Questions and concerns raised by Iowans worried about work requirements for state health benefits
URBANDALE, Iowa — Just eight days ago, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds announced that she was directing the state department of health and human services to request a waiver from the federal government. That waiver seeks permission for the state to add work requirements as a contingent for receiving state health benefits.
The governor's office estimates that around 100,000 'able-bodied' adults are on the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan, known as the state's Medicaid expansion, that are not working. The waiver asks permission for there to be a 100 hour per month work requirement for those who are able.
Wednesday marked the first of two public comment periods, with people meeting at the Urbandale Public Library to raise concerns to state employees. From worrying about family members, clients and themselves, members of the public explained how the waiver could impact their life.
'Just trying to find jobs where I can work from home and take care of her at the same time. It's just a real hassle because there just aren't the jobs out there,' said Heather Sanders from Ankeny. Sanders told WHO 13 News that she has applied to hundreds of jobs, but has not had any luck because of barriers she describes as age, and her need to work from home. Sanders takes care of her elderly mother full time and needs to find work that is flexible for appointments for her mother during the day.
Several thousand gallons of sewage entered Saylor Creek in Ankeny, DNR says
'They kind of view it as just like numbers on a page and they don't look at the people that are affected by it,' said Lori Hunt from Des Moines. Hunt is not currently enrolled in Medicaid, she gets her health coverage from a tax credit through the Affordable Care Act. She said that finding work is difficult, as when she hits a certain income threshold she would be dropped from her coverage.
Some Iowans at the hour-long public comment portion came to speak about family members or clients they have had in the past; and concerns they have about individuals having work required when they may not be able.
'Our legislators only care about their pocketbooks, not our pocketbooks. They care about what they're getting. They don't care about any of us, the want us ground down,' said Terry Anderson from Ankeny. Terry has a disabled son who is in his thirties, and he wanted to let out his frustrations at the hearing today for his son.
'I truly think people that are legislating do not have a clue, do not understand, haven't been there, haven't worked with these individuals and don't see them day to day,' said Karen Maass from Urbandale. Maass is a retired physical therapist who has worked for public schools and home health visits. She expressed worry for clients she used to work with who are on state Medicaid coverage and may be required to work when they can't.
The 100 hours a month requirement, if accepted, will be enforced starting January 1, 2026. Those who are 19 to 64 years old on the state program and are not exempt from work requirements will wait to see what happens with the work requirements bill floating through the statehouse. The bill requires only 80 hours of work a month compared to the 100 in the initial waiver request.
The next public comment period is in Marshalltown at the public library from 2-3 p.m. on April 29.
Iowa News:
PHOTOS: Severe thunderstorms bring hail to Iowa
Questions and concerns raised by Iowans worried about work requirements for state health benefits
Forecast: More storms tonight and Thursday
WHO 13 Farm Report: Wednesday, April 23rd
Iowa town hall attendees turn on each other as Sen. Grassley faces heated questions
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Research cuts pose ‘existential threat' to academic medicine and put nation's health at risk, new report says
Federal research funding cuts pose an 'existential threat' to academic medicine that will have repercussions for patient care in the US, according to a new report from the Association of American Medical Colleges, highlighting what it calls significant damage already done to the nation. The association, which represents 172 MD-granting US and Canadian medical schools and more than 490 teaching hospitals and health systems, noted in Wednesday's report that proposals in the House GOP tax and spending cuts bill could lead to a loss of health insurance for 11 million people enrolled in Medicaid or Affordable Care Act coverage and jeopardize loans for half of medical students. This is the first time in recent history when all three missions of academic medicine – research, education and patient care – are threatened, said Heather Pierce, the association's senior director for science policy. Typically, she said, when one is under fire, the others can compensate to ensure that health care is not compromised. 'This is the first time that all the missions of academic medicine simultaneously face these threats from our federal partners,' Pierce said. Should this trend continue, Pierce said, the United States will probably face a physician shortage, stagnation in scientific progress and a decline in the quality of medical care. Academic health systems, which include medical schools and teaching hospitals, educate future physicians and investigate complex medical cases, treating the sickest patients. The new report says these institutions are also twice as likely as other hospitals to provide clinical services such as trauma centers, organ transplant centers, birthing rooms and substance use disorder care. The report says patients treated at major teaching hospitals – where future health care professionals receive practical hands-on training – have up to 20% higher odds of survival than those treated at non-teaching hospitals. Funding cuts to these institutions have effects that trickle down to patients nationwide. The report noted that academic health systems conduct the majority of research funded by the US National Institutes of Health, and complex patient care is made possible only through extensive medical research. As of June, more than 1,100 NIH grants have been terminated since the beginning of the second Trump administration, according to the report. These include at least 160 clinical trials to study HIV/AIDS, cancer, mental health conditions, substance abuse and chronic disease. Although not all clinical trials involve life-saving treatments, for some people who have diseases that have no established therapies, trials may be their only option. 