Work requirement reenergizes Medicaid discussions in GOP states

The Trump administration's approval of state work requirements for low-income people on Medicaid may lead more GOP states to expand their health care programs, as the stipulation speaks to a conservative ideal of self-reliance. 

Thad Allton /The Topeka Capital-Journal/AP
The Kansas state Senate votes to expand the state's Medicaid program on March 28, 2017. The Trump administration's support for work requirements for low-income beneficiaries of Medicaid has reenergized lawmakers working to expand the program in some GOP holdout states.

In an ironic twist, the Trump administration's embrace of work requirements for low-income people on Medicaid is prompting lawmakers in some conservative states to resurrect plans to expand health care for the poor.

President Trump's move has been widely criticized as threatening the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion. But if states follow through, more Americans could get coverage.

"I think it gives us a chance," said Kansas state Rep. Susan Concannon, a moderate Republican who pushed unsuccessfully for Medicaid expansion last year in her state.

In Utah, the office of Republican Gov. Gary Herbert said the Trump administration's willingness to approve work requirements is one of several concessions the state would demand to cover more poor residents through Medicaid.

"Is it a big deal?" said Gorvernor Herbert's spokesman Paul Edwards. "Yeah, I think it's a big deal."

Utah state Rep. Robert Spendlove, a Republican working on legislation to partially expand Medicaid, said the Trump administration has sent a positive sign. "I have a lot of confidence that they will be willing to work with us and approve this," state Representative Spendlove said.

There's already an economic argument for states to expand Medicaid, since it translates to billions of federal dollars for hospitals and medical service providers. But Republican Mike Leavitt, a former US health secretary and Utah governor, said the ability to impose work requirements adds an ideological motivator.

"Republicans want Medicaid to help people who are doing their best to become self-sufficient but need temporary help to get there," said Mr. Leavitt, who now heads a health-care consulting firm.

Medicaid is a federal-state collaboration originally meant for poor families and severely disabled people. Over the years, it's grown to become the largest government health insurance program, now covering a fifth of Americans. Overall, Americans have a favorable view of the program, and oppose funding cuts.

Under former President Barack Obama's health law, states got the option of expanding Medicaid to cover more low-income adults. Thirty-two states and Washington, expanded their programs, adding about 11 million beneficiaries.

But 18 mostly conservative states are still holding out. They include population centers such as Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia – where newly installed Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam has vowed to cajole a closely divided legislature into expanding Medicaid.

For the first time in the program's half-century, the Trump administration recently announced it will approve state proposals requiring "able-bodied adults" to work, study, or perform some kind of service. Officials promptly signed off on Kentucky's work requirement plan.

"There are both political and legal challenges, but as long as it is optional for states, and appropriately thoughtful and nuanced ... this can definitely work," said Matt Salo, executive director of the nonpartisan National Association of Medicaid Directors. "It could possibly mean the difference between some of the non-expansion states embracing the expansion, or at least ensuring that some of the expansion states maintain political support for the program."

His organization, which represents state officials, does not have a consensus on work requirements.

Another carrot for reluctant states is the repeal of the health law's requirement that most people carry health insurance.

Congressional Republicans repealed the "individual mandate" in the tax bill, and Mr. Trump signed it into law. For states, it means that fewer residents may sign up for expanded Medicaid, trimming potential costs. Although states pay no more than 10 percent, that's still a significant impact on their budgets, which generally must be balanced each year.

Advocates for low-income people say such arguments for work requirements are misguided. They contend Medicaid is a health care program and such requirements run contrary to its legally established purpose.

"I don't see this as necessarily creating the opportunity for states to expand or stay in the expansion," said Judy Solomon of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which advocates for the poor. "I think what is really important to point out is how this undermines the expansion."

Nonetheless polls show strong support for requiring "able-bodied" adults on Medicaid to work, said Robert Blendon of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Most of those adults already do.

"People are much more sympathetic to the idea of helping low-income people who work," said Mr. Blendon, who tracks opinion trends on health care.

While the Trump administration's actions have shifted the politics of Medicaid expansion, Missouri Hospital Association president Herb Kuhn said he doesn't see opposition in his state crumbling quickly. His group was unable to convince lawmakers, even though hospitals that would benefit from expansion are major employers in local communities.

"It's not a slam dunk, but I think there is a fair conversation," said Mr. Kuhn. "In states that were already leaning in for expansion, this might be something that helps reenergize the conversation."

This was reported by The Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.