Let's separate Medicaid myth from fact
During my 14 years in the Kentucky House of Representatives, I was deeply involved in overseeing Kentucky's Medical Assistance Program better known as Medicaid. I co-chaired a committee that made an in-depth study of Medicaid that resulted in legislation that I sponsored to address waste, fraud and abuse.
Recently, Medicaid and its recipients have been misrepresented, resulting in divisive and misleading rhetoric. It is crucial that we examine the facts carefully and address the misinformation stemming from recent news reporting and pending legislative actions.
Medicaid funds do not go directly to recipients. Medicaid services prepay for medical care, such as doctor visits, procedures and medications to aid low-income families, children, parents, caregivers, pregnant women, seniors and people with disabilities.
The proposal in Congress to cut Medicaid by $625 billion over 10 years, leaving an estimated 7.6 million people without health insurance by 2034, along with the impending work requirements, suggests a lack of sensitivity or understanding regarding the nature of this program and the demographics of Medicaid recipients in Kentucky and nationwide.
Let's begin with a quick overview: Medicaid, established in 1965, is a public insurance program that provides health coverage to low-income families and individuals, including children, parents, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities. It is funded jointly by the federal government and the states. Funds allocated for Medicaid do not go directly to recipients but are used to pay health care providers on a fee-for-service basis or through prepayment arrangements for medical care.
This includes doctor visits, medical procedures, medications and more. In Kentucky, the federal government pays about 70% and the state 30% of traditional Medicaid reimbursements while the match is 90% federal-10% state for expanded Medicaid, allowing Kentucky to provide 'significant health care services' at a good value.
Now let's look at the myth surrounding work requirements for Medicaid care. As the chair of the 1993 Program Review and Investigations Committee and principal sponsor of House Bill 127, an act relating to waste, fraud and abuse, I have consistently kept up with the Kentucky Medicaid Program over the years. It appears a long-standing misconception has produced an effort to create a solution for a problem that does not exist.
Full-time and part-time workers must rely on Medicaid and SNAP, a nutrition assistance program, because they do not earn a living wage to support their families. Maybe addressing this issue would help find a solution to the real, underlying problem we are currently facing.
Between 2015 and 2017, over 60% of Kentucky Medicaid recipients consistently held full-time or part-time employment. According to 2023 data from the Kaiser Foundation, Kentucky currently ranks 10th in the nation for the number of 'working Medicaid recipients.' There are 56.4% with full-time employment and 14.6% with part-time employment. Subsequently, 70.7% of Medicaid recipients are currently working, while 29.3% are not employed.
The non-working group comprises elderly individuals, people with disabilities, children and caregivers who together account for approximately 19.8%. These individuals do not meet any of the work requirements currently being proposed. Consequently, the legislative proposals being considered would only affect 9.5% of the remaining Medicaid population here in Kentucky — undoubtedly, a solution for a problem that does not exist.
Work requirements put up barriers to Medicaid coverage. Changes to work and reporting requirements and eligibility criteria have been shown to cause confusion among Medicaid enrollees, leading to substantial coverage loss, even for those who are eligible.
A 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation report revealed that nearly 70% of people who had been dropped from Medicaid lost coverage due to procedural reasons. This is just the latest evidence of the harmful impact on peoples' access to health care caused by recent changes in Medicaid policy. During the time studied, Kentucky disenrolled 71,000 enrollees for missed paperwork and other procedural reasons. Of these, 74% (52,540) lost coverage attributed to barriers created by the beginnings of a state Medicaid work requirement that a court blocked from taking full effect, while 26% were found ineligible. As a result, 52,540 individuals lost access to health care services.
Clearly, any barriers affecting Kentucky's Medicaid recipients warrant reevaluation. Our diligent Medicaid recipients merit equitable treatment and consideration.
However, Houston, we do have a problem: Kentucky reported that in 2022, half of working Medicaid enrollees (50%) were employed by companies with over 100 employees and 42.8% worked in the agriculture/service sector. These full-time and part-time workers must rely on Medicaid and SNAP, a nutrition assistance program, because they do not earn a living wage to support their families. Maybe addressing this issue would help find a solution to the real, underlying problem we are currently facing.
The Congressional Budget Office's analysis shows that this 'one big, beautiful bill' will reduce expansion reimbursements, add additional cost to Medicaid recipients, add work requirements, increase coverage barriers, cut Medicaid spending by $625 billion over 10 years, and leave at least 7.6 million more people without health insurance by 2034.