'We've made terrific progress in many diseases, but there are many diseases where we have a long way to go to be able to offer a newly developed treatment that we know can improve or lengthen their lives,' Pierce said. 'With those diseases, in many cases, the only way to try to move forward is with what scientists think are the very best potential treatments for those diseases.' Some of the clinical trials were terminated before their conclusion, which is unethical, she said. 'Halting a clinical trial before it ends at any point, even if all of the patients who are in the clinical trial finish their treatment, before data analysis has been done, before the results are released, renders that clinical trial less useful and less ethical,' she said. Patients take on the risk of uncertainty when they join clinical trials, not knowing whether the treatment will be effective. 'If we never know the outcome, all of that time, all those patients launching everything that they did to bring science forward has been wasted. In some cases, it could be years of progress.' The report notes that research funding has made crucial contributions to life-saving care. For example, the NIH funded the development of the first artificial heart valve with the first successful replacement at the NIH Clinical Center in 1960. Today, more than 100,000 heart valve replacements are performed each year. And a study also found that NIH funding contributed to research associated with every new drug approved from 2010 to 2019. Each year, medical schools and teaching hospitals that are members of the Association of American Medical Colleges train about 77,000 residents nationwide, making these institutions the primary producers of primary care and specialty physicians. Medicare offsets a portion of the costs for the majority of trainees, and teaching hospitals fully cover the cost of training for the rest of the residents. The proposed elimination of federal student aid programs and changing eligibility requirements for loan forgiveness would affect nearly half of all medical students, the new report says. Should investment not increase, the association predicts that the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036. As federal partnerships with research institutions continue to falter and immigration restrictions become more strict, the United States is becoming a less attractive place for students to pursue science, Pierce said. The nation has benefited from their longstanding global medical and scientific approach, she said. 'There is information being shared between countries, people being trained all over the world,' Pierce said. 'The United States has always been the place where people want to come, trained to be scientists and trained to be physicians, and we have benefited from that.' Nearly half of US graduate students in STEM fields are from other countries. If the United States is not seen as a place that will collaborate with and welcome international scholars, students and researchers will leave, Pierce said. She emphasizes that what makes US innovation unique is that research comes 'with not the support but the full partnership of the federal government.' A weakening of this partnership will make it 'harder for the United States to stay as the driver of innovation and science progress,' Pierce said. A physician shortage coupled with declining research investment leads to the suffering of patient care, she said. 'When the research stops, progress stops,' Pierce said. 'Scientific progress toward more treatment, towards more cures, towards a better quality of life, is all dependent on this ecosystem [of academic medicine] that is more intertwined than I think anyone realized.'
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Coverage of weight-loss drugs should be a no-brainer for state's Medicaid program
Packages of the injectable weight-loss medication Wegovy are shown (Photo illustration by) If North Carolinians lived in a perfect world, everyone would have easy access to plenty of healthy and affordable food, the self-control to resist junk food, and genes that would let them stay active, trim and fit throughout their lives. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world. And it's in light of this that it was a no-brainer for state Health and Human Services officials to make prescriptions for weight-loss drugs a covered expense under the state Medicaid program. As Jonathan Ray – a Charlotte physician assistant – wrote in a recent essay for NC Newsline, these medicines have helped thousands upon thousands of people to achieve significant weight loss, improve their metabolic health, and reduce the risk of chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Unfortunately, recent actions by state legislative leaders could end the funding for these essential medications. The bottom line: In the imperfect world we inhabit, weight-loss drugs save health, lives and money. It would be cruel and foolish to end Medicaid coverage for these essential medicines. For NC Newsline, I'm Rob Schofield.
