logo
House sends expanded Medicaid work requirements bill back to Senate

House sends expanded Medicaid work requirements bill back to Senate

Yahoo27-03-2025

Rep. Carter Nordman, R-Adel, spoke in support of enacting work requirements for Iowa's expanded Medicaid program during floor debate March 26, 2025. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
The Iowa House sent the bill imposing work requirements on recipients of Iowa's expanded Medicaid program back to the Senate Wednesday.
Senate File 615 was approved by the House 61-35 with some changes. The bill, which passed in the Senate Tuesday, would require people receiving health insurance through Iowa's expanded Medicaid program known as IHAWP, or the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan, to work at least 80 hours each month to be eligible for coverage.
IHAWP coverage is available to able-bodied Iowans from ages 19 to 64 who have household incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level — roughly $20,030 in annual income for a single individual and $27,186 for a household of two.
Rep. Carter Nordman, R-Adel, the bill's floor manager, said Medicaid is intended to serve individuals with disabilities and with very low incomes. However, he said currently 'more able-bodied adults are accessing Medicaid benefits without the requirement of work' through the IHAWP program.
'While Medicaid expansion has been a vital safety net, it is not meant to be a permanent solution,' Nordman said. 'We want to help individuals transition off the reliance of government and into a position where they can thrive independently. Requiring work is a key part of that transition.'
According to analysis by the Legislative Services Agency, roughly 142,000 of the 181,000 Iowans currently enrolled in IHAWP would be subject to work requirements under the bill when accounting for medical exemptions and other caveats provided in the legislation, like exemptions for people with children under age 6 and in substance abuse treatment programs for up to six months.
Of the people who would be required to work 80 hours a month — and report this information to the state to continue receiving care — LSA estimated that 32,000 Iowans would lose IHAWP coverage if the bill is implemented. This figure was calculated using data from Arkansas, a state that previously implemented Medicaid work or community engagement requirements.
Rep. Austin Baeth, D-Des Moines, said the bill will deprive low-income people of health care and coverage using a false argument that there are a large number of people receiving Medicaid coverage who are choosing not to work. He cited a study from the Kaiser Family Foundation that found 92% of adults under age 65 who did not receive benefits through other programs like Social Security or Medicare were working full or part time, or were not working because of caregiving responsibilities, school or due to an illness or disability.
Baeth said the bill sends a 'cynical message that people in poverty are lazy' and will take away health care coverage from working Iowans who do not have the time or resources to meet the reporting requirements that would be implemented under the bill.
'Hardworking people are too busy working their jobs, trying to make rent, trying to put food on the table, not watching the news (to know) that they have to go to a particular website by a particular amount of time to press some particular button,' Baeth said. 'That's how people fall through the cracks. And when they fall through the cracks, in this particular case, it can be the matter of life or death.'
A major point of contention for Democrats on the bill was language that directed the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services to discontinue IHAWP if the federal government does not approve work requirements for the program. The House amended the bill to clarify that this 'trigger' language to seek federal approval for ending IHAWP would only apply if the implementation of work requirements has been federally approved and later revoked.
If the federal government does not allow the state to end the Medicaid expansion program, the bill would direct Iowa HHS to pursue implementation of an 'alternative plan' acceptable under federal Medicaid administration guidelines.
