Report: Graham-Cassidy Would Make Recessions Worse
Plan Would Force States to Deny Health Care When People Need Help the Most
Washington, D.C. – If Graham-Cassidy were to become law, states would face painful choices during the next recession, according to a report prepared by Stan Dorn, senior fellow at Families USA.
“Under current law, when the next economic downturn hits, and more people qualify for help after losing employment and earnings, federal funding for Medicaid and financial assistance for buying private insurance automatically keeps pace. With the Graham-Cassidy block grant, by contrast, each state’s allotment would be set in stone, increased based on complex formulas devised in Washington, DC.”
The report examines what this would have meant during the last recession.
“If Graham-Cassidy had been in effect during the Great Recession, federal funding to states would have risen by a total of 14 percent, rather than 50 percent. States would have faced a grim choice: deny health coverage precisely when residents most needed help; or preserve health coverage by raising taxes or cutting other state priorities, like education, social services, and infrastructure.
“States would face the same grim choice during future recessions if this bill becomes law.”