Misinformation about Medicaid on state and federal websites

Subscribe to xpostfactoid via box at top right. You'll get 2-3 posts per week, mostly re ACA.

In one of the many charming technical wrinkles that grace our healthcare system, the income threshold for Medicaid eligibility in states that have enacted the ACA Medicaid expansion (yes, long sentence, that's the point...) is 133% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL)... except it's actually 138% FPL, thanks to a 5% deduction from an applicant's Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) mandated by the ACA.

Got that? Good. And who cares? What matters is the monthly income threshold in dollars for households of different sizes, against which people who think they may be eligible can check their income prior to deciding whether to apply.

Some government websites quote 133% FPL as the eligibility threshold for those rendered eligible by the ACA Medicaid expansion. That might not matter -- who knows what 133% FPL is? -- except that some state and federal sites take the trouble to convert that threshold to a monthly income. The wrong monthly income.

"You oughta be in Medicaid" revisited

Charles Gaba and I have at different times both taken a shot at estimating how many of the private plan buyers in the ACA Marketplace would have been eligible for Medicaid had their states not refused to implement the ACA Medicaid expansion. In 2015, slightly more than half of Marketplace customers were in states that had refused the expansion.

Our estimates were based on HHS's March 2015 report of the percentage of healthcare.gov buyers whose incomes were between 100% and 150% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). That's a frustratingly blurry frame, since it includes both buyers who would and would not have been eligible for Medicaid in "nonexpansion" states. Buyers up to 138% FPL would have been eligible for Medicaid (as they are in "expansion" states).

Now, the Commonwealth Fund has added an  equivocal hint. I'll get to that in a minute. First, the current estimates.

The Urban Institute's Medicaid expansion proposal could help the ACA private plan market

The Urban Institute has released a report* proposing that the federal government spend an extra half-trillion dollars over ten years to boost the affordability and uptake of the Affordable Care Act's health insurance offerings. The core premise is that for far too many uninsured Americans, private plans offered on ACA exchanges are either unaffordable or offer too-skimpy coverage.

The headline proposal is to boost premium and cost-sharing subsidies for the private plans offered on ACA exchanges.  I'd like to spotlight a side effect of a secondary proposal, designed to entice some of the 21 states that have thus far refused the ACA Medicaid expansion to embrace it. It's this:

Although some of the currently nonexpanding states may choose to participate in the future, many others may continue to refuse to do so, maintaining the tremendous inequity that provides federal financial assistance to some people with incomes at or above the federal poverty level but denies assistance to many adults who are actually poor. One option to address this hole in the ACA’s reach is to give states the option of expanding Medicaid coverage up to 100 percent of FPL rather than requiring them to expand to 138 percent of FPL if they expand at all.