It looks like the sloppy wording in the Affordable Care Act cuts both ways.
We’ve been talking about the various challenges to the law arising out of drafting errors, in particular the vagaries of whether individuals seeking coverage on federally-run exchanges substitutes for state exchanges if the state refuses to implement one, can qualify for coverage subsidies. But there’s another drafting issue that could lock states which choose not to expand Medicaid into maintaining their current level of coverage and not cutting it further. The Hill explains:
The federal government might have to operate at least part of the exchanges in as many as 30 states, at least initially. If subsidies aren’t available in those states, the law’s reach would be severely limited [...]
The healthcare law expands Medicaid eligibility beginning in 2014. It also includes a “maintenance of effort” (MOE) provision that prevents states from cutting their existing Medicaid rolls ahead of the expansion.
As shorthand, most people say the MOE lasts until 2014. Technically, though, it expires once the Health and Human Services Department certifies that an insurance exchange “established by the state … is fully operational” — the same language used to describe exchange subsidies.
In short, Republican governors could be stuck with the MOE forever if conservatives win their argument about the law’s insurance subsidies.
This would be a fairly hilarious scenario, with states who opt out of the exchanges forced to keep their Medicaid at current levels. Those costs will rise and there will be nothing the state can do about it until they, against their will, implement an exchange. This is the double-edged sword of the narrow reading of the text of the law.
I don’t think that those trying to stop exchange subsidies from a federal exchange are likely to succeed, actually. But if they do, then the rejectionist states would still have to provide their current level of Medicaid, even though it’s a growing share of state budgets and almost always on the chopping block for cuts. Republican governors are already trying to overturn the MOE requirement.





5 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
What would Roberts do next?
Well, if the voters intended for government to solve problems, the voters would have elected super-majorities of Democrats, but instead the voters elected enough Republicans to make government the problem with no possible solution from anywhere.
The voters get to decide who represents us in Congress, and the voters have elected wrecking crews to direct pillage and plunder.
Of course, if you listen to Republicans, it started the moment Barack Obama became president in January 20, 2001 – for 12 years Obama has been destroying the economy by making work so much more heavily taxed than being unemployed like Mitt Romney who hasn’t been paid to work ever since Obama cut taxes in 2001.
That’s why Romney isn’t responsible for Obamacare – Romney was just an unpaid intern volunteering in the Mass governor’s office learning about politics. That law in Mass was also filed with drafting errors, but when a Democratic governor took over from the unpaid intern, Gov Patrick worked with the Democratic super-majority to fix the law and get it implemented.
The voters get to decide in November whether they will send a Democratic super-majority to solve problems, or to instead send Republicans to Congress to wreck everything.
Now, since I’m completely obsessed with D-Day’s reference to the double-edged sword, I won’t be getting any sleep tonight. I get the part where teabag governors (upper-echelon neocon-drones) will be force to keep the same level of Medicaid, with or without federal assistance, but I’m not 100% sure about the other edge. I’m assuming it has to be the rising costs, which in turn will be paid by U.S. taxpayers, which in turn will be putting more of a burden on our middle class. But I don’t know, is this right? Maybe I’ll have to go to Fox and NBCNews.com to find the answer. (Get it? “Fox and NBCNews.com to find the answer.” — I bust myself up sometime.)
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~ U.S. Senator Barack Obama, 2008
Are you sure that the Supreme Court’s opinion, which said Congress could not require states to expand Medicaid, doesn’t also apply to the Maintenance of Effort element of the health care reform?
Are you saying the double edged sword might not have two edges?
So one drafting error is allowed to fly with an (unlegislated) fix by SCOTUS fiat, but the other drafting error gets chucked out?
We can only wait and see. The two issues in play aren’t interdependent after all, except for both being called drafting errors.