Currently Viewing:
The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
Value Assessment Frameworks Should Represent a Spectrum of Patient Preferences
September 08, 2017
Dr Patricia Danzon: Learning From European Health Systems
August 30, 2017
Dr Ilene Hollin: One-Size-Fits-All to Value Doesn't Work
August 23, 2017
Dr Patricia Danzon Highlights European Examples of Restraining Drug Prices
August 16, 2017
Dr Ilene Hollin Outlines Differing Definitions of Value
August 09, 2017
Dr Patricia Danzon: Cost Effective Doesn't Mean Affordable
August 03, 2017
Dr Michael Sherman on Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Agreements
July 28, 2017
Dr David Cutler Assesses the Political Odds of Drug Pricing Reform
July 25, 2017
Dr Steve Pearson on Using Health Technology Assessment to Guide Decision Making
July 23, 2017
Dr Gail Wilensky: Increased Competition a Better Drug Pricing Solution Than Cost Controls
July 16, 2017
Dr Steve Pearson on Data Needed to Evaluate Clinical and Economic Effects of New Therapies
July 14, 2017
Dr David Cutler: Trump Administration's Attention Not on Value-Based Purchasing
July 09, 2017
Dr Gail Wilensky on the Likelihood of Continuing Value-Based Reimbursement Demonstrations
July 06, 2017
Dr Steve Pearson: Patient Perspectives Guide ICER Value Framework Development
July 04, 2017
Dr Scott Ramsey Addresses the Need for Differential Pricing Structures for Drugs
July 02, 2017
Currently Reading
Dr Gail Wilensky Raises Questions About Medicaid's Matching Grant Structure
June 25, 2017
Dr David Cutler Discusses Opportunities for Bipartisan ACA Reform
June 20, 2017
Dr Scott Ramsey on Challenges of Determining Cost Effectiveness of Novel Cancer Treatments
June 19, 2017
Dr Steve Pearson's Outlook on the Ongoing Updates to ICER's Value Framework
June 18, 2017

Dr Gail Wilensky Raises Questions About Medicaid's Matching Grant Structure

As Republicans work to reform Medicaid, they must contend with questions about the appropriate financial support level and the grant structure of the program, according to Gail Wilensky, PhD, of Project HOPE.


As Republicans work to reform Medicaid, they must contend with questions about the appropriate financial support level and the grant structure of the program, according to Gail Wilensky, PhD, of Project HOPE.

Transcript (slightly modified)

Medicaid has been a huge point of contention within the Republican Party. Do you think something will give?

I think there are 2 big questions about Medicaid. One is the financial support level. Are we talking about trying to extract, going forward, large sums of money? Are we talking about very modestly slowing the spend rate that we’ve seen on Medicaid? And the second is what should the structure be. I have much more sympathy with the move to a per capita block grant with some outcome metrics as a requirement, provided that the baseline makes sense and the rate of increase is appropriate for the different populations affected.

The reason I believe that is that we have seen in the past couple of decades most of the new money that has come in through Medicaid has been federal money, and much of the supposedly state match has been creative financing that just moves money around and then gives it back to the state. It has indicated some serious questions about the viability and validity of a matching grant in Medicaid. I think that continues to exist.

So, the structure is one thing. It’s now our only open-ended entitlement program left in the United States. Medicare, because of the IPAB structure, actually has a limit in place. I think questioning that is one idea. It is having a base structure and a growth rate that is appropriate, that is a whole different level of debate. People unfortunately are mixing the two up.

 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2017 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up
×

Sign In

Not a member? Sign up now!