NPR logo

Medicaid Expansion Goes Overlooked In Supreme Court Anticipation

  • Download
  • <iframe src="https://www.npr.org/player/embed/155861308/155866651" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript
Medicaid Expansion Goes Overlooked In Supreme Court Anticipation

Judging The Health Care Law

Medicaid Expansion Goes Overlooked In Supreme Court Anticipation

  • Download
  • <iframe src="https://www.npr.org/player/embed/155861308/155866651" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

We're expecting a ruling on health care from the Supreme Court tomorrow. This is the decision that everybody is waiting for about the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Specifically, the justices are deciding whether Congress acted constitutionally in requiring most Americans to have health insurance starting in 2014. But as NPR's Julie Rovner reports, there's another constitutional question within that same case, a question that's gone largely ignored. It has to do with the Medicaid program.

JULIE ROVNER, BYLINE: Specifically, the court has been asked whether the part of the law that would expand Medicaid to an estimated 17 million more people over the next 10 years is an unconstitutional infringement of states' rights. It's not an insignificant part of the law, says Alan Weil. He's head of the National Academy for State Health Policy, a non-partisan think tank.

ALAN WEIL: About half of the people who are expected to gain coverage under the Affordable Care Act gain it through the Medicaid program. So this is not a small change to Medicaid, and it's also not a small part of the Affordable Care Act.

ROVNER: The law would expand Medicaid coverage to everyone with incomes under 133 percent of the federal poverty level. That's just under $15,000 for an individual this year. In practice, that expansion will mostly cover adults without children or disabilities. Right now, Medicaid's costs are mostly shared between the federal government and the states. But that's not how this expansion will work, Weil says.

WEIL: The expansion in the Affordable Care Act is borne entirely by the federal taxpayer, although after a number of years, states do have to pick up a 10 percent share of the cost. It's a very favorable formula from a state government perspective.

ROVNER: But that hasn't stopped states from complaining. Twenty-six of them, in fact, are parties to the lawsuit now before the Supreme Court. They say the federal government is basically blackmailing them into expanding Medicaid. That's because while the Medicaid program is theoretically voluntary for the states, it's gotten so large they say they no longer have a choice about whether to participate.

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN: The argument is that the federal government overreached by essentially coercing states into a big expansion of the social safety net.

ROVNER: Douglas Holtz-Eakin is an economist who heads the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank. His group wrote a brief in support of the states.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: With these Medicaid expansions, states don't have a real choice that, if they were to give up their federal funds, they would have to come up with another 22 percent of the average state's budget to cover the existing Medicaid programs. It would be a 34 percent tax increase for the typical state. Those are enormous numbers.

ROVNER: On the other hand, Holtz-Eakin concedes, there's a long history of the federal government getting to say how money it provides should be spent.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: When we went to a nationwide 55 mile per hour speed limit, the way it was done was to say, do this or you don't get your highway funds. And so it's very common for the federal government to use the funding mechanism as a way to get the states to do what they want.

ROVNER: And if the court were to accept the states' arguments about Medicaid, says Alan Weil, it could affect a lot more than just Medicaid.

WEIL: Anywhere that the federal government says, we want to share in the cost, if the court accepts this argument of coercion, pretty much everything with that structure would have to be reexamined.

ROVNER: That includes major education, transportation and welfare programs. For now, the consensus among most legal scholars is that the court probably won't strike down the Medicaid expansion, at least not as an infringement of states' rights, but no one knows for sure.

Julie Rovner, NPR News, Washington.

CORNISH: And Julie joins us in the studio now with a preview of what we can expect tomorrow when the court rules. Hi there, Julie.

ROVNER: Hi, Audie.

CORNISH: So when exactly will we get this ruling?

ROVNER: Well, the court meets at 10:00 a.m. Eastern and, unlike most of the rest of official Washington, when the court says it will meet at 10:00, the court actually meets at 10:00. But there are two other cases left on the court's docket that they haven't announced yet and they'll probably do those first, so we'll probably hear about the health law at about - between 10:15 and 10:30 tomorrow morning.

CORNISH: And refresh our memories. I know there are four questions the court is weighing. One of them is this Medicaid issue. What are the other three?

ROVNER: Well, one of them is whether the court can even take up this case yet. There's something called the Tax Anti-Injunction Act and what that basically says is that you can not challenge a tax until after it's been paid. So if the court decides that this penalty for not having health insurance is, in fact, a tax, then nobody can bring a lawsuit until after that tax has been paid. In this case, that won't happen until 2015, so the entire case would have to go away and nobody could sue and they'd have to come back in 2015.

CORNISH: And that penalty is a result of the individual mandate, which is a core part of the law. Talk about those issues.

ROVNER: That's right. And that's what's considered the heart of this case. That's - the second question is that individual mandate, the requirement that just about every American either have health insurance or pay this penalty starting in 2014, whether Congress was within its constitutional rights in putting that in the law.

If Congress was not within its rights and that is found unconstitutional, the next question is can the rest of the law stand without that or would the court have to strike down other parts of the law or would the court have to strike down the entire rest of the law?

CORNISH: And, lastly, how sure are we that this is actually going to happen tomorrow?

ROVNER: Well, nothing is absolutely sure with the Supreme Court until you actually get those decisions in your hand, but we do know the court has announced that tomorrow is the last day of the term. There are only these three cases left, so we're pretty sure that we're going to see those last three cases, including, as I say, this much, much, much anticipated health care case.

CORNISH: Julie, I guess we'll talk to you tomorrow.

ROVNER: Yes, you will.

CORNISH: That's NPR's Julie Rovner.

Copyright © 2012 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.