New Hampshire: We’re in.
North Carolina: We’re not.
The two states on Tuesday were the latest to announce their intentions on the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges. States have until Feb. 15 to tell HHS whether they’ll retain even some control over the exchanges, or let the Obama administration run the exchanges for them.
And while New Hampshire made clear that it wants to partner with the federal government to launch an insurance exchange, North Carolina backed out of a previous plan to do exactly that.
By Friday, we’ll know where half a dozen other states stand, too.
Background on Partnership Model
The Affordable Care Act didn’t originally spell out the partnership model; under the law, states faced a binary choice of running their own insurance exchanges or punting the responsibility to the government.
But HHS officials realized they needed to tweak the ACA’s approach, as more than 30 states — increasingly led by Republicans, who took over 11 statehouses in the 2010 election — announced they planned to opt out of the exchanges altogether. This would leave HHS officials with “an awesome task in establishing and operating exchanges in [so many] different states and coordinating those operations with state Medicaid programs and insurance departments,” before open enrollment begins in October 2013, Paul Starr writes in The American Prospect.
As a result, the agency in 2011 introduced the partnership model in hopes of shifting some of the responsibility for running exchanges back to the states.
Under the hybrid approach, the federal government takes on setting up the exchange’s website and other back-end responsibilities, while states keep functions such as approving health plans and setting up consumer assistance programs. HHS also hopes that the partnership model will be a path for states that weren’t ready to run their own exchanges to take them over eventually.
During the debate two years ago over the health care law—which I called an historic mistake because it expanded a health care delivery system we already knew was too expensive, instead of taking steps to reduce its cost two years ago—I suggested to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were supporting it that, if they voted for it, they ought to be sentenced to go home and run for governor and see whether they could implement it over an eight-year period.
Governors have long wrestled with the rising costs of Medicaid, paid for partly by the states according to rules set in Washington, and the question of how to deal with public education, especially higher education. Some 30 years ago, when I was a young governor, I was still struggling with the fact that at the end of the budget process, we had money either to put into higher education or into Medicaid – but the rules from Washington said it had to go to Medicaid.
I remember going to see President Reagan and asking: ‘Why don’t we just swap it, Mr. President? Let the federal government take all of Medicaid. Let the states take elementary and secondary education.’ That didn’t happen, and gradually, the increasing Washington-directed costs have distorted state budgets so much that now 24 percent of the state budgets go to the Medicaid program.
Because of the health care law, we are going to add 25.9 million more Americans to Medicaid, according to the Medicaid Chief Actuary.
Our former governor, Governor Bredesen, a Democratic governor, estimated that between 2014 and 2019 the expansion of Medicaid would add $1.1 billion in new costs to the state of Tennessee.