
Congress wants Medicaid recipients to work
Tribune News Service
Georgia could soon become the poster child for administering Medicaid with work requirements — for better or worse. As Congressional Republicans seek to pass a budget bill enacting President Donald Trump's agenda, they're looking to require able-bodied Medicaid recipients to work in order to receive their health care coverage. Georgia is presently the only state in the nation with work requirements for its Medicaid population. Here, Medicaid provides government-funded health care for some low-income people, with about 30 categories of eligibility including certain pregnant women, older widows and primary caregivers. Instead of embracing traditional Medicaid expansion, Gov. Brian Kemp sought to grow the number of insured Georgians through a conservative framework; his program provides Medicaid to people earning up to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level — about $15,000 for a single person — if they work at least 80 hours per month or meet academic or other requirements.
But rather than leading to more Medicaid recipients working, Georgia's experience has led to people who could be eligible for the program unable to receive Medicaid, mostly because of bureaucratic red tape. While experts say Kemp's program, called Georgia Pathways to Coverage, has different aims, it could still provide lessons in both politics and policy.
Pathways is designed to use health care as an incentive to get able-bodied individuals into the workforce on a limited basis. Eventually, the thinking goes, those part-time workers would transfer into full-time employees and become eligible for company-sponsored private health care plans, moving them off the government's rolls. According to Kemp's Office, at least 1,025 Pathways members have been referred to 'better, private health care coverage' through Georgia Access, the state's health care exchange, because their income increased. 'With this success it's no surprise that others are starting to emulate our innovative approach to health care coverage,' said Garrison Douglas, a spokesperson for Kemp. Chris Denson, the director of policy and research at the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, said Pathways is a way to increase health care coverage that is in line with the governor's vision without expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
States that expand Medicaid for people earning up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level, about $21,000 for an individual, have received additional federal funding to pay for it. About 40 states have expanded; Georgia has not. In Congress, lawmakers are looking for cuts that reduce the federal deficit, which is currently more than $1 trillion. Implementing work requirements nationwide among the existing able-bodied Medicaid population has been a Republican goal among those who believe there is waste and abuse in Medicaid. 'Medicaid has grown beyond its original intention to cover the aged, the blind, the disabled population, children, single mothers, and has grown to cover able-bodied individuals. That has long been an issue within conservative health circles,' Denson said. As part of discussions last year around easing regulations to establish new hospitals in Georgia, state Sen. Matt Brass, a Republican from Newnan, had voted for a form of Medicaid expansion. His thinking has shifted since then, and he supports work requirements and the Pathways programme.
If you're going to use public money to pay for something, outside of those who are deaf, blind and disabled, you need to have some skin in the game,' he said. 'As long as you're working and a contributing member of society, then absolutely, I'm good with providing health care to help you do that.'
Democrats understand that requiring Medicaid recipients to work for their benefits sounds like a good idea. A poll from the health research group KFF found that 62% of adults support work requirements. 'That actually makes sense to a lot of people. That sounds reasonable,' said state Rep. Michelle Au, a Democrat from Johns Creek. The problem, she said, is not with the work, it's with the administrative burden of reporting. 'There are people who actually are working and meet those hour eligibilities that still are not eligible for access through Pathways because of how onerous and difficult the reporting requirement is,' she said. 'It's building in a barrier to patients getting care.'
KFF found that support for work requirements drops to 32% 'when those who initially support the proposal hear that most people on Medicaid are already working and many would risk losing coverage because of the burden of proving eligibility through paperwork.' Kemp's team initially expected fewer than 100,000 people to be enrolled in the program. As of earlier this year, there were about 6,500. Heather Payne is one of the patients struggling to get care. After she began having strokes a few years ago, she was no longer able to work her nursing job and has been waiting to get her disability application to be approved. She can't get Medicaid while her disability application is active, and she can't get Medicare without a disability status. Payne, 53, who lives in Dalton, recently decided to go back to school. Attending a public or private university of technical college is considered a qualifying activity for Pathways.
