House majority leader Paul Ryan, R-Wis., left, joined by Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., heads to a meeting of House Republicans on Capitol Hill in Washington.
House majority leader Paul Ryan, R-Wis., left, joined by Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., heads to a meeting of House Republicans on Capitol Hill in Washington. Credit: ap file photo

ATLANTA — When President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January, Republicans will have the opportunity to pull off something they have wanted to do for years — overhaul Medicaid, the program that provides health care to tens of millions of lower-income and disabled Americans.

Any changes to the $500 billion-plus program hold enormous consequences not only for recipients but also for the states, which share in the cost.

Trump initially said during the presidential campaign that he would not cut Medicaid, but later expressed support for an idea pushed for years by Republicans in Congress — sending a fixed amount of money each year to the states in the form of block grants. Backers say such a change in the Medicaid formula is one of the best ways to rein in spending, but critics say big cuts would follow.

The federal government now pays an agreed-upon percentage of each state’s Medicaid costs, no matter how much they rise any given year.

Republicans have argued that states have little incentive to keep expenses under control, because no state pays more than half the total cost. Both House Speaker Paul Ryan and Trump’s pick for secretary of health and human services, Georgia Rep. Tom Price, want to switch to block grants.

Key questions facing Republicans will be how the funding is structured and how much flexibility will be given to the states.

Republican control of Congress and the presidency means the GOP can act on its long-held priorities of reining in entitlement programs and repealing President Barack Obama’s health care law, which allowed states to expand the number of people eligible for Medicaid. Thirty-one states have opted for the expansion.

It is not clear what the GOP’s replacement plan will look like. Democrats have warned of dire consequences, and any proposed changes are likely to trigger a fight in Congress.

Last week, the Democratic Governors Association warned that repealing the Affordable Care Act would end health coverage for millions of people and shift the financial burden onto the states, costing them $68.5 billion in uncompensated care over the next decade. The group said the Medicaid expansion alone has provided coverage for millions of Americans who lacked insurance and that it had been a critical tool for states in combating the opioid epidemic.

In 2012, a plan by Ryan to reduce the federal deficit included a proposal to convert Medicaid funding into block grants with a cap on the amount the federal government would provide. Advocacy groups warned that that approach would ultimately lead to fewer people receiving coverage.

The Congressional Budget Office concluded that under Ryan’s proposal, “states would need to increase their spending on these programs, make considerable cutbacks in them, or both.”

More than 70 million are on Medicaid, nearly 10 million of them covered as a result of the expansion.

How the GOP overhaul is ultimately structured will be critical, said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

“Some of my members are looking at this and saying if this isn’t done right, if the money doesn’t match what needs to be done, this is potentially the greatest intergovernmental transfer of financial risk in the country’s history,” he said.

Among those now covered because of the expansion is 59-year-old Alan Purser of Wynne, Ark., who tapped into the program after losing his job in 2014 when the pawnshop where he worked was sold.

A few weeks after signing up, he went to the doctor because of a bad cough. He was diagnosed with blood clots in both lungs and ended up in the hospital for 10 days.

“Honestly, I would be dead without this coverage,” said Purser. “I never would have gone to the doctor without insurance.”