True leadership involves building bridges, not barriers.
Jack L. Coleman, a Democrat from Harrodsburg, represented Kentucky's 55th House District from 1991 to 2005. As co-chair of the legislature's Program Review and Investigations Committee, he helped lead a study of Medicaid that included findings and recommendations concerning financial accountability, recovery and drug utilization. In 1996, he sponsored House Bill 127, an act related to Medicaid waste, fraud and abuse, based on the results of the study. The bill served as a companion to Senate Bill 37, sponsored by then-Sen. Susan Johns, co-chair of the program review committee.
Coleman is the father of Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
If you live in these states, your health care won't be as big or beautiful
Democratic-leaning states will feel more of the impact of sweeping Medicaid cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, according to a new analysis by Oxford Economics. The report, authored by lead economist Barbara Denham, says that millions of Americans – regardless of where they live – will lose access to health insurance because of the tighter eligibility rules and new work requirements. Immigrants will be disproportionately affected, with many losing coverage under Medicaid, Medicare and the Children's Health Insurance Program. States such as California and New York – which have both expanded Medicaid and have large immigrant populations – are expected to be hit hardest. Other vulnerable states with large immigrant populations include Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and Washington, D.C. 'Federal funding cuts and the expiration of the Marketplace subsidies will have several economic consequences,' Denham wrote. 'The number of newly uninsured will rise significantly, putting more at risk of worse long-term well-being, which will sap productivity growth' States with the highest percentage of residents enrolled in Medicaid Unable to view our graphics? Click here to see them. The new law limits federal matching funds for noncitizens' medical care, shifting the financial burden to state governments and hospitals. That's particularly concerning for states with high percentages of foreign-born residents, many of whom rely on Medicaid. The federal cuts to Medicaid funding come at a time when states are looking to trim their spending, too. The Kaiser Family Foundation recently reported California has paused enrolling new immigrants in its health coverage program while Illinois has stopped state-funded health benefits for all immigrant adults between 42 to 64. States such as Idaho and Tennessee also enacted legislation limiting immigrant access to state health care benefits. States with the highest percentage of foreign-born residents Since 2012, 40 states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid under federal initiatives. But with the expiration of marketplace subsidies and new restrictions on immigrant coverage, a handful of states now face the steepest declines in federal health care funding. Based on Oxford Economics' analysis of Congressional Budget Office and KFF data, more left-leaning states will lose more money per resident as the new law rolls out, but right-leaning Louisiana stands to lose the most ($5,855 per resident) of any state. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Wyoming – states that didn't expand their Medicaid benefits – will see some of the smallest cuts. How much Medicaid funding each state is projected to lose per resident Some states have passed laws to buffer their residents or their budgets against federal cuts. For example: ◾ Their residents: New York, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota require coverage for adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty line. ◾ Their budgets: Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia tie Medicaid spending to federal funding levels.
Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Health groups aim to counter growing ‘national scandal' of elder homelessness
At age 82, Roberta Rabinovitz realized she had no place to go. A widow, she had lost both her daughters to cancer, after living with one and then the other, nursing them until their deaths. Then she moved in with her brother in Florida, until he also died. And so last fall, while recovering from lung cancer, Rabinovitz ended up at her grandson's home in Burrillville, Rhode Island, where she slept on the couch and struggled to navigate the steep staircase to the shower. That wasn't sustainable, and with apartment rents out of reach, Rabinovitz joined the growing population of older Americans unsure of where to lay their heads at night. But Rabinovitz was fortunate. She found a place to live, through what might seem an unlikely source — a health care nonprofit, the PACE Organization of Rhode Island. Around the country, arranging for housing is a relatively new and growing challenge for such PACE groups, which are funded through Medicaid and Medicare. PACE stands for a Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, and the organizations aim to keep frail, older people in their homes. But a patient can't stay at home if they don't have one. As housing costs rise, organizations responsible for people's medical care are realizing that to ensure their clients have a place to live, they must venture outside their lanes. Even hospitals — in Denver, New Orleans, New York City and elsewhere — have started investing in housing, recognizing that health isn't possible without it. And among older adults, the need is especially growing. In the U.S., 1 in 5 people who were homeless in 2024 were 55 or older, with the total older homeless population up 6% from the previous year. Dennis Culhane, a University of Pennsylvania professor who specializes in homelessness and housing policy, calculated that the number of men older than 60 living in shelters roughly tripled from 2000 to 2020. 