Medicaid Expansion | Behavioral Healthcare Executive Skip to content Skip to navigation

The Supreme Court Approves the 2014 Medicaid Expansion: What Now?

July 18, 2012
by Ron Manderscheid
| Reprints
Will the states recognize the financial benefits of the 2014 Medicaid Expansion?

Like a most welcome cool breeze on a very hot summer day, the recent Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has reinvigorated our energy and enthusiasm. This should provide wind at our backs to move forward quickly with implementation efforts at the state level. Advocacy is needed urgently to attest to the moral and fiscal soundness of electing the 2014 Medicaid Expansion (ME), now that it has become a state option. Similarly, work is needed immediately on the Essential Health Benefit so that key mental health and substance use benefits are included at full parity, as states prepare their submissions to HHS in September. Finally, discussions must be undertaken around state health exchanges and the role that your state will play in implementation. Here, I want to focus only on our future work around the ME.

The Supreme Court decision on the 2014 ME left the Expansion intact, but removed the federal penalty for failure of a state to undertake it. In effect, this decision makes the ME a state option. This decision also has engendered new and difficult questions, such as: What is the Medicaid entitlement of a person below 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level and not currently eligible to be enrolled in Medicaid in a state that does not elect the ME? Will the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Payments (DSH) for charity care in a state that does not elect the ME be decreased according to the schedule outlined in the ACA?  More on these questions below.

In thinking about the 2014 ME, it seems clear that the 24 states and DC that did not oppose the ACA likely will adopt this option immediately. Among the remaining 26 states (AL, AK, AR, CO, FL, GA, ID. IN, IO, KS, LA, ME, MI, MS, NE, NV, ND, OH, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT, WA, WI, WY), targeted within-state advocacy will be necessary. As a result of this advocacy work, probably half will adopt the ME later this year. For the remainder, half are likely to adopt the ME after the fall 2012 elections. This probably will leave only the few states recently characterized as having “rogue governors”. This latter group will require intensive, very well organized advocacy that crosses traditional boundaries.

Without any doubt, the ME will be of tremendous financial benefit to states. For new enrollees, 100 percent of the cost will be paid by the federal government for the first three years, after which this amount will become and remain 90 percent. In effect, federal funds will be substituted for state and county funds previously spent on this population. As one example, Texas is expected to receive $52.5 billion, in return for a $2.6 billion investment, not considering the state funds that will be supplanted by these federal funds for the ME population in Texas. (See the Kaiser analysis of this issue at: Thus, in purely economic terms, the ME is really a “must do” for states.




Terrific insights, Ron. Between the fiscal logic you present here and the financial impacts that will be felt by health providers in every state that fights it, I don't know how a governor or legislator could stand for long against the Medicaid expansion.

What steps should state-level advocates take to understand and have an impact on the situation with their state's consideration and development of the essential health benefit? I would love to learn more about how to go about doing that.

Should it automatically be presumed that more Federal dollars dumped on the market means improved mental health care? Yes, more people will now be elligible for Medicaid but they are generally not showing up in Emergency Rooms due to lack of coverage. Multiple systemic and interpersonal issues are at play.

"...good health is a prerequisite for fostering a competitive workforce in a global economy." Are we to presume that the new Medicaid population is primarily part of the competetive workforce? I think not.

We are not only behavioral health professionals, we are citizens and taxpayers too. The additional spending of money that we as a society cannot possibly afford does not strike me as social justice. Indeed it is a grave injustice to future generations.

If we truly wish to seek social justice we need to overhaul the delivery system of mental health care not the payor classes.

Right now the Supreme Court's approval rating is at an all time low because the activist conservative judges have been legislating from the bench.
Even though they are in no danger of losing their jobs, these people have enormous egos. The low public approval ratings, if it gets lower, is bound to affect them mentally.


Ron Manderscheid

Exec. Dir., NACBHDD and NARMH

Ron Manderscheid


Ron Manderscheid, Ph.D., serves as the Executive Director of the National Association of County...

The opinions expressed by Behavioral Healthcare Executive bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone and are not meant to reflect the opinions of the publication.