Public Health Community Worries About Money as Obamacare Begins

Several federal provisions assist the neediest Americans. Now that everyone is supposed to have insurance, will they be unnecessary?

Squashed: Will certainhealth care programs be moot?  
National Journal
Catherine Hollander
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Catherine Hollander
Aug. 29, 2013, 10:58 a.m.

What’s the point of hav­ing pub­lic-health pro­grams for people without health in­sur­ance if every­body has health in­sur­ance?

Pub­lic-health ad­voc­ates have spent the past three years liv­ing in fear of that ques­tion: With the Af­ford­able Care Act the­or­et­ic­ally en­sur­ing that every­one is covered, law­makers might fig­ure it’s safe to gut long-stand­ing pub­lic-health pro­grams.

For a while, those fears seemed well-foun­ded.

“Even with­in months of the ini­tial pas­sage of the ACA, I had lob­by­ists for oth­er “˜good-guy’ causes call­ing and say­ing, “˜OK, when can we start think­ing of these pro­grams as off­sets or pay-fors for oth­er activ­it­ies we’d like to put for­ward in the ap­pro­pri­ations bill or as new au­thor­iz­a­tions?’ “ says Tim West­mo­re­land, a vis­it­ing pro­fess­or at Geor­getown Law who helped craft the Ry­an White Care Act of 1990, which serves low-in­come HIV pa­tients. “And I said, “˜Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.’ “

But now many in the pub­lic-health com­munity say those wor­ries have passed — or at least have been over­taken by a dif­fer­ent con­cern: that law­makers will see the need to con­tin­ue the pro­grams but slash their fund­ing any­way be­cause of the na­tion’s lar­ger budget con­cerns.

“It’s go­ing to be more a mat­ter of de­gree, the ar­gu­ment go­ing for­ward,” says Dan Hawkins, the head of policy at the Na­tion­al As­so­ci­ation of Com­munity Health Cen­ters. “There will be an ar­gu­ment about scale and size.”

That de­bate has already be­gun. And what Wash­ing­ton has giv­en with one hand, it has some­times taken away with the oth­er. Com­munity health cen­ters got an $11 bil­lion grant over five years through the 2010 ACA, $9.5 bil­lion of which was ear­marked for ex­pand­ing op­er­a­tions — only to see their reg­u­lar fund­ing cut by $600 mil­lion in fisc­al 2011, which would erase ap­prox­im­ately one-third of that budget over five years. Title X ap­pro­pri­ations for fam­ily plan­ning fell 7 per­cent in fisc­al 2010 to $294 mil­lion in 2012. Se­quest­ra­tion is likely to ex­acer­bate fund­ing prob­lems in the fu­ture.

Mean­while, com­munity health cen­ters are bra­cing for more de­mand than ever. The non­par­tis­an Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice pre­dicts that, des­pite Obama­care, 31 mil­lion non-eld­erly Amer­ic­ans will re­main un­in­sured in 2023. Those people will con­tin­ue to look to com­munity cen­ters to meet their health needs. And some of the mil­lions of people who do be­come in­sured un­der Obama­care will likely turn there, too. Those cen­ters say they will struggle to meet that double-barreled ex­pan­sion in de­mand if law­makers are giv­ing them less money, even if Medi­caid and private in­sur­ance con­tri­bu­tions rise.

Pub­lic-health of­fi­cials point to work that’s been done in Mas­sachu­setts as a pre­view of what’s likely to hap­pen to pub­lic-health pro­grams after the ACA is fully im­ple­men­ted. A 2012 study fun­ded by the Amer­ic­an Can­cer So­ci­ety looked at use of ser­vices through the breast and cer­vical can­cer pro­gram fol­low­ing the state’s pas­sage of health care re­form in 2006. The re­search­ers, us­ing Census Bur­eau data, con­cluded that even as the ACA in­creases health cov­er­age and the levels of can­cer screen­ing among wo­men, “if fu­ture num­bers of wo­men served by [the Na­tion­al Breast and Cer­vical Can­cer Early De­tec­tion Pro­gram] are com­par­able to re­cent num­bers, the pro­gram will still only be able to meet the needs of one-fifth to one-third of those eli­gible.” But Con­gress ap­proved only $185 mil­lion for the early-de­tec­tion pro­gram in fisc­al 2011 and $184 mil­lion in 2012 — just 73 per­cent and 67 per­cent, re­spect­ively, of the fund­ing set out in the law’s 2007 reau­thor­iz­a­tion.

