ADVERTISEMENT

Iowa Medicaid's per-member cost increases nearly triple since privatization

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,386
58,801
113
The average cost of insuring an Iowan on Medicaid has climbed nearly three times as fast since the state hired private companies to manage the program, when compared to the previous six years, new state figures show.

Since fiscal 2017, the first full year of privatization, the per-member cost of Iowa's Medicaid program has risen an average of 4.4 percent per year, according to the non-partisan Legislative Services Agency. In the previous six years, the per-member cost rose an average of 1.5 percent per year, the agency said.

The new cost figures come amid continuing controversy over whether Iowa should have hired private companies to run the $5 billion program. The shift’s supporters said it would slow growth in health care spending on the more than 600,000 poor or disabled Iowans covered by Medicaid.

The Legislative Services Agency compiled the new cost increase figures from past budget reports published by the Department of Human Services, which oversees Medicaid.



The human service department's leaders defend Iowa’s transition to privately managed Medicaid and contend the per-member cost figures can be misleading. They said some years' cost totals could be inflated because they include bills paid for services that were provided to Medicaid members in previous years.

But a leading critic of privatized Medicaid said the new numbers are clear evidence the transition is not fulfilling its promises.

“From Day One, we’ve doubted privatization of Medicaid would save money,” said state Sen. Liz Mathis, a Hiawatha Democrat. She said the numbers should be hard to dispute, since they come from the department’s own reports.

Mathis said the department has yet to offer solid data backing claims that private Medicaid managers have prevented costly health problems. “They’ve been unable to show any data that Iowans are better off,” the senator said.

Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds said in an interview Wednesday she remains confident in the promise of private Medicaid management, despite the new cost numbers.

Reynolds said Department of Human Services administrators have assured her part of the explanation for the recent spike in per-member Medicaid costs was bills incurred in past years were being paid in the current budget year.

Reynolds’ Republican predecessor, Gov. Terry Branstad, ordered the shift to private Medicaid management in 2015.

The change has become a major issue in this fall’s elections for governor and Legislature. Reynolds said she remains open to making changes to the program, but she continues to believe it is on firmer footing than Iowa’s previous Medicaid system, which was directly run by state administrators.

636625209871026816-medicaid-protesters.JPG

Opponents of privatized Medicaid appeared at the Iowa Statehouse Jan. 23, 2018. (Photo: Tony Leys/The Register)

“Iowans need to be confident that I, as the governor, am going to make sure we have a sustainable program in place that can take care of their loved ones,” Reynolds said. She added that many Iowans are pleased with the services they are receiving under the current Medicaid system.

Reynolds said that doesn't mean she's satisfied with the way everything in Medicaid is going. She vowed to continue talking to Medicaid members, families, service providers the managed-care companies and outside experts.

"We'll find out where the pain points are and what we need to do differently," she said. "That's what I'm focused on."

Some of the per-member cost numbers were in a budget report Medicaid Director Mike Randol presented last week to an advisory committee for the Department of Human Services. Randol, who works for the department, told the committee he didn’t know what was behind the numbers, which were included in a chart going back to fiscal year 2015.

After the meeting, Randol told reporters he was unsure of the meaning behind the chart included in his report.

“I didn’t create that chart, so I need to go back and understand the background,” he said. “I need to understand the numbers behind the chart and understand the factors that could potentially be driving the increase.”

The Des Moines Register obtained more extensive per-member Medicaid cost figures from the Legislative Services Agency. The agency prepares detailed reports for legislators on an array of issues. Jess Benson, an analyst for the agency, said he found comparable budget figures going back to fiscal year 2011.

The Medicaid cost increases for this fiscal year are partly driven by an 8.4 percent raise the Iowa Department of Human Services agreed last month to give the two managed-care companies running the program. That raise, which includes state and federal tax dollars, will send $344 million more to Amerigroup and United Healthcare this fiscal year, which runs through June 2019.

Department of Human Services spokesman Matt Highland said this week that if per-member Medicaid costs were re-figured to reflect only the cost of services provided to members in each fiscal year, the increases would be less steep.

The cost increase for fiscal year 2018 would be just 1.4 percent instead of 6.6 percent, he said, and the increase for fiscal year 2019 would be 5.6 percent instead of 11 percent. However, his new figures did not show corresponding increases in per-member costs for the previous two years.