Nordman said the language on discontinuing IHAWP without work requirements was to avoid making Medicaid policy changes in Iowa contingent on who is in the White House.
'The reason why this is in there is we are not going to play this back-and-forth game with the federal government that would disallow us to do it every four years, and then we do it another four years, and then four years later we're not allowed to do it,' Nordman said. '… Just to make it clear, if this is approved by the Trump administration, as I believe it will be, the only reason why Medicaid expansion in the state would go away is because of a Democrat president.'
Rep. Timi Brown-Powers, D-Waterloo, questioned how these changes would be implemented by HHS, pointing to the fact that the department has a 'pause' on hiring for new positions.
LSA, a nonpartisan agency, noted that the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services had not responded to multiple requests for information on the fiscal impact of implementing work requirements, but estimated that the bill would result in $3.1 million in decreased Medicaid expenditures for fiscal year 2026 and $17.5 million in FY 2027.
Iowa HHS has not responded to requests for comment on why information was not shared with LSA or lawmakers who said they had made requests.
Brown-Powers said the department has also not shared figures on Medicaid waste, fraud or abuse occurring through IHAWP that would be addressed through work requirements. She said unless HHS data shows there is a substantial number of people misusing the expanded Medicaid system, the costs of implementing the bill will outweigh money saved.
'And guess what? We don't have a lot of money,' Brown-Powers said. 'We're already dipping into the funds to pay the bills. So how are we going to pay for this? Where are the (full-time employees) going to come (from) to monitor this? How are we going to assure Iowans that they're not going to lose their insurance?'
Nordman said that in Iowa 'it is estimated that more than 100,000 able-bodied people on Medicaid expansion are not working … to their capacity or what they should be.'
The bill also directs Iowa HHS to seek federal approval to implement work requirements for public assistance programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP recipients who are able-bodied adults with no dependents already are required to work, volunteer or participate in work programs for at least 80 hours a month to receive benefits.
The House passed another bill Wednesday related to SNAP benefits that proposes a new $1 million appropriation to the food stamps program to the Double Up Food Bucks program, allowing recipients to double SNAP dollars for fresh produce purchases. However, the bill makes the additional funding contingent on the federal government approving restrictions on what foods are available for purchase through SNAP to only include healthful foods 'based on necessary nutrition for good health.'
The House sent the legislation back to the Senate with some changes, including the language clarifying IHAWP federal approval contingencies as well as a new section requiring Iowa HHS to conduct a review on the Medicaid for employed people with disabilities program. The department would be directed to look at issues like eligibility criteria, asset limits and cost-sharing requirements in other states' programs over the 2025 interim and deliver a report to lawmakers by December with recommendations on how to expand employment opportunities for people with disabilities on this Medicaid program.
The bill also includes a provision to raise the amount of available resources that a married couple receiving coverage through the Medicaid for employed people with disabilities program can have from $13,000 to $21,000. Individuals with disabilities on this program would still have the $13,000 asset limit if they are single.
The amended bill must be approved by the Senate before it would go to Gov. Kim Reynolds for final approval. A spokesperson for the governor said Tuesday that the governor has directed HHS to submit a federal waiver for Medicaid work requirements independent of the legislation 'which will be done soon.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Michigan ranks 33rd for child well-being in annual report with education among the nation's worst
Michigan ranks 33rd for child well-being in annual report with education among the nation's worst

