Fla. House Rejects Bill To Expand Medicaid
The measure, which had passed the Republican Senate by a wide margin, was designed to help low-income residents without insurance and hospitals in the state, which face high costs from uninsured patients and an expected cut in federal funding.
Orlando Sentinel:
House Kills Senate's Health Care Expansion
A plan to offer 800,000 Floridians health care using Medicaid funds flat-lined Friday when the Republican-controlled House overwhelmingly voted down the bill, likely killing the issue for perhaps years to come.
The dramatic 72-41 vote came after a debate lasting nearly seven hours, one of the longest in House history.
Opponents objected to the bill because it relied too much on federal funds and would expand coverage to what they called "single, able-bodied adults." (Rohrer, 6/8)
Tampa Bay Times:
House Eschews 'Entitlements' For Health Care But All But 12 Accept Taxpayer-Paid Health Insurance
One of the chief arguments Florida House Republicans made Friday when they rejected the Senate plan to help 600,000 working poor get health insurance is that it would create a taxpayer-funded entitlement and would be hard to repeal.
What they didn’t mention during the debate is that they are entitled to a very generous health insurance package that costs $22,000 a year — with premiums mostly covered by Florida taxpayers. And, over the years, they have rejected any attempts by Gov. Rick Scott to reduce the benefit. (Klas, 6/6)
The New York Times:
Health Care Expansion Is Rejected In Florida
The vote in the House was 72 to 41 against the measure, with all 37 Democrats and four Republicans voting yes. It was a far different outcome from the one in the Senate, which solidly backed the plan in a 33-to-3 vote on Wednesday. The Florida Health Insurance Affordability Exchange would have used more than $18 billion over 10 years in federal funds to expand the pool of low-income Floridians eligible for health insurance and help them buy it from private providers. Instead, House Republicans, using their 81-to-39 majority and an almost uniform opposition to using federal dollars to broaden the pool of patients covered under Medicaid, criticized the new plan, calling it nothing more than Medicaid expansion under another name. (Madigan, 6/5)
The Associated Press:
House Votes Down Medicaid Expansion Compromise 72 - 41
The vote came on the fifth day of a special session that was required after the House and Senate failed to pass a budget during their regular 60-day session. The two chambers were divided over health care, including whether to expand health care coverage. During the regular session, the House never voted on the Senate proposal. That changed after an emotionally charged debate that fell along party lines as legislators either called it disastrous or life-saving. The final vote was divided, although four Republicans voted with the Democrats. (Fineout and Kennedy, 6/6)
The Miami Herald:
Coverage Expansion Likely Solution For Hospitals, Lobby Group Says
Medicaid expansion is the likeliest long-term solution for hospitals in Florida, Texas and the 19 other states that have resisted broadening coverage under the government healthcare program, the incoming president of the nation’s most influential hospital lobbying group, the American Hospital Association, said Friday. Noting that only six states adopted Medicaid when the program first launched in January 1966 — all states joined by 1982 — Rick Pollack, who will become AHA president in 2016, said the forward march of healthcare reform will make coverage expansion unavoidable if hospitals are going to thrive. Included in that reform is a scheduled reduction of government payments to hospitals that care for large numbers of uninsured patients. (Chang, 6/5)
The issue also continues to boil in Alaska.
Alaska Dispatch News:
Legal Opinions Say Alaska Lawmakers’ Effort To Stop Medicaid Expansion Likely Unconstitutional
Attempts by legislative leaders to use the budget to stop Gov. Bill Walker from accepting federal Medicaid expansion are likely unconstitutional and can’t block unilateral action by Walker to bring the program to the state with or without the Legislature’s agreement, new legal opinions say. ... To block Walker, the Legislature included provisions in the operating budget aimed at preventing him from acting unilaterally to take the $130 million in federal money for the program. But two legal opinions, one from the Alaska Department of Law, which serves as Walker's attorney, and one from the Legislature's own attorney, have concluded that language is “likely unconstitutional” and can’t be enforced. (Forgey, 6/7)
