Massachusetts Houses Passes FY 2003 Budget, Cuts Medicaid To Fund Other Programs

The Massachusetts House last week approved on a 142-8 vote a $22.9 billion budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1 that would "rein in" Medicaid spending by reducing income eligibility for individuals who have been unemployed for more than one year, the Boston Globe reports. The approved budget would reduce eligibility from 133% of the federal poverty level to 100% of poverty for the long-term unemployed, a move expected to cut off benefits for about 30,000 individuals and save the state $400 million in the next year. House members also approved a provision that would impose an annual fee of $3,300 on 10,000 nursing home residents who have higher incomes (Klein, Boston Globe, 5/17). Although House members approved cuts to Medicaid, they also restored $67 million of proposed $450 million in cuts (Sutner, Worcester Telegram & Gazette, 5/17). The additional funds would allow about 35,000 unemployed residents with mental illnesses to retain their Medicaid coverage. Even with the funding adjustments, state spending on Medicaid would increase by 5%, or $250 million, next year under the House budget (Boston Globe, 5/17). The final House budget also would restore funding to other health programs that had been cut in earlier versions of the budget, including mental health, mental retardation, disabilities, elder affairs and other social services. The Boston Herald does not detail the amounts of the restored funds (Beardsley, Boston Herald, 5/17). The budget now moves to the Senate.

Some Lawmakers, Advocates Displeased
While some House lawmakers defended the cuts, state Sen. Mark Montigny (D), chair of the Ways and Means committee, called the House budget "irresponsible," saying it would hurt hospitals, which would likely have to deal with an influx of former Medicaid beneficiaries seeking treatment in emergency rooms. The budget also would put "some of society's most vulnerable residents in jeopardy," he added. Michael Miller, policy director of the advocacy group Health Care for All, agreed, saying, "These people will lose everything except access to hospital care" (Boston Globe, 5/17).