Opinion - Medicaid work-requirements are great, but states need flexibility to make them work
I was the first governor to implement work requirements on the working-age population that was on Medicaid. So I feel I have some standing to offer observations on what happened in Arkansas — a few lessons learned and recommendations to Congress as it considers a federal mandate on states to impose work and work-related activities as a condition of Medicaid eligibility.
For a number of reasons, I am firmly in favor of work requirements for able-bodied working-age adults on Medicaid. Most importantly, work meets the objectives of Medicaid as an anti-poverty program. Work is a vital part of our human dignity, and participation is a fair way to honor the social contract between working-age adults on public assistance and their neighbors and communities.
The first question about work requirements is the most important one: What is the goal?
If the answer is to simply lower federal spending, then it will be easy to construct rigid rules that result in savings due to noncompliance and reducing the number of people receiving benefits.
But if the goal is to actually help individuals and families escape poverty and achieve long-term self-sufficiency — which I believe should be the answer — then the assignment is much harder. This goal requires some flexibility for states to design programs that match their unique differences.
Arkansas has one of the highest poverty levels among the states at 16 percent. However, the work opportunities in Benton County, Ark., home to Walmart and other large corporations, are very different from those in the Delta counties. Benton County has a higher median income for both households and individuals than the national income levels. In contrast, Phillips County, in the Mississippi Delta, has a poverty rate of 33 percent. The approaches to help people cross from poverty to independence cannot be the same between these two counties.
The federal government created the so-called 'poverty trap' in which a person who goes to work loses more in in public benefits than he or she gains in income. This discourages work and results in more dependence.
That is the compelling reason we need a work requirement that also supports increased training opportunities for the able-bodied. States need flexibility in devising work requirements that actually help people move up the employment ladder.
One of the lessons learned in Arkansas was that relying on technology and data-matching for implementing a work requirement is insufficient. The results were poor. The human element is needed to make sure people are given every opportunity to have both health care and work or worker training.
A quick look at the data shows the diversity of the Medicaid-eligible population. Many in the youngest age group move from the children's coverage under Medicaid into Affordable Care Act coverage simply because they have a birthday. They have little or no income because they have chosen to extend their education or have not been fully assimilated into the workforce. Many of these young adults will find their own way off Medicaid within 12 months without any further intervention.
It is quite a different story for a 55 year-old single adult with a significant work history who ended up on Medicaid due to a major illness or accident. A single mother with prior work experience and at least some post-high school education may be one of the most interested and motivated individuals to return to work if proper support is available.
The differences in the demographics serve as a lesson for Congress to resist the temptation to take a cookie-cutter approach. Congress must allow states sufficient latitude to tailor interventions to different populations. Blanket exemptions will result in missed opportunities, but so will limitations on ways to demonstrate compliance with work requirements.
It has been widely reported that about 18,000 Arkansans lost their Medicaid eligibility due to noncompliance with work requirements. There has been little attention to the fact that 6,000 of these returned to Medicaid within 12 months. What happened to the rest? Although Arkansas didn't have the opportunity to study what happened to those who did not return, the answer is likely similar to what occurred nationally after the pandemic-era Public Health Emergency ended ('the unwind'). That is when the states were once again allowed to review Medicaid eligibility.
As the unwind was concluding in late 2024, Medicaid and CHIP enrollment returned to 79.4 million and Marketplace coverage increased to 23.5 million. In other words, people moved from public coverage to private coverage because work opportunities increased. That should be the explicit goal of work requirements as well, and it must be the real measure of success.
Congress has a unique opportunity to allow states to have a work requirement under Medicaid and at the same time allow the states to innovate and try different approaches that function best for those who value the dignity of work.
Asa Hutchinson, a Republican, was the 46th governor of Arkansas.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk is gone, but DOGE's actions are hard to reverse. The Institute of Peace is a case study
WASHINGTON (AP) — The staff was already jittery. The raiders from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency had disposed of the U.S. Institute of Peace board, its acting president and its longtime outside counsel. But until 9:30 p.m. on March 28, there was hope the damage might be limited. Then termination notices started popping up in personal emails. As he departs, Musk is leaving behind a wounded federal government. DOGE's playbook has been consistent: Take over facilities, information technology systems and leadership. Dismiss the staff. Move too quickly for the targets or courts to respond or fix the damage. Thousands of federal workers have seen the playbook unfold. What makes USIP, a 300-employee organization, unique is the blitz during its takeover has been, for the moment, reversed in court. The headquarters taken away in a weekend of lightning moves is back in the hands of its original board and acting president. The question they must answer now is a point that U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell made during one hearing: Can USIP be restored? 'A bull in a China shop breaks a lot of things,' she said. As the institute tries to reboot, it's a question for others in their own DOGE struggles. Targeting an agency aimed at fostering peace USIP was created by Congress in the 1980s. Described as an independent, nonprofit think tank funded by Congress, its mission has been to work to promote peace and prevent and end conflicts. When DOGE came knocking, it was operating in 26 conflict zones, including Afghanistan. The institute was one of four organizations targeted by President Donald Trump's Feb. 19 Executive Order 14217. Despite conversations to explain the organization's role, most of the Institute's board was fired by email March 14. The lone holdovers were ex officio — Cabinet members Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio and the National Defense University's president. Within minutes of the 4 p.m. emails, DOGE staff showed up and tried to get into the building but were turned back. That, according to court documents, kicked off a weekend of pressure by the FBI on institute security personnel. DOGE returned the following Monday and got into the headquarters with help from the FBI and Washington police. Outside counsel George Foote thought the local officers were there to expel the DOGE contingent but learned quickly they were not. He, security chief Colin O'Brien and others were escorted out by local authorities. 