State Medicaid Programs: A Trifocal Examination of the Controversy Surrounding Expansion

The conversation regarding Medicaid expansion is ever-changing as states grapple with whether to expand their existing programs. Through this now-optional piece of legislation, state governments can choose to extend healthcare coverage via the federal government to millions of previously uninsured citizens. In order to understand and form an opinion on the controversy over expanding Medicaid programs, the issue demands to be looked at through three varying lenses. The first and most important lens is social. Several studies are examined to show that with expansion, there is a high correlation with better health outcomes; without it there is a care gap that leaves many low-income people without coverage. The second lens that is looked at is political; expanding Medicaid is largely a partisan issue between Democrats and Republicans. Analyzing interviews with politicians gives insight as to why the expansion may or may not be implemented in their states. Cost is the third lens that is assessed. Several cost-saving measures built into the Affordable Care Act and the Medicaid expansion are illuminated, as well as the financial detriments that would occur if expansion is refused. This research encompasses a well-rounded perspective on the Medicaid expansion issue and argues that, while recognizing that the financial outcomes associated with expanding are indeed beneficial, the United States ultimately has an obligation to provide its citizens with a viable option for health care and a fair opportunity to a healthy life. Based on these conclusions, expanding state Medicaid programs is a crucial solution to ensure that the US is establishing a healthy and productive society