logo
Many people with disabilities risk losing their medicaid if they work too much

Many people with disabilities risk losing their medicaid if they work too much

CBS News25-03-2025

PLEASANTVILLE, Iowa — Zach Mecham has heard politicians demand that Medicaid recipients work or lose their benefits. He also has run into a jumble of Medicaid rules that effectively prevent many people with disabilities from holding full-time jobs.
"Which is it? Do you want us to work or not?" he said.
Mecham, 31, relies on the public insurance program to pay for services that help him live on his own despite a disability caused by muscular dystrophy. He uses a wheelchair to get around and a portable ventilator to breathe.
A paid assistant stays with Mecham at night. Then a home health aide comes in the morning to help him get out of bed, go to the bathroom, shower, and get dressed for work at his online marketing business. Without the assistance, he would have to shutter his company and move into a nursing home, he said.
Private health insurance plans generally do not cover such support services, so he relies on Medicaid, which is jointly financed by federal and state governments and covers millions of Americans who have low incomes or disabilities.
Like most other states, Iowa has a Medicaid "buy-in program," which allows people with disabilities to join Medicaid even if their incomes are a bit higher than would typically be permitted. About two-thirds of such programs charge premiums, and
most have caps
on how much money participants can earn and save.
Some states have raised or eliminated such financial caps for people with disabilities. Mecham has repeatedly traveled to the Iowa Capitol to lobby legislators to follow those states' lead. The "
Work Without Worry
" bill would remove income and asset caps and instead require Iowans with disabilities to pay 6% of their incomes as premiums to remain in Medicaid. Those fees would be waived if participants pay premiums for employer-based health insurance, which would help cover standard medical care.
Disability rights advocates say income and asset caps for Medicaid buy-in programs can prevent participants from working full time or accepting promotions. "It's a trap — a poverty trap," said Stephen Lieberman, a policy director for the United Spinal Association,
which supports the changes
.
Lawmakers in Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, and New Jersey have introduced bills to address the issue this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Several other states have raised or eliminated their program's income and asset caps. Iowa's proposal is modeled on a
Tennessee law
passed last year, said
Josh Turek
, a Democratic state representative from Council Bluffs. Turek, who is promoting the Iowa bill, uses a wheelchair and earned two gold medals as a member of the U.S. Paralympics basketball team.
Proponents say allowing people with disabilities to earn more money and still qualify for Medicaid would help ease persistent worker shortages, including in rural areas where the working-age population is shrinking.
Turek believes now is a good time to seek expanded employment rights for people with disabilities, since Republicans who control the state and federal governments have been touting the value of holding a job. "That's the trumpet I've been blowing," he said with a smile.
The Iowa Legislature
has been moving
to require many nondisabled Medicaid recipients to work or to document why they can't. Opponents say most Medicaid recipients who can work already do so, and the critics say work requirements add red tape that is
expensive to administer
and could lead Medicaid recipients to lose their coverage over paperwork issues.
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds has made Medicaid work requirements a priority this year. "If you can work, you should. It's common sense and good policy," the Republican governor told legislators in January in her "
Condition of the State Address
." "Getting back to work can be a lifeline to stability and self-sufficiency."
Her office did not respond to KFF Health News' queries about whether Reynolds supports eliminating income and asset caps for Iowa's buy-in program, known as
Medicaid for Employed People with Disabilities.
National disability rights activists say income and asset caps on Medicaid buy-in programs discourage couples from marrying or even pressure them to split up if one or both partners have disabilities. That's because in many states a spouse's income and assets are counted when determining eligibility.
In Iowa, for example, the monthly net income cap is $3,138 for a single person and $4,259 for a couple.
Iowa's current asset cap for a single person in the Medicaid buy-in plan is $12,000. For a couple, that cap rises only to $13,000. Countable assets include investments, bank accounts, and other things that could be easily converted to cash, but not a primary home, vehicle, or household furnishings.
"You have couples who have been married for decades who have to go through what we call a 'Medicaid divorce,' just to get access to these supports and services that cannot be covered in any other way," said Maria Town, president of the American Association of People with Disabilities.
Town said some states, including Massachusetts, have removed income caps for people with disabilities who want to join Medicaid. She said the cost of adding such people to the program is at least partially offset by the premiums they pay for coverage and the increased taxes they contribute because they are allowed to work more hours. "I don't think it has to be expensive" for the state and federal governments, she said.
Congress has considered
a similar proposal
to allow people with disabilities to work more hours without losing their Social Security disability benefits, but that bill has not advanced.
Although most states have Medicaid buy-in programs, enrollment is relatively low, said Alice Burns, a Medicaid analyst at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.
Fewer than 200,000 people nationwide are covered under the options, Burns said. "Awareness of these programs is really limited," she said, and the income limits and paperwork can dissuade potential participants.
In states that charge premiums for Medicaid buy-in programs, monthly fees can range from $10 to 10% of a person's income, according to
a KFF analysis
of 2022 data.
The Iowa proposal to remove income and asset caps has drawn bipartisan backing from legislators, including a
20-0 vote
of approval from the House Health and Human Services Committee. "This aligns with things both parties are aiming to do," said state Rep. Carter Nordman, a Republican who chaired a subcommittee meeting on the bill. Nordman said he supports the idea but wants to see an official estimate of how much it would cost the state to let more people with disabilities participate in the Medicaid buy-in program.
Mecham, the citizen activist lobbying for the Iowa bill, said he hopes it allows him to expand his online marketing and graphic design business, "
Zach of All Trades
."
On a recent morning, health aide Courtnie Imler visited Mecham's modest house in Pleasantville, a town of about 1,700 people in an agricultural region of central Iowa. Imler chatted with Mecham while she used a hoist to lift him out of his wheelchair and onto the toilet. Then she cleaned him up, brushed his hair, and helped him put on jeans and a John Deere T-shirt. She poured him a cup of coffee and put a straw in it so he could drink it on his own, swept the kitchen floor, and wiped the counters. After about an hour, she said goodbye.
After getting cleaned up and dressed, Mecham rolled his motorized wheelchair over to his plain wooden desk, fired up his computer, and began working on a social media video for a client promoting a book. He scrolled back and forth through footage of an interview she'd done, so he could pick the best clip to post online. He also shoots video, takes photos, and writes advertising copy.
Mecham loves feeling productive, and he figures he could work at least twice as many hours if not for the risk of losing Medicaid coverage. He said he's allowed to make a bit more money than Iowa Medicaid's standard limit because he signed up for a
federal option
under which he eventually expects to work his way off Social Security disability payments.
There are several such options for people with disabilities, but they all involve complicated paperwork and frequent reports, he said. "This is such a convoluted system that I have to navigate to build any kind of life for myself," he said. Many people with disabilities are intimidated by the rules, so they don't apply, he said. "If you get it wrong, you lose the health care your life depends on."
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. Learn more about
KFF
.
Subscribe
to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.
This
article
first appeared on
KFF Health News
and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