'It's a national scandal, really, that the richest country in the world would have destitute elderly and disabled people,' Culhane said. Over decades of research, Culhane has documented the plight of people born between 1955 and 1965 who came of age during recessions and never got an economic foothold. Many in this group endured intermittent homelessness throughout their lives, and now their troubles are compounded by aging. But other homeless older adults are new to the experience. Many teeter on the edge of poverty, said Sandy Markwood, CEO of USAging, a national association representing what are known as area agencies on aging. A single incident can tip them into homelessness — the death of a spouse, job loss, a rent increase, an injury or illness. If cognitive decline starts, an older person may forget to pay their mortgage. Even those with paid-off houses often can't afford rising property taxes and upkeep. 'No one imagines anybody living on the street at 75 or 80,' Markwood said. 'But they are.' President Donald Trump's recent budget law, which makes substantial federal cuts to Medicaid, the public insurance program for those with low incomes or disabilities, will make matters worse for older people with limited incomes, said Yolanda Stevens, program and policy analyst with the National Alliance to End Homelessness. If people lose their health coverage or their local hospital closes, it will be harder for them to maintain their health and pay the rent. 'It's a perfect storm,' Stevens said. 'It's an unfortunate, devastating storm for our older Americans.' Adding to the challenges, the Labor Department recently halted a job training program intended to keep low-income older people in the workforce. Those circumstances have sent PACE health plans throughout the country into uncharted waters, prompting them to set up shop within senior housing projects, partner with housing providers, or even join forces with nonprofit developers to build their own. A 1997 federal law recognized PACE organizations as a provider type for Medicare and Medicaid. Today, some 185 operate in the U.S., each serving a defined geographic area, with a total of more than 83,000 participants. They enroll people 55 and older who are sick enough for nursing home care, and then provide everything their patients need to stay home despite their frailty. They also run centers that function as medical clinics and adult day centers and provide transportation. These organizations primarily serve impoverished people with complex medical conditions who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare. They pool money from both programs and operate within a set budget for each participant. PACE officials worry that, as federal funding for Medicaid programs shrinks, states will curtail support. But the PACE concept has always had bipartisan support, said Robert Greenwood, a senior vice president at the National PACE Association, because its services are significantly less expensive than nursing home care. The financing structure gives PACE the flexibility to do what it takes to keep participants living on their own, even if it means buying an air conditioner or taking a patient's dog to the vet. Taking on the housing crisis is another step toward the same goal. In the Detroit area, PACE Southeast Michigan, which serves 2,200 participants, partners with the owners of senior housing. The landlords agree to keep the rent affordable, and PACE provides services to their tenants who are members. Housing providers 'like to be full, they like their seniors cared for, and we do all of that,' said Mary Naber, president and CEO of PACE Southeast Michigan. For participants who become too infirm to live on their own, the Michigan organization has leased a wing in an independent living center, where it provides round-the-clock supportive care. The organization also is partnering with a nonprofit developer to create a cluster of 21 shipping containers converted into little houses in Eastpointe, just outside Detroit. Still in the planning stages, Naber said, the refurbished containers will probably rent for about $1,000 to $1,100 a month. In San Diego, the PACE program at St. Paul's Senior Services cares for chronically homeless people as they move into housing, offering not just health services but the backup needed to keep tenants in their homes, such as guidance on paying bills on time and keeping their apartments clean. St. Paul's also helps those already in housing but clinging to precarious living arrangements, said Carol Castillon, vice president of its PACE operations, by connecting them with community resources, helping fill out forms for housing assistance, and providing meals and household items to lower expenses. At PACE Rhode Island, which serves nearly 500 people, about 10 to 15 participants each month become homeless or at risk of homelessness, a rare situation five or six years ago, CEO Joan Kwiatkowski said. The organization contracts with assisted living facilities, but its participants are sometimes rejected because of prior criminal records, substance use, or health care needs that the facilities feel they can't handle. And public housing providers often have no openings. So PACE Rhode Island is planning to buy its own housing, Kwiatkowski said. PACE also has reserved four apartments at an assisted living facility in Bristol for its participants, paying rent when they're unoccupied. Rabinovitz moved into one recently. Rabinovitz had worked as a senior credit analyst for a health care company, but now her only income is her Social Security check. She keeps $120 from that check for personal supplies, and the rest goes to rent, which includes meals. Once a week or so, Rabinovitz rides a PACE van to the organization's center, where she gets medical care, including dental work, physical therapy, and medication — always, she said, from 'incredibly loving people.' When she's not feeling well enough to make the trek, PACE sends someone to her. Recently, a technician with a portable X-ray machine scanned her sore hip as she lay in her own bed in her new studio apartment. 'It's tiny, but I love it,' she said of the apartment, which she's decorated in purple, her favorite color. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF— an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
