To say that long term care providers will be impacted by the presidential election two months away is an understatement. The political parties have different philosophies and approaches to Medicaid and Medicare, and whoever ends up in the White House will seek to push through his priorities.
The New York Times reports on the health care law and the election. An excerpt:
To fulfill the law’s goal of near-universal coverage, the president envisions adding as many as 17 million people to the rolls by allowing everyone with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level to enroll, including many childless adults. While the Supreme Court ruled in June that states could opt out of the expansion, Medicaid — and federal spending on it — is still likely to grow significantly if Mr. Obama wins a second term.
Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan would take Medicaid in the opposite direction. They would push for the repeal of the health care law and replace the current Medicaid program with block grants, giving each state a lump sum and letting them decide eligibility and benefits. (Currently, the federal government sets minimum requirements, like covering all children under the poverty level, which some states surpass. It also provides unlimited matching funds.) The grants would grow at the rate of inflation, with adjustments for population growth. Critics say annual increases would not keep up with rising health care costs.
While the effects of the election won’t be immediate, the consequences will be long term. It’s in the best interests of providers and recipients if programs implement fair reimbursement rates. Low rates are a disincentive to providers and to medical students, who might otherwise become primary care physicians. Some doctors stop taking Medicaid and Medicare recipients, and some students choose to specialize and receive higher rates. The trends don’t bode well for alleviating the primary care physician shortage.
