Minnesota would lose about $2 billion in federal dollars for medical assistance programs in just 18 months if Congress passes the Republican-sponsored health care bill now under consideration in the Senate, according to a state analysis released Wednesday.
The estimate by the Department of Human Services (DHS) found those funding losses would multiply in subsequent years, with the state projected to lose $10.4 billion by 2025 and $31 billion by 2030 in money now used to operate Medical Assistance, the state's version of Medicaid, and MinnesotaCare, the subsidized insurance program for low-income individuals.
More than a million Minnesotans rely on those programs for their health care. About two-thirds of the cuts would be to programs that serve the elderly and people with disabilities.
"The fact that Republicans in the House and Senate would even consider something that could have a devastating affect on over a million Minnesotans is just shameful," Gov. Mark Dayton said at a news conference with U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., on Wednesday in Minneapolis.
Democrats nationally have been working to rally opposition to the Senate's Better Care Reconciliation Act, the Republican-crafted legislation meant to replace President Barack Obama's signature Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Republicans in the U.S. House already approved a bill to repeal and replace the ACA, with Minnesota's three Republican congressmen — Erik Paulsen, Tom Emmer and Jason Lewis — all voting in favor. They have defended the legislation as needed to drive down health insurance costs. The DHS analysis said the consequences in Minnesota would be similar under both the House and Senate versions of the legislation.
Minnesota's Democratic U.S. senators are unlikely to vote for the Senate bill, and it's not yet clear if Republicans can muster the votes to pass it. If they do, the House would have to vote on it again.
Both GOP bills would give states more say in medical assistance programs, but also withdraw billions in current funding; the result would likely be scaling back of programs that provide coverage to the poor, disabled and elderly.