MYTH # 9:
“As the Governor has assured us, ‘Our state and our people will come through this just fine.’”1

REALITY

TennCare affects human lives.  TennCare funds the safety net for both medical and mental health care, and when TennCare cuts fray that safety net, real people suffer.2 The U.T. Center for Health Services Research has analyzed the impact on death rates of taking away TennCare coverage and leaving people without insurance. According to that analysis, cutting 200,000 adults from the TennCare program would increase the statewide death rate by as many as 275 deaths per year, or an additional death every 36 hours.3

Unfortunately, that estimate is probably conservative, since those cut from TennCare include people who are particularly sick and vulnerable. Also, the estimate is limited to the effects on those being removed from the program, and does not take into account the additional risks of cutting services for those who remain. Physicians warn that the five prescription limit, for example, will endanger many elderly patients who suffer from multiple chronic illnesses and who require twice as many medications as will now be available.

The harm will not be limited to TennCare enrollees. Cutting $1.8 billion in public funding will have serious consequences for a health care system on which all Tennesseans rely. The Tennessee Hospital Association has predicted that at least forty hospitals, mostly in poor, rural communities, are at risk of closing due to the loss of TennCare funds. The closure of those hospitals will mean the loss of major employers, an inability to recruit or retain physicians, and a permanent blow to the vitality of those communities and their economies.4 The withdrawal of funds will cripple communicable disease control efforts by limiting, for example, access to drugs needed to treat HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. The loss of funding for the chronic care of people with serious mental illness will have widespread social and medical consequences, as these individuals become homeless, and they are left to fall back on local jails and emergency rooms.

Tennessee’s economy loses in several respects. Employers can expect to see their group insurance premiums rise as health care providers shift to private patients the costs of caring for former TennCare patients who now have no means of paying for their own care. Hospitals were expected to raise their rates by 17% in the first year to offset the effects of the TennCare cuts.5

Job loss caused by the reduction in federal funds will occur throughout the entire state economy.6 In fact, the number of jobs lost due to the TennCare cuts offsets most of the state’s gains in new job development over the entire year.7  Because a disproportionate share of lost federal funds would have been spent in poorer communities that had high TennCare enrollment, their loss will be felt most in those counties that already have the weakest economies.

Most strikingly, state government appears to be a loser. McKinsey & Company warned in 2004 that returning to Medicaid would involve a loss of the federal funding advantages associated with TennCare’s broadened coverage: “A move to Medicaid would therefore require Tennessee to contribute additional money from state funds, largely offsetting the savings from reducing enrollment.”8 That warning has been vindicated by subsequent events. For, although the cuts relieved immediate pressures on the state budget, they did not address the underlying inflation.

The cuts did not even eliminate increases in state expenditures for TennCare, for the massive savings accrued to the federal government, not the state. Total state spending on TennCare in 2004-2005, prior to the implementation of the cuts, was $2.539 billion. Despite the cuts, state spending will rise by $110 million in the current fiscal year. The Governor’s budget projects growth next year to $2.673 billion.9

The state has eliminated almost all Medicaid benefits and eligibility categories that are not either required by federal law or, like nursing home and prescription drug coverage, are impossible to eliminate for practical reasons. Worrying projections of medical inflation create the specter of the state facing new pressures within the next few years, but without much left to cut. Tennessee faces this daunting prospect without the aid of the massive federal funds that it just forfeited when it returned to Medicaid.10

1 Governor Phil Bredesen, State of the State Address, January 31, 2005, available at: http://www.state.tn.us/governor/viewArticleContent.do?id=89&page=0.

2 The mental health infrastructure of the state, which is almost entirely dependent upon TennCare, is aptly described by the TennCare Director as “fragile”, and it is especially vulnerable to any cuts in the TennCare program. Deposition of Manny Martins in John B. v. Goetz, No. 3:98-0168, 6/24/04, p. 246.  Deposition Tennessee’s Comptroller of the Treasury, Tennessee’s Mental Health Safety Net (April 1998), http://www.comptroller.state.tn.us/orea/reports/mental.pdf.  Comptroller of the Treasury, Seeking a Way Out:  Services and Challenges Affecting Tennessee’s Poor, p. 34-35, 39-40. (April 2004). TennCare funding is critical to the survival of public hospitals and clinics that serve indigent patients. 

3 UTCHSR, Special Bulletin:  The impact of reducing TennCare enrollment on mortality rates (March 2002), available at http://www.utmem.edu/CENTER/Publications/special_bulletin/TennCare%20Deaths.pdf

4 UTCHSR, Special Bulletin:  Economic Impacts of a Cut in State Expenditures on TennCare: The Role of the Federal Match (September 2005), http://www.utmem.edu/cgi-bin/center/start.cgi/index1.html estimated that cuts of $1.7 billion would result in a loss of 16,000 jobs statewide, in addition to other adverse economic consequences. Because a disproportionate share of those funds would be spent in poorer communities that have high TennCare enrollment, the adverse economic effects will be the greatest in those counties that can least afford it.

5 Tennessee Hospital Association, “THA Comments on the Proposed TennCare Waiver Amendment September 24, 2004, Submission and January 19, 2005, Proposal”, (2/15/05), p. 6.

6 UTCHSR, Special Bulletin:  Economic Impacts of a Cut in State Expenditures on TennCare: The Role of the Federal Match (September 2005), http://www.utmem.edu/cgi-bin/center/start.cgi/index1.html estimated that cuts of $1.7 billion would result in a loss of 16,000 jobs statewide, in addition to other adverse economic consequences. The state’s $1.8 billion projection of reduced spending included $650 million state and $1.15 billion federal expenditures that would have been incurred, given medical inflation, had eligibility and benefits been maintained at 2004 levels. Thus, part of the job loss is in existing jobs and part is in new jobs that would have been created but now will not be. Disregarding inflation, the annualized loss in federal funding is $670 million, resulting in the loss of 10,160 existing jobs. See also L. Ku, “Will the New TennCare Cutbacks Help Tennessee’s Economy” (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 8, 2004), available at http://www.cbpp.org/7-8-04health.htm, which projects a loss of 20,000 jobs.

7 According to the Tennessee Department of Community and Economic Development, 14,345 new jobs were created in Tennessee through the first three quarters of 2004, for an annual rate of growth of 19,126 jobs statewide. See: http://www.state.tn.us/ecd/pdf/new_jobs04.pdf.

8 McKinsey & Co., Achieving a Critical Mission in Difficult Times – Illustrative Strategic Options for TennCare, supra n. 5, p. 84.

10 C. Borger, et al., “Health Spending Projections through 2015: Changes on the Horizon”, Health Affairs 25 (2-22-06): http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.25.w61v1.

 

Close This Window