The chart Randol offered last week included projected per-member spending on Medicaid for the next two budget years.

It showed state administrators expect those costs to drop 4.7 percent next fiscal year, then climb 1.8 percent the following year. Those projections, however, did not include any raises the state might negotiate with the managed-care companies for those years, which could significantly push up taxpayer spending.

https://www.press-citizen.com/story...ged-care-legislature-kim-reynolds/1293372002/
 
Wow - 4.4% increase. Just met with our insurance broker. Our ACA plans are going up over 20%. Maybe we should put the company on medicaid?

Yes to universal payer. Why again does anyone oppose that? When Iowa ran the Medicaid program payment was efficient and relatively prompt. Reimbursements would have to go up, as private insurers are artificially subsidizing Medicare and Medicaid now, but Medicare for all is unquestionably a cheaper system.
 
Costs have tripled and the service has gotten worse.

Nice job Branstad/Reynolds...

Costs haven't tripled,... The article says that costs are rising at three times the rate previously experienced over the past six year period,... current +4.4% per year vs a previous +1.5% per year,... OP could have commented on your misinterpretation but instead chose to like your post because it supports his underlying theme....
 
Costs haven't tripled,... The article says that costs are rising at three times the rate previously experienced over the past six year period,... current +4.4% per year vs a previous +1.5% per year,... OP could have commented on your misinterpretation but instead chose to like your post because it supports his underlying theme....

Oh, so it's actually on pace to get even worse than initially thought. That sounds bad.
 
Wow - 4.4% increase. Just met with our insurance broker. Our ACA plans are going up over 20%. Maybe we should put the company on medicaid?

This is what happens when you have legislators in Congress intentionally destabilizing the system.

Our Colorado Health Op (state run insurance plan) had premiums 75% of what the Big Boys charged. And, as I've noted, Cigna and others lobbied more than $1M a pop to get them out of business.

State-run, non-profits are a fantastic supplement for consumers as an option, but lobbyists who make too much money as middlemen won't allow them to happen. Those are a better option over single-payer, because they retain overall competition against hospitals/providers to keep costs down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
This mess is 100% on Terry Branstad and Kim Reynolds. As each day passes, the Iowa GOP assumes more responsibility because of association and failure to improve the system.
Right now, Kim is squarely in the hot seat. This privatized MedicAid is a complete mess and there is no easy fix. However, giving the administrators a raise for overseeing a failing system makes no sense at all.
Answer me a question folks....How can a program that has been designed to remove profits from it, be run by people who rely on profits to make ends meet?
 
Republicans expect the average Iowan to be largely ignorant to details of legislative decisions. And when the actual results are revealed, the GOP dances around with... to quote KellyAnne Conway... "alternative facts".

I seriously doubt that Branstad/Reynolds expected anything different than what this report says. But they were likely confident that probably <25% of Iowans would even care.
 
My mom (no pics) is a long time social worker and now administrator at a social work firm in Eastern Iowa, been at the same place for about 30 years.

I jokingly asked her a couple weekends ago if she'll vote for Hubbell, she said of course to get the Republicans out because what they did to medicaid has made her work hell.

I didn't feel like pressing, but she isn't in it for the money, I have no doubt it had negative effects on services for people who need it.
 
This is a perfect example of why I call so many Iowa Republican voters simpletons. Why in the hell could they possibly defend Reynolds and Branstad on this one?? They completely screwed thousands and thousands of Iowans. They stuck it to the people who vote for them. I can't comprehend why these voters are okay with this. There's no common sense in those votes.
 
My mom (no pics) is a long time social worker and now administrator at a social work firm in Eastern Iowa, been at the same place for about 30 years.

I jokingly asked her a couple weekends ago if she'll vote for Hubbell, she said of course to get the Republicans out because what they did to medicaid has made her work hell.

I didn't feel like pressing, but she isn't in it for the money, I have no doubt it had negative effects on services for people who need it.


It is important to remember Thorne, the MCOs are in it only for the money. This is nothing more than a shell game moving public tax money to private individuals.
 
It is important to remember Thorne, the MCOs are in it only for the money. This is nothing more than a shell game moving public tax money to private individuals.

They've done it with Wellmark. They did it with Farm Bureau. The Republicans have paid back their campaign supporters with public tax money funneled to private businesses.
 
