New York pushes more of its Medicaid expenses onto local government than any other state — an almost $8 billion cost-shift that contributes to high property taxes from Montauk to Niagara Falls.

Over the past two years, plans to eliminate all or part of New York’s “local share” have been debated in Washington, passed by the state Senate and touted by two current candidates for governor: GOP contender Marc Molinaro, the Dutchess County executive, and former Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner, a Democrat who’s running as an independent.

These proposals target a longstanding unfairness: The amounts paid by New York City and the 57 counties are based not on ability to pay, but historic patterns of need —meaning areas with the most poverty face the highest expense. The per capita cost is $630 for New York City and $279 for rural Sullivan County, but just $100 for prosperous Putnam County.

Over the past 12 years, growth of the local payments was capped and then frozen —steps that are now saving localities more than $3 billion a year. Still, the local share remains one of Albany’s most onerous unfunded mandates.

The current system is hard to defend, but it will also be hard to unwind. A forthcoming report from the Empire Center explores the major options, and all come with difficult tradeoffs.

Fundamentally, a takeover of the Medicaid local share would entail hefty hikes in state taxes, significant cuts in spending or a mixture of both.

The primary challenge is the price tag: The local share now stands at $7.6 billion, including $5.3 billion from New York City and $2.3 billion from the other 57 counties. Even in big-spending Albany, that’s a lot of money.

Raising that much in new revenue would entail a 15 percent increase in the state’s personal income tax, or an across-the-board 10 percent hike in all state taxes.

On the spending side, it’s the equivalent of a 29 percent cut in state school aid, or zeroing out the entire budgets for parks, environmental protection, economic development and prisons — combined.

Squeezing the savings out of Medicaid itself would be doubly difficult due to the federal funding system, which matches state-based funds on roughly a dollar-for-dollar basis. New York would thus have to cut overall Medicaid spending by $15 billion — or 22 percent — to save $7.6 billion for itself.

Another obstacle is the lopsidedness of the local share. Because New York City accounts for two-thirds of the current payments, it would stand to reap two-thirds of the benefit from a takeover. On the other hand, the taxpayers of downstate suburban counties, with relatively low Medicaid costs, would likely be net losers.

All of the recent proposals duck this issue by either limiting the city’s savings or excluding it completely. But this would deny relief to the most-burdened group of local taxpayers, while effectively requiring them to subsidize a takeover everyone else through their state tax payments. Such a carveout would be hard to justify as a matter of fairness, and likely a non-starter in the Legislature, where city representatives are a powerful force.

A solution discussed in the past was a sales tax “swap,” under which the state would assume the full costs of Medicaid in return for a share of local sales tax revenues. However, since the local share is now frozen, and income from sales taxes generally grows over time, such a swap no longer makes sense from the counties’ point of view.

Perhaps the most viable approach would be gradually squeezing savings from Medicaid over a period of years. New York spends more per capita on the program than any other state, a byproduct of broad eligibility, generous benefits and high per-recipient spending. If the program’s growth could be slowed by 1.4 percent a year — which would be no small matter — the state would potentially save enough to phase out the local share in less than two decades.

By any standard, eliminating the local share of Medicaid is a major reallocation of state resources that will require tough choices, both fiscally and politically. If candidates are serious about making it happen, they need to get specific about what choices they would make.

About the Author

Bill Hammond

As the Empire Center’s senior fellow for health policy, Bill Hammond tracks fast-moving developments in New York’s massive health care industry, with a focus on how decisions made in Albany and Washington affect the well-being of patients, providers, taxpayers and the state’s economy.

Read more by Bill Hammond

You may also like

Don’t Copy New York’s Medicaid Home Care Disaster

As America ages, states are investing in home-based care for the elderly and disabled in hopes of keeping people out of nursing facilities—and maybe saving money in the bargain. Before going Read More

NY must prune its bloated Medicaid program — and focus on improving low-quality care

The coronavirus pandemic exposed a fundamental imbalance in New York’s approach to health policy: Albany spends too much money on its bloated Medicaid plan but neglects the public-health programs that used to be the Health Department’s main focus — Read More

A Corona Commission for New York

New York is finally ahead of the coronavirus, but its outbreak stands as a world-wide horror story. A sophisticated city was caught unprepared and suffered some of the worst levels of infection and death. The need for an investigation is clear. The harder question is who can credibly take the lead. Read More

New York, beware Warren’s Rx

Elizabeth Warren is an unabashed believer in wealth redistribution, so it was predictable that her Medicare for All plan would hit high-income individuals and large corporations with trillions in tax hikes. More surprising are the two other targets she chooses to soak: states that spend most heavily on Medicaid, and employers that offer the costliest health benefits. Read More

Blame Cuomo for New York’s Medicaid crisis

When it comes to New York’s latest Medicaid mess, the buck stops with Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Read More

What is ailing New York’s hospitals? They’re taking in lots of money but operating in the red

These should be boom times for New York’s hospitals, whose collective revenues have been surging by the billions for several years. Read More

Banishing Profit Is Bad for Your Health

Eliminating profit from an entire sector of the national economy would be unprecedented. But the example of New York, on a smaller scale, shows why it is a recipe for dysfunction. Read More

Single-payer health care could cost some hospitals

The debate about a proposed single-payer health plan for New York State has mostly focused on its potential cost. But far less attention has been paid to the radical impact it may have on hospitals and physicians across the state. Read More