'They have sidearms and tasers and are saying you can't go anywhere but out that door,' Foote said. The board filed a lawsuit the following day. Howell expressed dissatisfaction with DOGE's tactics but she let their actions stand. By then a DOGE associate, Kenneth Jackson, had been named as acting president of the organization by the ex officio board members. The staff knew what he'd done as the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Now Jackson was at the institute, but they were hopeful 'we would have a process of explanation or review of our work,' said Scott Worden, director of the Afghanistan and Central Asia programs. Then came March 28. By midnight, nearly all the institute's employees had been let go. The actions reverberated The impact was 'profound and devastating,' Worden said. First, employees at the institute are not government employees so they got no government benefits or civil service protections. Insurance also was gone. Partners abroad suddenly lost their support and contacts. The lawyers representing board members in their lawsuit sought a hearing to head off rumors of more mayhem to come. But when they walked into a courtroom the headquarters and other assets were gone, too. It was, Howell said at the hearing, 'a done deal.' Over the weekend, DOGE had replaced Jackson with fellow DOGE associate Nick Cavanaugh, whose name was on the documents that allowed DOGE to take control of institute assets and transfer the headquarters to the General Services Administration. In court, the Trump administration's attorney laid out the timeline, making clear the newly named president of USIP had not only been authorized to transfer the property but also the request had gone through proper channels. Throughout hearings, Howell struggled with describing the organization — whether it was part of the executive branch and under Trump's authority. The government argued it had to fall under one of the three branches of government and clearly wasn't legislative or judicial. Lawyers defending the government also said that because presidents appointed the board, presidents also had the authority to fire them. Howell's May 19 opinion concluded the institute 'exercises no Executive branch power under the Constitution.' She added that the law that created it set specific steps for firing the board members and none of those had been followed. The case is now with an appeals court. What it looks like now Two weeks later, about 10% of the people who would normally be inside the headquarters are doing maintenance, getting systems running and trying to access the institute's funding. Desks are empty but with paperwork and files strewn across them, left by the speed of the takeover. O'Brien, the security officer, praised the General Services Administration and security managers who tried to keep the building going. But getting systems fully functioning will entail lots of work. Foote said some returnees are trying to access the institute's funding, including money appropriated by Congress and the part of the endowment moved during the takeover. He said transferring funds within the federal government is 'complicated.' The result: Workers are furloughed, and overseas offices will remain closed. Nicoletta Barbera, acting director for the U.S. Institute of Peace's West Africa and Central Africa programs, is one of the furloughed workers. 'We had USIP representatives based in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger that, overnight, were left with no support system from anyone here in HQ,' she said. Barbera said a recent attack in Burkina Faso ended with 'hundreds of atrocities and deaths.' 'And I couldn't just stop but think, what if I could have continued our work there during this time?' she said. Moose has said there will likely be lasting damage — on traumatized staff and relationships with partners around the world. 'That's going to be hard to repair,' he said.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rand Paul Rips Lindsey Graham Over Gargantuan Budget Bill
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul threw shade at his South Carolinian colleague Lindsey Graham while excoriating Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' on Fox Business. In an appearance Wednesday night, Paul argued that Graham had his own reasons for rubber-stamping Republicans' gargantuan budget bill, which will add $2.4 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, according to an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. The bill is expected to cut $1.3 trillion in spending but also cut $3.7 trillion in total revenue, leading to the massive deficit. 'This bill is really a vehicle for Lindsey Graham to secretly explode beyond on the military budget,' Paul said. 'They want to explode the military budget beyond the caps. That's really what the bill is about. So there is a lot of new spending in this bill. If the new spending weren't in there, it truly would be a bill that would be saving money.' The legislation would dramatically increase military and border spending, bringing $150 billion to the Pentagon over the next 10 years. Graham, a longtime war hawk, has urged the Trump administration to take a tougher stance on Iran. Paul also said he didn't think Congress was mature enough to raise the debt ceiling. 'If you have teenage children and you gave them a credit card and they maxed out $2,000 on booze and gambling, would you give them a bigger credit line or a smaller credit line?' the Kentucky Republican said. 'Congress is worse than a bunch of drunken teenagers. They have a history of not being fiscally responsible. You should give them a very short debt ceiling increase and say, 'Show me and prove to me you'll act responsibly, and I'll give you more money.'' Paul told CNN Wednesday that he could understand Elon Musk's frustration with the gargantuan spending bill. 'The new spending in this bill actually exceeds all the work he did to try to find savings, so I can understand his disappointment,' he said. Earlier that day, Paul had quote-tweeted Musk, arguing that Congress knows adding another $5 trillion to the national debt would be a 'huge mistake.'
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court throws out Mexico's suit against U.S. gun makers in a unanimous decision
Mexico has a severe problem with gun violence, which originates north of the border, the Supreme Court acknowledged Thursday. "The country has only a single gun store, and issues fewer than 50 gun permits each year. But gun traffickers can purchase firearms in the United States—often in illegal transactions—and deliver them to drug cartels in Mexico," the court said. These weapons are used to "commit serious crimes — drug dealing, kidnapping, murder, and others." Nonetheless, the justices in an unanimous decision threw out Mexico's lawsuit against the U.S. gun industry, ruling that federal law shields gun makers from nearly all liability. Justice Elena Kagan said Congress enacted the law in 2005 to prevent gun companies from being held sued for harms 'caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals," she said. The law has one narrow exception, she said, that would allow suits if the gun companies had knowingly and deliberately helped criminals buy guns to be sent into Mexico. But she said the Mexico's lawsuit did not cite evidence for claim. "Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers," she wrote. "We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place.— and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales 'as in something that [they] wish[] to bring about." Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