Costs have not tripled, the rate of annual increase is being reported as going up by 3x. Big difference.
My bride attended a meeting between Iowa MedicAid and providers this past week in Des Moines. The Director was speaking with charts and graphs to the group. He honestly could not relay the information shown on the graphs to the group in a comprehensive, intelligent manner that made sense. Iowa MedicAid still cannot explain how they are saving money vis their MCOs. Yet, these MCOs get a substantial raise?? Remember, Iowa went to Kansas to hire the new director....after he broke the Kansas MedicAid program.
 
This is a perfect example of why I call so many Iowa Republican voters simpletons. Why in the hell could they possibly defend Reynolds and Branstad on this one?? They completely screwed thousands and thousands of Iowans. They stuck it to the people who vote for them. I can't comprehend why these voters are okay with this. There's no common sense in those votes.
They stuck it to the weakest, most vulnerable members of our society. A lot of these people are unable to vote for a variety of reasons. Branstad and Reynolds threw them up on the alter of corporate profits.
Not a very Christian thing to do.
 
They stuck it to the weakest, most vulnerable members of our society. A lot of these people are unable to vote for a variety of reasons. Branstad and Reynolds threw them up on the alter of corporate profits.
Not a very Christian thing to do.
Weird how Christians look right past that when they vote.
 
They stuck it to the weakest, most vulnerable members of our society. A lot of these people are unable to vote for a variety of reasons. Branstad and Reynolds threw them up on the alter of corporate profits.
Not a very Christian thing to do.
One of the barometers of a society is how they treat their weakest and most vulnerable.
 
Oh, so it's actually on pace to get even worse than initially thought. That sounds bad.

Yep, it's pretty bad,.... But when is the last time anybody has heard anything positive about the cost of health care?...
 
Insurance companies are not driving up the cost of care, the providers of care or the amount of usage of care are. This is what happens when you have an aging population base and a ever fatter society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SSG T
Costs haven't tripled,... The article says that costs are rising at three times the rate previously experienced over the past six year period,... current +4.4% per year vs a previous +1.5% per year,... OP could have commented on your misinterpretation but instead chose to like your post because it supports his underlying theme....

While I agree with the overall premise you posted here, regarding rate vs overall cost, both sides are guilty of doing this exact same thing. Pick an increase, any increase, and the side that's against it will lie about the size or impact of the increase.
 
and it's not like they didn't have numerous horror stories about medicare privatization. but bumsted went ahead anyway.
 
Insurance companies are not driving up the cost of care, the providers of care or the amount of usage of care are. This is what happens when you have an aging population base and a ever fatter society.

This is part of the reason I'm all for he Universal care. It's cheaper to keep people healthy than it is to fix people's issues once they occur. The obesity problem, on top of the direct issues, also lead to far more serious things down the road such as heart disease and diabetes. How much does it cost to treat those at the rate we treat them? How much cheaper would it be to give people the ability to avoid those?
 
Why are inflationary rates higher than CPI in these three areas:

1. Health Insurance
2. College Tuition
3. Home Prices

Many of you know the answer yet many of you will not acknowledge it which is weird to me bc it shows you are more interested in scoring political points than you are solving real challenges in our market place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifler
This mess is 100% on Terry Branstad and Kim Reynolds. As each day passes, the Iowa GOP assumes more responsibility because of association and failure to improve the system.
Right now, Kim is squarely in the hot seat. This privatized MedicAid is a complete mess and there is no easy fix. However, giving the administrators a raise for overseeing a failing system makes no sense at all.
Answer me a question folks....How can a program that has been designed to remove profits from it, be run by people who rely on profits to make ends meet?

Is that a serious question?
 
This is part of the reason I'm all for he Universal care. It's cheaper to keep people healthy than it is to fix people's issues once they occur. The obesity problem, on top of the direct issues, also lead to far more serious things down the road such as heart disease and diabetes. How much does it cost to treat those at the rate we treat them? How much cheaper would it be to give people the ability to avoid those?

Yet do you really trust our govt to properly administer it when you take into account our elected officials number 1 goal is to just get reelected and we already have issues balancing budgets with over $3T in govt revenues per year?

I get what you are saying and I don't necessarily disagree I just don't think they can pull it off. Kind of like the software developers where I work now, they just don't seem to be very good at delivering and hitting the intended target (I want new ones).
 
