Idaho’s spiraling Medicaid costs can be attributed to structural program changes following the 2006 Idaho Medicaid Simplification Act, along with substantial increases in enrollment, according to a recent study from the Mercatus Center, a policy research group centered at George Mason University.

In March, both the House and Senate approved a 5.7 percent increase to the Medicaid budget for 2013, including an approrpation of $474 million in state funding. Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter signed the bill on April 3. And, although a 2011 bill eliminated $34.6 million in services for targeted Medicaid beneficiaries in 2012, the same bill reversed $1.5 million of those cuts in March, restoring preventative dental services for the disabled and elderly and reinstating dual diagnosis treatment programs.

“Idaho’s spending increased following the 2006 Idaho Medicaid Simplification Act due to its segmented approach, which reduced the risk pool causing significant adverse effects,” wrote the study’s authors, economist Scott Beaulier and Mercatus fellow Brandon Pizzola. “By segmenting people into separate risk categories, the high-risk pool became underfunded, and an excessive number of risky enrollees were wrongly placed in safer pools.”

This led to a much greater average expenditure per enrollee, they report, and so as the number of Medicaid recipients climbed substantially in subsequent years, overall program expenses grew as well. Although Medicaid costs have almost consistently risen since the 2006 act was implemented, Beaulier and Pizzola noted that the law was marketed to voters and easily passed largely thanks to promises of substantial cost savings.

“The reforms were popular at the time, and then-Governor Dirk Kempthorne encountered minimal opposition,” they wrote. “This was partly because of his willingness to hold town hall meetings and public forums to discuss the reform proposal. Kempthorne combined the topics of cost savings and state control versus federal control: Idaho’s reforms promised to not leave anyone without coverage, to reduce costs, and to return more power and control to the state.”

The Mercatus study also considers Medicaid reforms from four other states—Florida, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Washington. Out of all five, they suggest, the reforms in Rhode Island and Washington are the most promising for long-term cost savings. Washington focused on establishing “a block-grant-like approach to funding,” and Rhode Island’s plan “set spending for five years and gave state leaders flexibility to introduce market principles to the Medicaid program. The plan encouraged cost control through an incentive system: When the state spent less than the capped amount, it could keep a fraction of the federal money.”

Beaulier and Pizzola conclude that a key to establishing reforms that last is for lawmakers to take a careful, deliberative approach and encourage debate from all corners.

“Politics can kill the best of ideas,” they wrote. “Reforms in Tennessee and Florida were radical in scale and scope. But they were not as successful as reforms in Rhode Island and Washington because they were rushed and stakeholders were less engaged. Reformers must work to bring key interest groups—even opponents—into discussions. Skeptics can provide input while gaining an understanding of the seriousness of the fiscal problems.”

Join the discussion


About The Author


  1. So study this issue and find ways to make it better in other states.

  2. I am confused. The Mercatus study references the “high risk pool” which in Idaho is not part of Medicaid but of our commercial market.

    The Medicaid reform separated the Medicaid population into three groups, and the set benefit packages appropriate for each.
    One is basic and has the greatest number of members. The target is poor children and pregnant women.

    The second is chronically disabled. The third is seniors, and is a supplement to Medicare.

    Each of the groups consumes about 1/3 of the Medicaid budget. But there are about 20 times as many beneficiaries in the basic plan. The cost for a basic Medicaid enrollee is therefore only one tenth to one twentieth if the other enrollees.

    So why the cost increase? Some is general healthcare inflation. More is likely survival of seniors longer and of disabled individual’s services. But it needs to be studied.

    I submit that separation of the population into three benefit packages is not likely to be a significant factor. But certainly should be studied. We should also through the indigent costs and lives into the mix too.

  3. Since there is no premium paid for any of the Benchmark plans (the actual Medicaid term for the three groups) they are not “risk pools” in any meaningful sense of the word. If many “higher risk” individuals were erroneously placed in the basic plan, they were moved into the other plans as soon as they required services not covered in the basic plan. The “Enhanced” and “Coordinated” plans have the same coverage and differ only in how the overlapping coverage from Medicare and Medicaid are processed and managed. They are the same “risk” level and people have moved from one to the other rather freely. Having read the one paragraph summary provided by Mercatus,I find absolutely no factual justification for their conclusion that the benchmark plans are responsible for the rising cost of Medicaid, rather than Medical inflation. They only site two sources in the article on Idaho and these are for the propositions that the plan had no political opposition and that it included prescription purchase pooling and prevention initiatives. Idaho Medicaid expenditure increases have been well below the rate of Medical inflation and below the rate increases of private insurance policies for comparable services.The Wall Street Journal’s “Market Watch” says the the current Medical inflation rate is about 8.5% I cannot imagine what Mercatus did to conduct this “study” but they seem to have failed to understand how Idaho Medicaid works, or I completely failed to understand their claim.

  4. Of the $39 million increase in general fund dollars provided in the FY13 budget, only $3million is new money. $36 million is replacement dollars provided in the FY11 and FY12 budgets by the T&B assessments from hospitals, nursing homes and ICFID’s, which sunseted June 30th, 2012. This resulted in only a 0.32% increase year over year. As Mr Baugh points out, the authors analysis, or lack thereof, leaves a lot to be desired and speaks for itself.

Comments are closed.