But in addition to working clinical rotations, she's only taking nine credit hours right now, short of the 11.5 credit hours needed to be eligible for Pathways. 'I would have to take a full-time program at my school and work my clinical rotations to get the clinical experience I needed, to qualify to get Pathways,' she said. Other Georgians have said the portal to report work is a 'nightmare,' administrative support is lacking, and applicants are not given clear reasons why they are denied benefits.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
EPA proposes to end US fight against climate change
Jody Freeman, Tribune News Service President Donald Trump has been trying to eliminate climate regulations since his first day back in office when he signed an executive order declaring the primacy of fossil fuels. But his administration's most radical step came last week, when the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a proposal that would rescind its 2009 'endangerment finding' — the scientific conclusion that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and harm human health and well-being. This isn't just another regulatory rollback. It's an assault on the foundation of all federal climate policy. The endangerment finding originally applied to vehicle emissions, but it also underpins every major federal climate rule in America: car and truck emissions standards, power plant regulations and limits on oil and gas facilities. By removing this cornerstone, Trump's EPA is repudiating federal authority to limit greenhouse gases, our most powerful tool for fighting climate change. The irony is that no industry asked for this extreme step. Car makers need stable federal rules to compete globally. Power companies have invested billions in renewable energy, which regulatory uncertainty puts at risk. Even most oil and gas companies support a national approach to limiting methane. Companies may stay quiet to avoid crossing a vengeful administration, but they know climate change is real and that some federal regulation makes business sense. As the federal government retreats, states such as California will try to fill the void. But Trump is trying to block them too, directing the Justice Department to challenge state climate policies. With its cap-and-trade program, renewable energy standards and clean transportation incentives, California is helping to cut harmful emissions, and it could do more. Yet even the most ambitious state measures can't substitute for the national standards needed to tackle a problem the size of climate change. The legal foundation the administration is attacking seemed unshakeable. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate air pollutants that endanger human health and welfare. In 2007, in Massachusetts vs. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that greenhouse gases are air pollutants, and that the endangerment decision must be based on science. Two years later, after the EPA reviewed studies by the National Climate Assessment, the National Research Council and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it found that greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are a danger, pointing to higher temperatures, worse air quality, extreme weather events, spreading drought and more food- and water-borne pathogens. Following the process set out in the Clean Air Act, the agency then established national emission standards for the sources in each sector of the US economy that contribute to this problem. To unravel all of this, the Trump administration proposal offers a medley of strained legal and scientific arguments. First, it claims that greenhouse gases are not pollutants because they have global, not local, effects. This argument is hard to square with the Supreme Court's ruling to the contrary, but they are trying it anyway. The proposal also asserts that US emissions don't contribute to harms from climate change because climate impacts are too remote and American emissions are too small a share of the global total to matter. The first point demands a direct link between U.S. emissions and specific climate impacts, which is impossible to prove given that the effects of climate change are the result of global pollution from numerous sources. The second point rests on a contrived method for calculating emissions piecemeal, which makes them appear vanishingly small. No category of sources, whether cars or power plants, would produce a large enough share of greenhouse gases to justify regulation under this approach. It's a test designed to be impossible to pass. (Studies show, to the contrary, that every ton of emissions avoided counts when it comes to reducing climate risks, and that even incremental reductions bring significant public health and economic gains.) The proposal goes on to attack the scientific basis for the endangerment finding, calling it unreliable based largely on a report from the Department of Energy written by five handpicked scientists known for their outlier views. The report asserts, among other things, that global warming is on balance more beneficial than harmful, that cold temperatures are the greater threat and that extreme weather events are not worse than they have been historically. To say that such claims defy the consensus is an understatement. Relying on a commissioned report by a closed group looks especially suspect given that Trump disbanded the National Climate Assessment, a congressionally mandated periodic review conducted by hundreds of climate scientists and involving more than a dozen government agencies, which has warned of climate dangers in five reports since 2000. The proposal also folds policy objections into the scientific assessment, asserting that regulating greenhouse gases simply costs too much and accomplishes too little. But this muddles the issues. Whether climate change is harmful is a purely scientific assessment. How stringently to regulate is a separate question that must weigh both costs and benefits. On that score, the proposal's cost analysis is highly skewed, citing the burdens of regulation while ignoring the substantial public health and economic benefits of limiting warming. In all, the proposal's scattershot justifications seem designed to offer the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court — where the issue will likely land — a variety of ways to agree. After all, the five members of the Massachusetts vs. EPA majority have retired or died, while three of the four dissenters remain. The current court has steadily limited that decision's reach by narrowing the EPA's authority. Given their recent rulings, the justices could well reject the proposal's most far-fetched arguments while concluding that the EPA simply has broad discretion not to regulate greenhouse gases. Even if the administration ultimately loses in court, it wins by paralysing climate action for years. As EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin put it in announcing the proposal, the administration is 'driving a dagger through the heart of climate change religion.' But climate change isn't a religion — it's physics and chemistry. And science doesn't care about politics. We can't solve climate change with regulation alone. But we certainly can't solve it by pretending the problem doesn't exist. The administration's assault on climate action won't change the evidence or reality of climate change. As scientists have predicted, storms are growing more intense, heat waves more deadly, wildfires more destructive. We spend billions annually on disaster response while other countries surge ahead in clean energy innovation and manufacturing. China now dominates solar panel and electric vehicle production; Europe leads in offshore wind. The question isn't whether we'll eventually return to responsible climate policy — we will because we must. The question is how much time we'll lose, and how much damage we'll suffer, while politics masquerades as good policy.


Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Healthy living helps the aging brain
Lisa Jarvis, Tribune News Service A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association makes a compelling case that a healthy lifestyle does an aging brain good. That might sound obvious. Eat well, exercise, challenge yourself mentally, have an active social life and you'll be better off for it. Yet researchers are just starting to offer concrete data to support the theory that making conscientious lifestyle changes can lower the risk of dementia, which is estimated to affect some 6 million Americans. But the message that people have some agency over their brain health must be paired with another one: They need help. Changing deeply ingrained habits is hard. However, the research suggests that building a supportive community around individuals could significantly improve their chances for success. The so-called 'POINTER' trial enrolled more than 2,000 participants in their 60s and 70s, all of whom were at risk for dementia. Researchers followed the volunteers over two years as they embarked on lifestyle changes. The participants had a lot of room for improvement; none of them exercised regularly, and they all had poor diets. The volunteers were divided into two groups: One set its own priorities, while the other took part in a highly structured program that included regular exercise, a specific diet, computer-based brain games, social activities and community support. Remarkably, participants in both groups saw significant improvements in their cognitive health. But the group that received the more intensive intervention held back the aging clock by even more, says Laura Baker, a gerontologist at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine and a principal investigator of the study. This large trial gives weight to a growing body of work underscoring the connection between lifestyle and cognitive health. That link was highlighted in a study commissioned by The Lancet that found nearly half of all dementia cases worldwide could be delayed or attenuated by focusing on specific aspects of our health. The Lancet team identified more than a dozen risk factors, including hearing and vision loss, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, obesity, social isolation and exposure to air pollution. There are caveats to the new findings. In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan Schott, a neurologist at the Dementia Research Centre, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology in London, raised the question of whether the modest difference in benefit between the two groups was enough to justify the cost of the more rigorous intervention in a real-world setting. He also noted that further research needs to be done to determine whether improvements in brain health are sustained over time — and whether they ultimately lead to a lower incidence of dementia and a better quality of life. Answers to some of those questions are hopefully coming soon. In December, researchers will report some data from a series of side studies conducted as part of the trial, examining how various lifestyle interventions affected factors such as sleep, vascular health, gut health and markers of Alzheimer's disease in the brain. Meanwhile, the research team is following the participants for another four years to see whether folks stick with the changes they made — and determine whether even a temporary intervention can have longer-term benefits for brain health. But even before we have more data, enough evidence exists to suggest that it's long past time to give older folks more support as they age. It's not enough for doctors to give people a to-do list and hope they follow through. 'Just because you have the prescription, doesn't mean you can do it,' Baker says. People who are at risk of dementia are struggling for a reason, she says, and they both need and deserve help. The community support offered to the group that saw the most benefit in the POINTER trial was a crucial component of their success. 'The whole investigator team feels like if you were to cut out the social component, we would have nothing to report,' she says. 'We're asking people to create new habits,' and that's hard to do on your own. Phyllis Jones, a 66-year-old from Aurora, Illinois, who was part of the structured intervention group, said the peer support has given her a community and purpose. 'I gained a network of incredible people — friends, mentors, and fellow advocates,' she told reporters at a conference in Toronto where the results were unveiled. The effect of the intervention was so profound — she lowered her blood sugar and cholesterol, lost weight and relieved joint pain — that she now refers to herself as 'Phyllis-BP' (Before POINTER) and 'Phyllis-AP' (After POINTER).

Middle East Eye
2 days ago
- Middle East Eye
More US voters want aid for Gaza than weapons for Israel: Poll
A new poll by Data for Progress shows that far more people in the US want to see their government send humanitarian aid to Gaza than weapons to Israel. The survey was carried out among 1,227 likely US voters who self-identified their party affiliation. Broken down by party, a majority of Democrats want to see humanitarian aid for Gaza prioritised over arms transfers to Israel. The opposite is true for Republicans. When asked if Israel is committing human rights abuses against Palestinians, most Democrats agree, but most Republicans disagree. Independents appear to land somewhere between the two sides. When that same question was asked back in May, not as many Democrats were convinced, but August's survey shows a significant increase in Democrats who believe Israel is carrying out abuses in Gaza.