GOP budget resolution relies on tired gimmicks

The GOP-controlled House and Senate have swiftly approved their budget resolutions for fiscal 2016 and, not surprising, both take a hatchet to the safety net. While they may not have the force of law, they offer an unsavory preview of what the party has to offer for the next two years. In short, they spell disaster for the mandatory spending program that 68 million people rely on: Medicaid.

The top budget ploys of choice are, once again, block grants and spending caps. Both are being argued for under the assumption that Medicaid spending is out of control and must be fixed. House Budget Chairman Tom Price of Georgia may have promised to lead a new path on health care, but block grants and caps are from the same playbook that cost-cutters go back to every time. Look back at the budget resolution of Rep. Paul Ryan’s, R-Wis., that passed the House last April.

The Republican budget resolutions talk in broad strokes about handing flexibility to states but are suspiciously short on details. A quick examination of the impact of both resolutions explains why. They save money by pushing more costs to the states. Currently, the federal government pays between 50 percent and 75 percent of Medicaid’s costs, but that rapidly dwindles under a block grant or cap. A block grant would provide a fixed amount of money to the state for all enrollees. And once that dollar limit is reached, the state is liable for the full bill. Per capita caps may sound like a better compromise, but they function similarly. Under a cap, the federal government makes a fixed payment for each Medicaid enrollee.

In practice, both measures function as massive cuts. They do this in two ways: They save the federal government money by generally underfunding the initial allocation and by insufficiently adjusting the amount provided to the state each year. Medicaid then becomes chronically underfunded, and the dollar gap worsens over time.

Limiting the total amount of dollars states receive — regardless of what happens during the year — would cripple state budgets. The promised flexibility appears illusory when numbers are crunched. A Medicaid block grant or cap would leave states with few recourses: Raise taxes, slash provider rates and services, or drop enrollees.

The budget resolutions ignore the fact that, if lower-income and vulnerable people are to have quality health care coverage, Medicaid is the cheapest way to do it. On a per-person basis, Medicaid costs less than private health insurance. The alternative to Medicaid is allowing these people to become uninsured (again). And that alterna- tive would not be cheap. It would push costs back to the federal and state governments, providers and all of the rest of us, in the form of uncompensated care that the health care system must absorb. That is a significant price tag when millions of people are currently insured by Medicaid.

Balanced solutions exist to manage federal health care spending that include revenue raising, small spending cuts and improved efficiency in providing care. For example, states are currently testing ways to reduce expensive emergency room usage, and they are exploring ways to boost access to cheaper primary care. These are promising practices that could bear fruit in the long term — both controlling costs and improving care. We cannot get there by simply cutting our way to a solution.

There are some noses upturned at the state’s new transportation-funding plan, panned as a half-measure that doesn’t do what’s needed.

If your definition of “needed” is anything within any plan for roads or rails that’s ever been conceived, sniff snootily away. But you may be surprised at how much ends up being built right under your schnoz.

Some pooh-poohing of the plan to boost transportation spending by at least $900 million a year comes from confusion about the shortfall. Industry consultants put the figure for “the maintenance of (current) roads and bridges” at $1 billion to