Medicaid expansion, approved by Missouri voters, continues to divide Parson, Galloway
Missouri voters resoundingly approved Medicaid expansion Tuesday night, and Gov. Mike Parson says he will abide by the will of the people.
His Democratic rival this fall, state Auditor Nicole Galloway, isn’t so sure.
On the first day of the 2020 gubernatorial general election campaign in Missouri, Galloway told reporters in Columbia Wednesday she has no doubt that Parson and the Republican-led state legislature will attempt to undermine Medicaid expansion.
“History can be our guide,” she said.“ On Clean Missouri, on right-to-work, Gov. Parson thinks he knows better. He campaigned against Medicaid expansion and said he’d raise taxes and cut other programs if you voted for it.”
As Parson and Galloway set their sights on a November election that will be shaped by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, health care promises to be a defining issue.
Urban vs. rural
Voters approved the Medicaid expansion constitutional amendment 53% to 47%, a margin fueled by support in the state’s urban centers and suburbs. Rural voters overwhelmingly rejected the proposal.
The amendment will eventually offer access to health care for more than 200,000 uninsured Missourians by raising the level for eligibility to 138% of the federal poverty line — about $36,000 for a family of four.
Currently only the disabled, children and parents with incomes under 22% of federal poverty level — less than $5,800 a year for a family of four — are eligible.
The federal government picks up 90 percent of the new costs, with the rest falling to the state.
The Missouri Department of Social Services is required to present its expansion plan to the federal government by March 1, 2021, with new Missourians becoming eligible four months later.
Republicans campaigned hard against expansion, with Parson among the most outspoken in opposition. They argued expanding coverage would result in massive hit to the state budget, forcing cuts in other areas or tax hikes.
Travis Brown, spokesman for the anti-expansion campaign, said in an emailed statement that voters “have opened up the possibility of rural school consolidations, ushering in higher taxes on all citizens and forcing deeper cuts to vital state programs like education.”
Parson reiterated the GOP argument on Wednesday.
“The big thing is where do you find the funding for it right now?” Parson told reporters at his weekly Capitol briefing. “You’re probably looking at $200 million or something like that off the bat, so we’ve got to figure out where that funding is going to come from.”
Parson added it will ultimately come down to the state of the economy.
“Hopefully the economy gets better,” he said. “Hopefully we can meet that financial obligation a little easier, but right now it’s tough times.”
Federal funding
Proponents of expansion say it’s not true that it will drain state revenues.
On the contrary, they argue expansion will bring billions of federal healthcare dollars into the state, pumping much needed money into rural hospitals and boosting state revenue by creating thousands of jobs.
Beyond that, they point to studies showing expansion could also save money in the long run by drawing additional federal funding to cover a variety of health services currently paid for with state revenue.
Galloway said Wednesday that Parson has set up a false choice between expanded access to healthcare and education funding or higher taxes.
“We can expand healthcare without raising taxes or cutting other programs,” she said. “As governor, that’s exactly what I’ll do. Gov. Parson won’t. So it matters who is sitting in the Governor’s Office next year when it comes time to implement Medicaid expansion.”
This story was originally published August 5, 2020 at 4:50 PM.