MAGA's blue-collar base waits patiently for populist payoff
MAGA's blue-collar base waits patiently for populist payoff

Axios

time19 minutes ago

  • Axios

MAGA's blue-collar base waits patiently for populist payoff

President Trump 's second term has been a payday for the powerful, exposing a disconnect in his promise to deliver for "the forgotten man" of America's working class. Why it matters: The populist paradox at the heart of MAGA — a movement fueled by economic grievance and championed by a New York billionaire — has never been more pronounced. Trump's blue-collar base remains fiercely loyal, energized by his hardline stances on immigration, trade and culture — and patient that his economic "Golden Age" will materialize. But so far, the clearest financial rewards of Trump's tenure are flowing upward — to wealthy donors, family members, insiders and the president himself. The big picture: Trump's inner circle has shattered norms around profiting from the presidency, dulling public outrage to the point where even the most brazen access schemes draw only fleeting scrutiny. Take crypto: The top holders of Trump's meme coin were granted an exclusive dinner last month at the president's Virginia golf club, where some paid millions for access. The White House refused to release the guest list, but wealthy foreigners — including a Chinese billionaire who faced SEC charges under the Biden administration — were among those revealed to be in attendance. Trump's sons, meanwhile, are spearheading a family crypto venture that has raked in hundreds of millions of dollars. Trump Media, the parent company of Truth Social, is raising $2.5 billion to buy Bitcoin. All of this — plus a flurry of lucrative real estate deals overseas — is playing out as Trump presides over U.S. foreign policy and the fate of crypto regulation. Zoom in: Now take Trump's relationship with his donors. His Cabinet is the wealthiest in American history, stocked with mega-donors whose combined net worth reaches well into the billions — even discounting estranged former adviser Elon Musk. Trump has granted pardons or clemency to a stream of white-collar criminals and wealthy tax cheats, many of whom hired lobbyists, donated to the president or raised money on his behalf. The Wall Street Journal found that the biggest corporate and individual donors to Trump's inauguration later received relief from investigations, U.S. market access and plum postings in the administration. The other side: Trump officials wholly reject the premise that the administration's policies don't benefit the working-class Americans who voted for the president en masse. The White House points to cooling inflation, plummeting border crossings, and the tariff-driven re-shoring of manufacturing as evidence of Trump delivering on his core promises. They frame his crypto push, AI acceleration and deregulatory agenda as driving forces behind a pro-growth tide that will lift all boats — including for middle- and working-class Americans. Reality check: Inflation may remain benign for now, but there are growing signs businesses are experiencing higher prices and passing some or all of those costs directly through to consumers, Axios managing editor for business Ben Berkowitz notes. While companies have made encouraging public statements about re-shoring, in almost all of those cases it's too soon for any shovels to be in the ground. What to watch: Trump's "One, Big, Beautiful Bill" is packed with populist red meat, including the extension of his first-term tax cuts, the elimination of taxes on tips and overtime, and $1,000 " Trump Accounts" for newborns. "All his hopes and dreams on that front are pinned to that reconciliation bill," one MAGA operative told Axios, characterizing it as "the bulk" of Trump's legislative agenda for the middle class. "The president expects the Senate to quickly pass the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, codifying huge tax cuts that will mean permanent savings for hardworking Americans," White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said. Between the lines: Several independent analyses project that the wealthiest Americans would benefit most from the bill. A Penn Wharton study that found the top 10% of earners would reap 70% of the legislation's total value. The Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicaid work requirements and other health care cuts would leave about 11 million people uninsured by 2034. Millions could also be forced off of food stamps. "Medicaid, you gotta be careful," former Trump adviser Steve Bannon said on his "War Room" podcast in February. "Because a lot of MAGAs are on Medicaid, I'm telling you. If you don't think so, you are dead wrong." Factory investments in red districts are expected to suffer most from the bill's rollback of clean energy credits included in President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. The bottom line: Inside the MAGA movement, there's little concern about who's getting rich as long as Trump keeps fighting the culture wars, deporting immigrants and tearing down liberal institutions.

