen Institute at Donors. © 2023; · Log in