CDC funding changes inject ‘chaos' into local health programs
The Trump administration has delayed or blocked millions of dollars in federal grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), leaving state and local health departments in the dark, uncertain when or even if they will get money that's already been appropriated by Congress for key public health initiatives. With little communication from the White House, CDC staff are trying to expedite getting grants out the door, and public health officials are scrambling to spend the money they have before it expires Sept. 30. The CDC typically doles out the money it receives from Congress to state and local health departments, which in turn fund local contracts. But with the start of the new administration, the White House began to apportion money to CDC on a month-by-month basis, citing the need for external reviews. That practice stopped when the agency received a two-month apportionment through the end of the fiscal year, according to CDC employees, but some grants were delivered late while others are still being blocked. 'Everything is weeks, if not months behind schedule,' a CDC employee with knowledge of the funding situation said. Another employee noted the extra layers involved in getting funding out the door, including new external reviews being conducted by the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 'With every single award requiring DOGE review, there is fear the award may not be made before the end of the fiscal year and lapse of funds,' the employee said. Raynard Washington, director of the Mecklenburg County Public Health Department in North Carolina, said his agency laid off six workers — including half its disease investigators — after grants for HIV prevention and surveillance programs expired at the end of May with no information about future funding. The grants were eventually restored about a month later, but to date the department has only been able to bring back half of the people it laid off. 'So now we're behind, and cases are still being reported every day that have to be investigated,' Washington said. 'The more time that people may have been exposed to HIV and don't know it, or syphilis and don't know it and are getting tested and treated, those delays actually translate to potential illness.' Meanwhile, the Trump administration is preventing CDC from funding tens of millions of dollars in other awards, including for public health emergency preparedness, chronic disease prevention and education, academic prevention research centers, gun violence, and tobacco use. That means activities like training hospital staff and other health workers alongside first responders to prepare for a natural disaster are on hold. Washington said North Carolina had to lay off its team working on tobacco prevention efforts because the funding had dried up. 'These are not delays that we expect, given that Congress has appropriated funding for these initiatives,' Washington said. 'And these are things that — despite the political swings in Washington — have largely received bipartisan support, and so you don't expect that there was going to be gaps.' Philip Huang, director of Dallas County Health and Human Services in Texas, said he was waiting for nearly 30 percent of the promised award for public health emergency preparedness. The state doesn't know if that money is ever coming, Huang said. 'So, it makes it very difficult for us to plan. And many health departments don't have much buffer. If you plan and keep everything fully operational with all your staff now, and then you don't get the [remaining funding], then you're not going to be able to last through the year,' Huang said. CDC centers are currently not allowed to move funding into the blocked programs, according to employees. If that money is not apportioned by Sept. 30, it could be returned to the Treasury, a maneuver known as a 'pocket rescission' that has drawn criticism from lawmakers in both parties. Congress in July approved the White House's official rescissions proposal to claw back $9 billion of funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. The White House would have to send another official rescission message to Congress, which Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought claims would effectively freeze the funding and cause it lapse. 'Effectively, what they're doing is keeping that money in house. We can't pull it down,' said Scott Harris, chief of the Alabama Department of Public Health and president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. 'We have grants that we thought we had access to, we suddenly have different rules about how we're allowed to spend.' Asked about the status of CDC grants, the Department of Health and Human Services referred The Hill to OMB, which did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Harris said the uncertainty is 'chaos' for health departments and makes it almost impossible to predict or plan for the future. 'We never really know month to month if a program's still going to be here anymore,' Harris said. 'We have serious concerns about whether all of the money that has been awarded will be spent before the end of the fiscal year. New instructions on which types of expenditures are allowable will prevent us from supporting much of the programmatic work that the grants are designed to fund.'