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Michigan ranks 33rd for child well-being in annual report with education among the nation's worst

Maskot/Getty Images Michigan ranked 33rd for overall child well-being in the Annie E. Casey Foundation's annual Kids Count Data Book, lagging in education and economic well-being, amongst other areas. This is the 36th year the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a private charitable organization examining children's welfare, has released its Kids Count Data Book which ranks states' care for youth through education, health, family and community, and economic wellbeing. Historically, Michigan has particularly dragged in its education ranking, with the 2025 ranking sitting at 44th in the nation. Michigan worsened in the number of children ages 3 and 4 not attending school than in previous years. When it came to benchmark testing, the data book found that the number of eighth graders not testing proficient in math and fourth graders not testing proficient in reading worsened than in previous years as well. 'Education has consistently been our lowest ranking domain among the four key domains that the Annie E. Casey Foundation evaluates, pointing to the continued, urgent need for our state leaders to do more to support Michigan students,' said Monique Stanton, President and CEO of the Michigan League for Public Policy in a news release Monday. Pushing for a school funding solution in Michigan continues to be a top priority for the league, which acts as the state's member organization of the Kids Count network, Stanton said. Michigan has worked to improve school access and outcomes, notably through securing universal school meals and investments in school mental health resources. But with federal threats on education looming, namely the Trump administration's interest in gutting the U.S. Department of Education, Stanton said it's important to point out the federal decisions that would harm students and advocate for policies that set kids up for educational success. Aecf-2025kidscountdatabook 'Speaking out against federal threats to education is also vital to ensuring our schools stay strong and are able to meet the needs of every student that walks through their doors,' Stanton said. 'Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education would remove protections for thousands of students in Michigan, especially those from low-income households and those receiving special education services.' The state's best ranking has historically been in health, ranking this year at 22nd. Michigan's health ranking, the only sector where Michigan placed in the top half of states, is largely attributed to the large portion of the state's children who have access to health insurance, the league's news release said. But just as stakeholders have raised concerns with President Donald Trump's plans for education, alarm bells are sounding off for a federal spending plan that would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid. More than 1 in 4 Michiganders is covered by Medicaid each month, including more than 1 million children, according to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. While there are areas where Michigan has made improvements, there continue to be sectors of children's well-being that demand attention and resources, Stanton said. These needs would be best addressed with the collaboration of state and federal policymakers to ensure Michigan's kids have opportunities to grow up healthy and prepared for their futures. 'We know what kids need to grow up healthy and connected so they can thrive as adults: Stable homes, strong schools, nutritious food, meaningful relationships and opportunities to learn, play and grow. Programs that meet these needs are smart investments, fostering long-term gains like employment and economic growth,' Stanton said. 'We encourage Michigan leaders and lawmakers alike to use both the national KIDS COUNT data and the state data we will be releasing later this year in informing smart policy and budget decisions that prioritize the well-being and futures of our state's youngest residents.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Opinion - Tariffs are raising health care costs and putting patients at risk
Opinion - Tariffs are raising health care costs and putting patients at risk

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Tariffs are raising health care costs and putting patients at risk

Lately, my bi-weekly calls with my 24-year-old daughter, a medical assistant preparing for med school, are starting to sound more like supply chain audits. She tells me which items are running low at her clinic and how the team is scrambling to provide quality care to patients. Having been raised by a parent who managed global supply chains, she knows these aren't just inventory issues — they are cracks in a fragile health care system now under further strain from President Trump's tariffs and the uncertainty surrounding them. Last year alone, the U.S. imported more than $75 billion in medical devices and supplies. While headlines have focused on potentially higher costs for pharmaceuticals and high-tech medical equipment, the more urgent and often overlooked concern is the availability of basic, everyday lifesaving supplies. Gloves, syringes, sterile water, IV fluids and even diapers may seem mundane, but they are the lifeblood of clinical care. Hospitals spend approximately 25 percent of their budget on these high-volume items. Most of these essentials are imported. For example, two-thirds of non-disposable face masks and 94 percent of plastic gloves used in U.S. health care settings come from China. Already impacted by tariffs implemented last year to counter low-cost imports, these products are now becoming even more expensive. Enteral syringes used to deliver medication or nutrition through feeding tubes are now subject to a staggering 245 percent tariff, according to one group purchasing organization. If trade tensions continue to escalate, we could see a return to pandemic-era supply shortages — or worse. As hospitals prepare for these impacts, it's their patients who will bear the repercussions. The American Hospital Association recently reported that 82 percent of health care leaders expect tariff-related price hikes to increase hospital costs by at least 15 percent within six months. One major health system in Washington projected that tariffs could increase annual costs by $10 to $25 million. With Medicaid reimbursement rates set by the government and private insurance reimbursement rates held in place by contracts, hospitals can't easily pass on these increases. Instead, they absorb the costs and find other cuts, like reducing staffing or delaying upgrades. That could mean longer wait times, postponed procedures and ultimately, worse outcomes for patients. Rural hospitals and community providers already operating on razor-thin margins will feel these burdens most acutely. Close to 200 rural hospitals have closed in the past two decades, and nearly 700, or close to one-third of all additional rural hospitals, are at risk of closing in the near future. When policymakers impose sweeping trade measures without fully considering downstream effects, the entire health care system suffers the consequences. The disruption often costs more than the policy itself, in both dollars and diminished patient care. Health care policy is essential for a productive economy, which is the main goal of the president's tariffs. Medical supplies should be exempted from tariffs. This would help to ensure more consistent pricing and ensure Americans have access to the health care essentials they need. Policymakers can also help bring manufacturing for some of these products back home by investing in more public-private partnerships and supporting infrastructure and workforce development to encourage companies to make these goods in the U.S. Finally, the federal and state governments can reengineer the procurement processes for Medicare and Medicaid, and enact measures to ensure more efficient practices in the private sector to enable competition and fair prices. Pharmacy benefit managers and Group Purchasing Organizations need to work on behalf of the patients, hospitals and clinics to better manage costs, similar to processes in other supply chain systems. Overall, policymakers must understand that while tariffs may shift economic leverage, they also shift risk onto patients. My daughter is learning this lesson on the front lines. She went into medicine to deliver care. Lately, and too often, she's just delivering bad news. Jack Buffington is Supply Chain Management Professor at the University of Denver. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Opinion - Don't cut off Medicaid for people in jail awaiting trial
Opinion - Don't cut off Medicaid for people in jail awaiting trial