Medscape
44 minutes ago
- Medscape
Under Fire, Cleveland Clinic Backtracks on Copay Mandate
Faced with an uproar from outraged community leaders, the Cleveland Clinic has pulled back on its plan to refuse outpatient treatment to privately insured patients unless they pay copays before appointments. Now, patients with commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage coverage will be offered a new 0% interest payment plan if they can't pay their outpatient copays, the health system announced 3 days before the new requirement was set to go into effect on June 1. However, copays will still be required. As the system noted in a statement, 'in 2024, more than half of copays were not paid when Cleveland Clinic provided services.' Previously, patients were billed for unpaid copays, and interest-free payment plans were not available specifically for copays. Bradley Herring, PhD, a professor who studies health policy at the University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, told Medscape Medical News that Cleveland Clinic likely buckled in response to public backlash over the pay-or-else copay mandate. 'It's just not a good look, especially for nonprofit providers,' he said. But copays, Herring said, do have a purpose: To discourage patients from seeking healthcare they don't need. 'The goal is to try and cut down on some overuse of healthcare utilization,' he said. 'If you can increase some cost sharing and have the patient pay something, that might cut down on some of those patients who don't really benefit from it a lot.' How the Copay Policy Was Supposed to Work? The Cleveland Clinic runs 23 hospitals and serves 3.5 million patients, mostly in Ohio. Earlier this year, it announced that it would require copays before or at check-in for outpatient appointments such as scheduled office visits, services such as physical and occupational therapy, outpatient diagnostic testing, and outpatient procedural visits. Emergency services, surgeries, inpatient hospital stays, cancer treatments were slated to be exempt. Urgent/express visits were to be excluded too 'at this time.' The new policy wouldn't have applied to Medicaid or traditional Medicare patients. 'If you can't make your copay,' the health system said, 'we'll help you reschedule your visit.' Critics put the clinic on blast at a City Council meeting in May. According to Councilman Richard Starr declared the policy is 'slap in the face' to local citizens. 'People are going to be scared to trust the hospitals because it's always about the dollar and not about the healthcare that is needed, and needs to be provided, for those individuals,' Starr said. A 69-year-old man told WKYC-TV that his monthly copays would cost nearly $500. 'In my opinion, it's making the Cleveland Clinic look like patient care is secondary and finances are first,' he said. 'I'm not happy with it, not one bit.' However, a health system representative 'told City Council that with $70 million in unpaid copays in 2024 and a slim 1.7% operating margin, the Clinic must collect more revenue to maintain services and invest in community programs,' reported. Why Do Copays Exist in the First Place? Cleveland Clinic's revised policy will still require copays to be paid by 'the time of service,' Cleveland Clinic Spokeswoman Angela Smith told Medscape Medical News. Will patients be refused care if they decline to pay even if they are offered a 0% interest payment plan? Smith didn't answer this question directly but said 'patients who do not have the means to pay for services provided at our facilities may request financial assistance.' Alison Evans Cuellar, PhD, MBA, professor of Health Administration and Policy at College of Public Health, George Mason University, in Fairfax, Virginia, told Medscape Medical News that copays translate to higher prices for consumers and lower demand overall. The Affordable Care Act eliminated some cost sharing precisely because of evidence that patients forgo valuable care when faced with copays or deductibles, she said. 'Not all care is high value and we want to avoid overuse but not for important preventive services, insulin, and so forth.' 80% of Something or 100% of Nothing Herring pointed out that copays are imposed by insurers, but providers collect and keep them. 'Margins are getting tighter,' he said, 'and you can understand the financial incentive to do something to try and increase that collection rate.' Providers could waive copays. But an online post by Jackson LLP, a healthcare attorney firm with offices around the country, noted that this can be legally dicey, especially if patients don't have proven financial hardship. For one thing, 'routinely or regularly waiving copays for Medicare or Medicaid patients poses several potential problems for your practice,' the post said. 'Because both Medicare and Medicaid are federally funded programs, you risk violating multiple federal laws.' Waiving private insurance copays can put providers in legal jeopardy too, the post said. On the other hand, there's a financial downside to cancelling an appointment because a patient doesn't cough up a copay, he said. 'To not provide the service right then and there, when you've got the provider ready to provide it, seems really wasteful.' If the copay is 20%, he said, 'isn't 80% of something better than 100% of nothing?'
