Public budgets

Three ledgers should be kept separate: the state budget, counties and hospitals, and total medical spending.

State budget

90% federal match for expansion adults Official data

Washington pays 90% of costs for expansion adults. Texas's regular match for fiscal 2027 is 58.54%.1 The extra federal bonus once offered to newly expanding states was repealed starting January 1, 2026.2

No measurable squeeze on other state spending (so far) Association

Studies of expansion states found large increases in federal Medicaid funds and no significant rise in state-funded spending or cuts to education.3,4

Limits: Much of that period had a higher federal match than today.

Texas cost estimates are dated Projection

In 2013, the Legislative Budget Board estimated about $4.0 billion in state general revenue over 10 years. In 2020, analyses commissioned by a foundation that supports expansion estimated a state share of about $600–650 million a year before offsets, largely offset by savings and revenue.5,6

Limits: Both estimates predate the 2025 federal law and the post-pandemic unwinding. No current official Texas estimate exists.

Counties and hospitals

Local safety nets cover very few people Official data

County indigent care must cover residents only up to 21% of poverty (counties may choose up to 50%).7 The state's uncompensated-care pool is projected to shrink to about $3.1 billion a year by 2028–2030.8

Limits: Some county and hospital savings are plausible, but no current Texas estimate exists.

Total medical spending

Coverage raises total spending Strong design

In Oregon, coverage increased medical spending by about $1,172 per person per year (about 35%).9 Prevention and early treatment are often worth their cost, but most preventive services do not save money overall.10

Sources for this page

  1. Federal Register FMAP notice for Oct 1, 2026-Sep 30, 2027 (2025-11-28). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/11/28/2025-21332/federal-financial-participation-in-state-assistance-expenditures-federal-matching-shares-for [evidence L10]
  2. KFF, 'Health Provisions in the 2025 Federal Budget Reconciliation Law' (P.L. 119-21) (2025-08-22). https://www.kff.org/medicaid/health-provisions-in-the-2025-federal-budget-reconciliation-law/ [evidence L6]
  3. Sommers & Gruber, Health Affairs 2017, doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1666 (2017-04). https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1666 [evidence P1]
  4. Markell & Meiselbach, Health Serv Res 2024, doi:10.1111/1475-6773.14331 (2024-05-28). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11366958/ [evidence P2]
  5. Legislative Budget Board staff estimate (Mar 4, 2013); HB 3376 fiscal note (Apr 16, 2013) (2013). https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/83R/fiscalnotes/html/HB03376I.htm [evidence P3]
  6. Fritz, Pitts & Pitts (Sept 2020); Dague & Hughes, Texas A&M Bush School (Sept 2020), both for Episcopal Health Foundation (2020-09). https://episcopalhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Fritz-Pitts-Pitts-Sept-2020-Impact-of-Medicaid-Expansion-on-State-Budget-1.pdf [evidence P4]
  7. Texas Health & Safety Code ch. 61; Texas HHSC CIHCP page; county FY2025-26 chart (accessed 2026-10-24). https://www.hhs.texas.gov/services/health/county-indigent-health-care-program [evidence L11]
  8. Texas HHSC 1115 waiver page; HHSC 'Future of the UC program' (rev. 05/2024, hosted by THA) (2024-05). https://www.tha.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Future-of-UC-Program.pdf [evidence L14]
  9. Baicker et al. NEJM 2013 (Oregon) (2013). https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321 [evidence S1]
  10. Cohen, Neumann, Weinstein, NEJM 2008, doi:10.1056/NEJMp0708558 (2008-02-14). https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558 [evidence S2]

Last reviewed: . Found a mistake? Report an error.