Risks outweigh savings in prenatal care cuts
But Chuck Mulligan, deputy secretary of health care financing, said that these cost savings were outweighed by the risk that low-income pregnant women would lose access to vital health services.
At a budget hearing Thursday, Mulligan told the Senate Health and Human Services Subcommittee that he was concerned that these women would avoid seeing doctors if they were not provided with Medicaid, since the state health exchange would require them to pay significantly more for care.
Copays and other “out-of-pocket costs are significantly lower” in Medicaid than they would be in the health exchange, Mulligan said. He said Gov. Martin O’Malley agreed that transitioning pregnant women from Medicaid to the health exchange might discourage some from seeking treatment.
Mulligan said the governor’s office opposed the cut recommended by the Department of Legislative Services, and he urged the senators to preserve the funding that the governor requested for prenatal health care.
All in health exchange will have higher costs
Powell countered that everyone who transitioned from Medicaid to the health exchange would have higher out-of-pocket costs and that he did not see why pregnant women should get an exemption. “The question is, can we afford to have this overlapping coverage?” he asked.
Sen. Roger Manno, D-Montgomery, asked why the state should provide Medicaid to pregnant women with incomes up to 250% of the federal poverty level — $36,775 for a single mother, $47,736 for a three-member family — when federal mandates required state funding only for those with incomes at or below 185% of the federal poverty line.
“If there’s a cost saving, why wouldn’t we just go to 185%?” Manno said. But after hearing Mulligan’s arguments, he appeared to have a change of heart, saying, “If our goal is to cover pregnant women we’re not covering, then I’m all for it.”
Manno’s reversal occurred after Mulligan explained that women who joined the health exchange would become ineligible for Medicaid and vise versa, meaning that the state would not be double-charged for the same person’s health care if low-income pregnant women continued to receive Medicaid.
Health advocates oppose move
Women’s health advocates joined Mulligan in his opposition to the funding reductions. Robyn Elliott, a lobbyist for the Maryland Nurses Association, said that her organization was one of many that disagreed with the proposed funding cuts, including Planned Parenthood, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American College of Nurse Midwives.
Eric Gally, a spokesman of Advocates for Children and Youth, told Powell that his attempt to conserve state funds was short-sighted.
“When a woman is pregnant, the state reaps immediate cost savings by getting her appropriate prenatal and post-natal care,” Gally said. “There’s nothing, no health policy, that saves the state more money in the long-run than making sure that these two patients, a mother and child, are well taken care of from the beginning.”
In written testimony, Gally argued that Maryland has a “special interest” in providing pregnant women with health care.
“Not only does research show that prenatal services are very effective in reducing long term costs, but Maryland has begun to make significant progress both in reducing poor birth outcomes and in reducing disparities in birth outcomes between racial and ethnic groups,” he wrote. “The state’s success is in large part attributable to getting women into care early in their pregnancies. Excluding this low-income population from Medicaid threatens to roll back that process.”