Pursuing Medicaid Block Grants with the Healthy Adult Opportunity Initiative: Dressing Up Old Ideas in New Clothes.

The Trump administration's Healthy Adult Opportunity waiver follows a long history of Republican attempts to retrench the Medicaid program through block grants and to markedly reduce federal spending while providing states with substantially greater flexibility over program structure. Previous block grant proposals were promulgated during the presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and majorities in Congress led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich and House Budget Committee Chair and then Speaker Paul Ryan. Most recently, Medicaid block grants featured prominently in Republican efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. This essay traces the history of Republican Medicaid block grant proposals, culminating in the Trump administration's Healthy Adult Opportunity initiative. It concludes that the Trump administration's attempt to convert Medicaid into a block grant program through the waiver process is illegal and, if implemented, would leave thousands of people without necessary medical care. This fact, combined with failed legislative efforts to block grant Medicaid during the last forty years, highlights the substantial roadblocks to radically restructuring a popular program that helps millions of Americans.

Hospital Taxes, Medicaid Supplemental Payments, and State Budgets.

The federal Medicaid statute provides states an incentive to tax hospitals (even otherwise tax-exempt ones) as a means of raising revenue and then leverage federal matching funds by returning at least some of the tax back to the hospitals in the form of Medicaid supplemental payments. The potential for supplemental payments is attractive to hospitals, especially those struggling to recoup the costs of treating Medicaid and uninsured patients, and has resulted in political support from hospitals for states to create hospital "taxes" in name only-hospitals and states both end up with more money than they did when they started because of the federal match. When state officials begin to perceive, however, that nonprofit hospitals may be serving private rather than public interests, they are able to use these hospital taxes as a way to incrementally chip away at the historic governmental support provided through tax exemption by redirecting the revenue raised from the hospital tax to general fund purposes rather than Medicaid supplemental payments. This article looks at how states have been using hospital taxes and supplemental payments to balance state budgets and whether this practice is consistent with the Medicaid program objectives that make the taxes politically feasible.

Medicaid for the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon.

Medicaid is a complex federally and state funded health insurance program in the United States that insures an estimated 76 million individuals, approximately 20 percent of the U.S. population. Many physicians may not receive formal training or education to help understand the complexities of Medicaid. Plastic surgeons, residents, and advanced practice practitioners benefit from a basic understanding of Medicaid, eligibility requirements, reimbursement methods, and upcoming healthcare trends. Medicaid is implemented by states with certain federal guidelines. Eligibility varies from state to state (in many states it's linked to the federal poverty level), and is based on financial and nonfinancial criteria. The passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 permitted states to increase the federal poverty level eligibility cutoff to expand coverage for low-income adults. The aim of this review is to provide a brief history of Medicaid, explain the basics of eligibility and changes invoked by the Affordable Care Act, and describe how federal insurance programs relate to plastic surgery, both at academic institutions and in community practice environments.

Medicaid At 50: Remarkable Growth Fueled By Unexpected Politics.

Medicaid has grown exponentially since the mid-1980s, during both conservative Republican and liberal Democratic administrations. How has this happened? The answer is rooted in three political variables: interest groups, political culture, and American federalism. First, interest-group support (from hospitals, nursing homes, and insurers) is more influential than the fragmented group opposition (from underpaid office-based physicians). Second, Medicaid provides a partial counterweight to conservative charges of a federal health care takeover because of the states' roles in administering the program. Third, Medicaid's intergovernmental fiscal partnership creates financial incentives for state and federal officials to expand enrollment-expansions that these policy makers often favor, given the program's increasingly important role in the nation's health care system. This institutional dynamic is here called catalytic federalism.

Why states expand Medicaid: party, resources, and history.

After the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March 2010 and the affirmation of its constitutionality by the Supreme Court in 2012, key decisions about the implementation of health care reform are now in the hands of states. But our understanding of these decisions is hampered by simplistic sortings of state directions into two or three simple, rigid categories. This article takes a different approach--it tracks the variations in relative state progress in implementing Medicaid expansion across a continuum of activities and steps in the decision-making process. This new measure reveals wide variation not only among states that have adopted Medicaid expansion but also among those that have rejected it but have also made progress. We use this new measure to spotlight cross-pressured Republican states that have adopted Medicaid expansion or have prepared to move forward and to explore possible explanations for implementation that extend beyond a simple focus on party control.

Beyond terminology: the policy impact of a grassroots movement.

This article discusses the history of the grassroots movement led by self-advocates and their families to replace the stigmatizing term "mental retardation" with "intellectual disability" in federal statute. It also describes recent and pending changes in federal regulations and policy to adopt the new terminology for Social Security and Medicaid.