The New York Times editorial board says the Carcieri administration’s plan to redesign Rhode Island’s Medicaid program is risky…
Under the proposed waiver, the federal government would contribute a fixed annual amount for the next five years (roughly what it was projected to spend anyway), but Rhode Island would limit its contribution to 23 percent of its general revenue budget….
The state is hoping to make up the difference, without harming patients, by providing health care more cheaply. It wants to require most long-term care patients to get treatment at home or from community-based services rather than in expensive nursing homes and would put virtually all beneficiaries in managed care.
If that isn’t enough, it wants flexibility to charge higher co-payments, put people on waiting lists for treatment, and limit the duration and scope of services.
My question is, perhaps with the exception of the higher co-payments, how are the actions cited in the Times
editorial substantively different from standard liberal Democratic plans for implementing universal healthcare?