Requiring Medicaid recipients to work is a “hard-hearted” way to limit enrollment, according to Oleta Fitzgerald of the Children’s Defense Fund.
Fitzgerald made her comments at a public hearing Wednesday held by Mississippi’s Division of Medicaid. The agency is currently weighing whether to ask the federal government for a waiver that would allow Medicaid to impose a work requirement on some recipients.
The hearing, one of two required by the federal government before Medicaid can make its official request, was sparsely attended with just five members of the public present, three of whom spoke.
But these speakers each had strong opinions. Dr. Jameson Taylor, interim president of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, a conservative think tank, argued that a work requirement would provide an incentive for Medicaid recipients to find jobs.
“Work is the best antipoverty measure out there,” Taylor said. “Work elevates people. It helps them grow financially. Work gives people dignity, so if we’re going to be inviting folks on Medicaid to improve their lives, the goal is to get them off of Medicaid (and) into the private sector.”
Fitzgerald disagreed, arguing that the prospect of losing health insurance won’t compel recipients to find jobs, pointing out that unlike other forms of public assistance, Medicaid doesn’t supplement a person’s income or pay for tangible necessities such as food.
“What are we trying to do here? If we’re trying to save money, (cutting out these beneficiaries) is not going to save us a lot of money,” Fitzgerald said. “If you’re on Medicaid you’re not putting a dollar in your pocket. The doctor is the only one who’s getting paid.”
More than 700,000 Mississippians receive Medicaid. Of these, approximately half, or 56% are children. Another 37% are either pregnant women, elderly or disabled. None of these populations would be affected by the work requirement.
Instead, the work requirement targets low-income parents or caretakers, who account for 7% of Medicaid recipients. This equates to approximately 50,000 beneficiaries, although caretakers responsible for children or other people who cannot be left alone would be exempted, reducing the number further.
In order to qualify for Medicaid in Mississippi as a low-income caretaker, a person with one dependent cannot receive more than $306 dollars a month in income. The waiver would require beneficiaries in this category to work at least 20 hours a week. A minimum wage of $7.25 an hour equals $580 a month, making these recipients ineligible.
Janice Sherman of the Mississippi Primary Health Association, who attended Wednesday’s hearing but did not speak, said this amounts to a contradiction.
“The work requirement would get you kicked off of Medicaid,” Sherman said.
If the Division of Medicaid does apply for a waiver, it likely will receive support from the federal government. Last week, Seema Verma, the administrator for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, announced that the Trump administration would approve proposals from states to require work or community engagement for people who want to receive Medicaid. Previously, the Obama administration turned similar proposals, arguing that they did not promote health care coverage.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
“In order to qualify for Medicaid in Mississippi as a low-income caretaker, a person with one dependent cannot receive more than $306 dollars a month in income. The waiver would require beneficiaries in this category to work at least 20 hours a week. A minimum wage of $7.25 an hour equals $580 a month, making these recipients ineligible.”
That’s the typical Republican scam in a nutshell.
So – basically, the GOP could just cut to the chase and cut these folks off because the work requirement kills their eligibility anyway, but they are going to create a bureaucratic expense to do this so they can conceal their intentions with a noble sounding work requirement.
Moreover, in order to save money on a tight budget created by big tax cuts for corporations (among others) they want to yank benefits from people who are trying to live on UNDER $300 A MONTH! And they suppose to elevate these people by insisting they get a (theoretical) job (that they might very well be denied by employers) that would still amount to less than $600 a month.
Any of y’all middle class folks want to give that a go and see what it’s like? One thing – I speak from experience – you sure as heck won’t do is EVER go to the doctor, the dentist, or the optometrist.