The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Medicaid Often Worse Than No Insurance at All?

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Medicaid Often Worse Than No Insurance at All?

By Joseph Lawler on 7.5.11 @ 11:46AM

Avik Roy reports that a new Government Accountability Office survey finds that children enrolled in Medicaid "have worse access to physicians than those with no insurance at all."

How is it possible that no coverage could be better than government coverage? Roy explains that the burdensome paperwork requirements and low fees make Medicaid a headache for doctors:

It turns out that Medicaid's problems aren't just that the program underpays doctors. It's also that the program is a huge hassle to work with, in terms of paperwork and billing requirements. It's also that Medicaid reimbursement checks come late, and it takes a lot of effort on the part of busy doctors to track bureaucrats down for timely payment. An uninsured patient who pays cash is infinitely easier to deal with, even if the uninsured patient only pays $20 up-front for an office visit.

Clearly Medicaid is due for reform. Roy plugs the Coburn plan to block-grant Medicaid funds to the states. Based on this new evidence from the GAO, it seems as though any reform that moves the system closer to simply placing cash in recpients' hands would be an improvement.

View all comments (6) | Leave a comment

john dubose| 7.5.11 @ 1:09PM

There is intrinsic waste and potential corruption in any transaction where consumer and payer are not the same person. If the government is going to provide health care for non-responsible persons, we are stuck with both of them.

Oldefarte| 7.5.11 @ 2:06PM

Any transaction that places Medicaid insurance cash within the recipients' hands would be a huge mistake, since same are mostly indigents who are incapable of handling money in the first place. Similar to welfare in the form of food stamps, giving them money is wasteful and worthless wasting of taxpayers money. Medicaid is another form of governmental welfare that simply incourages more birthing of poverty-stricken children among these indigents, when the ultimate solution rests with restricting/reducing such childbirths. Instead of these Medicaid payments facility, a much more economical solution would be for the government to establish charity-type hospitals/clinics throughout the country whose sole purpose would be the medical care of these indigents. Same could be staffed with medical interns/residents and government-paid physicians; thereby reducing medical costs/expenses accordingly. The so-called governmental entitlements subject is mostly a problem due to this Medicaid sector, and to a much lower extent so with Medicare and SS [which are mostly PAID FOR by its beneficiaries]. Medicaid should not be lumped in with the other two, but is so for liberal Democrat Party purposes!!!!!!!!

Occam's Tool| 7.5.11 @ 4:33PM

Many MDs would prefer to provide pro bono care than go through the paperwork nightmare of accepting Medicaid. Most MDs I know in private practice do not accept Medicaid as outpatient payment, only inpatient, and only for those cases they are forced to take in rotation.

Kingofthenet| 7.5.11 @ 5:51PM

The Govt. can't even run the VA right and give Vets good care.

Occam's Tool| 7.5.11 @ 4:34PM

Oldefarte has an excellent idea---but these hospitals already exist---Cook County in Chi, USC in LA, Bellevue in NYC---the big problem is the treatment of illegals. If we could eliminate illegal alien care we could really get a handle on things.