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Don't cut off Medicaid for people in jail awaiting trial

Every day across this country, thousands of people presumed innocent are locked up awaiting trial. For many of them — particularly those battling substance use disorders or mental illness — that jail cell is more than just a loss of freedom. It often comes with the loss of health care coverage. In many states, Medicaid and other health care benefits are suspended or terminated the moment the patient is booked into jail. This policy puts lives at risk and creates gaps in care. And for those of us who have lived through addiction or worked alongside people in recovery, we know just how dangerous that gap can be. Our prison and jail systems need the Due Process Continuity of Care Act, because it will help maintain Medicaid coverage during pretrial incarceration. It's up to Congress to follow through and pass this important piece of legislation, to shift from a model that prioritizes severe punishment to one that prioritizes care and continuity. People are struggling and deserve a chance to get better, not get worse, simply because they were arrested. The link between incarceration and behavioral health is no coincidence. So many people end up in jail not because they're dangerous, but because they're living with untreated mental health challenges or deep in addiction and haven't gotten the help they need. And the damage doesn't stop at the jail door. When people are released, often without any plan to restart their medical benefits or reconnect to care, they walk right back into the same instability, only now with deeper trauma and fewer resources. It's no surprise that the risk of overdose skyrockets after release. Studies show people are up to 129 times more likely to die of a drug overdose in the first two weeks after leaving jail or prison. I've seen firsthand the deadly consequences when someone is locked up pretrial and loses access to their medications, therapy or support systems. People are in withdrawal. They suffer in silence and spiral without the care they relied on outside those walls. Our jails, already under-resourced and overwhelmed, have become the frontlines of a behavioral health crisis they were never built to manage. They're acting as detox centers and psychiatric hospitals by default, and that's not just unsustainable, it's inhumane. Keeping health care coverage active during pretrial incarceration isn't just the right thing to do morally, it's smart policy. It prevents needless suffering, reduces recidivism, and eases the burden on emergency services and hospitals. It helps people transition from jail back into their communities with the support they need to stay healthy and free. And ultimately, it saves money by keeping people out of crisis and out of the revolving door of the criminal legal system. Let's be clear: taking health care away from someone who hasn't yet been convicted of a crime is not justice. It's a systemic failure. If we truly believe in second chances, if we believe in treating addiction and mental illness as health issues, not criminal ones, then we have to make sure that care doesn't stop at the jailhouse door. Health care is a lifeline. Let's stop cutting that lifeline when people need it most. John Bowman is Kentucky senior campaign organizer. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store