Alabama forges ahead with research on benefits, costs of Medicaid expansion

Okay, so not only is Colorado so far behind Alabama in football that we barely play the same game, now it turns out we’re also behind the Sweet Home state in Medicaid research.

University of Alabama-Birmingham researchers have carefully tallied up how many people will join Medicaid under the proposed federal expansion, what it will cost Alabama to administer given the feds’ offer of a 100 percent underwriting, and what the state would get back in new tax money and economic development. That last part is innovative, acknowledging that a new influx of federal money will go to pay doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, supply companies, supply deliverers, even cafeteria workers who will sell more salads and burgers to paying patients.

This is not to argue Colorado should slap together some partisan research claiming the expansion is brilliant. Remember that the federal money doesn’t come out of thin air — it comes out of taxes or debt that we all pay. And a story in our Business section today details some of the little-known tax increases and fees that were part of the Affordable Care Act’s self-financing scheme when it was passed in 2010.

But the Alabama study does show those numbers are available, and should be put out there so we can start arguing about it intelligently. Colorado officials disputed an earlier Kaiser Family Foundation study claiming to show the Medicaid expansion would cost Colorado $858 million in its own funds in the first 10 years of the program. The Hickenlooper administration, though, didn’t offer any alternative with any proof. So state health advocates are operating on just their say-so until the Medicaid division or some other government department comes up with some calculations.

So what did Alabama researchers find? They say a mid-level scenario of the numbers of Alabamans signing up for new Medicaid would generate $20 billion in economic activity for the state. While state costs would be minimal during the first three years when the feds pay 100 percent of new patient costs, the influx of money would generate $935 million in new state tax revenues.