Yet do you really trust our govt to properly administer it

.....it's pretty well established that Medicare is the most efficient healthcare platform, compared with any other private insurers. So, I'd say that, yes, it can be done....
 
This mess is 100% on Terry Branstad and Kim Reynolds. As each day passes, the Iowa GOP assumes more responsibility because of association and failure to improve the system.
Right now, Kim is squarely in the hot seat. This privatized MedicAid is a complete mess and there is no easy fix. However, giving the administrators a raise for overseeing a failing system makes no sense at all.
Answer me a question folks....How can a program that has been designed to remove profits from it, be run by people who rely on profits to make ends meet?

That is a great question, I have another one. Why do so many people think our healthcare cost structures can be fixed on the insurer side of the equation? It is a silly and false premise.

Quite frankly we have a few options to really cut into HC costs:

1. State takes over the entire industry (the provider side) and Docs/Nurses become public employees and they crash their wages and then dramatically start cutting facility costs. (no one outside of the communist arm of democratic socialist really want this)
2. Technological advances to help drive down the cost of care. (probably the best long term answer and maybe our only real hope)
3. Redesign how care can be accessed. This would require a mass change in govt restrictions in the HC industry. (Both pros and some big cons here)
4. Change the way Americans eat. (this would also dramatically cut costs after a few years of successful rollout)
5. Shorten End of life care. We need to throw grandma and grandpa off the cliff sooner. (big money saver, people don't have the stomach for it outside of white republican males)
 
Yet do you really trust our govt to properly administer it when you take into account our elected officials number 1 goal is to just get reelected and we already have issues balancing budgets with over $3T in govt revenues per year?

I get what you are saying and I don't necessarily disagree I just don't think they can pull it off. Kind of like the software developers where I work now, they just don't seem to be very good at delivering and hitting the intended target (I want new ones).

But, keep in mind, it wouldn't be the elected officials managing it.

My biggest issue with government involvement in it can be explained by a major issue I have with the way the military does budget vs spending. I have a budget that I have to send up for approval every year. I get approved for x amount of dollars. However, if I don't spend all of that money (I'll be self aggrandizing and say it's because I was fiscally responsible) and my budget for the next year is the same or bigger, I have to fight tooth and nail to get it because I didn't spend as much the previous year. The system almost demands fraud, waste and abuse. I have literally been told " find another trip because we have to obligate all of the money".

There would need to be the means to fund what is needed without punishing the requestors for not spending everything they are budgeted for. The government doesn't realize that not spending your entire budget isn't necessarily a bad thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
.....it's pretty well established that Medicare is the most efficient healthcare platform, compared with any other private insurers. So, I'd say that, yes, it can be done....

You trust govt to properly fund and manage the ENTIRE health insurance industry? Even if they did the costs savings barely moves the needle.
 
.....it's pretty well established that Medicare is the most efficient healthcare platform, compared with any other private insurers. So, I'd say that, yes, it can be done....

Yep!

Medicare Is More Efficient Than Private Insurance
  • According to CMS, for common benefits, Medicare spending rose by an average of 4.3 percent each year between 1997 and 2009, while private insurance premiums grew at a rate of 6.5 percent per year.
  • According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, administrative costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent of operating expenditures. Defenders of the insurance industry estimate administrative costs as 17 percent of revenue.
 
But, keep in mind, it wouldn't be the elected officials managing it.

My biggest issue with government involvement in it can be explained by a major issue I have with the way the military does budget vs spending. I have a budget that I have to send up for approval every year. I get approved for x amount of dollars. However, if I don't spend all of that money (I'll be self aggrandizing and say it's because I was fiscally responsible) and my budget for the next year is the same or bigger, I have to fight tooth and nail to get it because I didn't spend as much the previous year. The system almost demands fraud, waste and abuse. I have literally been told " find another trip because we have to obligate all of the money".

There would need to be the means to fund what is needed without punishing the requestors for not spending everything they are budgeted for. The government doesn't realize that not spending your entire budget isn't necessarily a bad thing.

When I worked grounds crew while attending UNI the excess budgets of the various college departments that year went to buy two brand new (and quite frankly awesome) skid loaders. This way everyone could at the very least get their budgets the same if not increased a bit that next year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SSG T
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT