James Nord of MinnPost and Nora G. Hertel, a reporter with the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, embarked on a project comparing the Medicaid programs in Minnesota and Wisconsin – two politically divergent states that have a history of similarly progressive policies. The ensuing article showed a sharp contrast between the two states. Minnesota decided to significantly expand its public programs because of the Affordable Care Act, while Wisconsin scaled them back in many cases. The result was two once-harmonious neighbors treating people hovering around the poverty line drastically differently. Many Wisconsin families are being forced off the Medicaid rolls and into catastrophic private plans, while Minnesota families are getting access to generous benefits at no cost. The difference is striking, and Minnesota is providing access to public programs at almost no cost to state taxpayers because the feds are bearing the brunt of the expense. The move, according to experts, also saves money for consumers on the private market because the Medicaid population is often sicker, which would drive up premiums in the marketplaces. In all, the divide between the two states is an excellent case study of how competing political ideologies work when it comes to health care. But this project also attempted to show the human side of those frequently data-driven decisions.