And, of­fi­cials say, health in­sur­ance alone isn’t enough to make up the dif­fer­ence. The Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion, which runs the early-de­tec­tion pro­gram, states on its web­site, “Even with ad­equate health in­sur­ance, many wo­men will still face sub­stan­tial bar­ri­ers to ob­tain­ing breast- and cer­vical-can­cer screen­ing, such as geo­graph­ic isol­a­tion, lim­ited health lit­er­acy or self-ef­fic­acy, lack of pro­vider re­com­mend­a­tion, in­con­veni­ent times to ac­cess ser­vices, and lan­guage bar­ri­ers.”

Pub­lic-health pro­viders also note the so-called ad­ded be­ne­fits of their pro­grams, such as coun­sel­ing and oth­er sup­port ser­vices, that aren’t in­cluded in Medi­caid or many private in­sur­ance plans.

An­oth­er big ques­tion for pub­lic-health pro­grams is what will hap­pen with state Medi­caid ex­pan­sions. In 2012, the Su­preme Court ruled that states had the choice to ex­pand their Medi­caid pro­grams with fed­er­al fund­ing or to opt out. States that take the lat­ter route — so far, 21 have done so, and five are still de­bat­ing it — are likely to have lar­ger pop­u­la­tions that rely on pub­lic-health pro­grams. Right now, the fund­ing mech­an­isms for the Ry­an White law aren’t based on how many people have cov­er­age in a par­tic­u­lar state, but those vari­ations are soon to be much more dra­mat­ic, com­plic­at­ing ques­tions of how to al­loc­ate the money Con­gress ap­pro­pri­ates.

Con­gress may want to wait and see how the ACA plays out be­fore mak­ing any longer-term de­cisions on pro­grams such as Ry­an White, which is up for reau­thor­iz­a­tion at the end of Septem­ber. Sticky battles loom ahead, but of­fi­cials are re­lieved that at least they won’t be over their pro­grams’ life or death. That’s a fight they now feel they have won.

What We're Following See More »
Republican Polling Shows Close Race
Roundup: National Polling Remains Inconsistent
8 hours ago

The national polls, once again, tell very different stories: Clinton leads by just one point in the IBD, Rasmussen, and LA Times tracking polls, while she shows a commanding 12 point lead in the ABC news poll and a smaller but sizable five point lead in the CNN poll. The Republican Remington Research Group released a slew of polls showing Trump up in Ohio, Nevada, and North Carolina, a tie in Florida, and Clinton leads in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia. However, an independent Siena poll shows Clinton up 7 in North Carolina, while a Monmouth poll shows Trump up one in Arizona

Colin Powell to Vote for Clinton
11 hours ago
Clinton Reaching Out to GOP Senators
16 hours ago

If you need a marker for how confident Hillary Clinton is at this point of the race, here's one: CNN's Jeff Zeleny reports "she's been talking to Republican senators, old allies and new, saying that she is willing to work with them and govern."

Trump Admits He’s Behind
16 hours ago
Ron Klain in Line to Be Clinton’s Chief of Staff?
16 hours ago

Sources tell CNN that longtime Democratic operative Ron Klain, who has been Vice President Biden's chief of staff, is "high on the list of prospects" to be chief of staff in a Clinton White House. "John Podesta, the campaign chairman, has signaled his interest in joining the Cabinet, perhaps as Energy secretary."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.