San Antonio mayor live election results: Gina Ortiz Jones wins race
San Antonio mayor live election results: Gina Ortiz Jones wins race

Axios

time20 minutes ago

  • Axios

San Antonio mayor live election results: Gina Ortiz Jones wins race

San Antonio on Saturday elected Gina Ortiz Jones as its next mayor, choosing a Democrat instead of Republican Rolando Pablos for a nonpartisan race that became distinctly about politics. Why it matters: The mayoral election, the city's first in 16 years without an incumbent on the ballot, drew money and influence from across the state and nation. Neither Ortiz Jones nor Pablos have held elected office before, and San Antonio has not elected a mayor who hasn't served on the City Council since Phil Hardberger in 2005. The latest: Unofficial vote results showed Ortiz Jones with 54% of the vote compared to 46% for Pablos. All precincts were counted. What they're saying: Ortiz Jones told supporters at a watch party at The Dakota East Side Ice House that voters "reminded folks what San Antonio stands for," adding "that our city is about compassion and it's about leading with everybody in mind." "But you know what, our country — I think we're going through a blip right now, but San Antonio has had the opportunity to say, you know what? We're going to move past this," she added. Pablos conceded at his watch party, per KSAT. "We tried. I want to thank everybody for your support. It was a tough race, and I'm just happy that everybody came together for this community," he said. State of play: Ortiz Jones, who is believed to be the first openly gay woman elected San Antonio mayor, served as an Air Force undersecretary in the Biden administration and was twice the Democratic nominee for the 23rd Congressional District. During the runoff campaign, both candidates leaned into their families' immigrant backgrounds. Ortiz Jones spoke of being raised by a single mother who immigrated from the Philippines and Pablos of his family moving from Mexico to El Paso when he was 8 years old. Pablos is a former Texas secretary of state who has served as a senior adviser to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. Follow the money: Pablos and his supporters appeared to both outraise and outspend Ortiz Jones in the runoff election, campaign finance reports show. Pablos raised nearly $333,000 and spent more than $275,000 from late April through May 28. He got a big boost from the Texas Economic Fund, a political action committee run by Abbott's former political director, which raised $1.35 million and spent over $623,000 during that time. Ortiz Jones raised nearly $249,000 and spent over $133,000 in the same period. She had help from Fields of Change, a national Democratic PAC, which spent more than $160,000 for her campaign. The big picture: The new mayor will lead San Antonio at a pivotal time, as officials seek to gain public support for a new downtown Spurs arena that could be surrounded by a sports and entertainment district. They will also lead the city through the remaining years of the Trump administration, under which San Antonio has lost millions of dollars in federal funding. The city is also expecting a budget deficit. Catch up quick: Mayor Ron Nirenberg reached his term limits after eight years in office, making him the city's longest-serving mayor since Henry Cisneros in the 1980s. San Antonio's next mayor will serve for four years after voters approved increasing term length from two years. They will work alongside several new city councilmembers members. Flashback: Nirenberg's departure left a rare opening that drew a crowded 27-candidate field to replace him. Four sitting city councilmembers struggled to break through the noise as traditional backers in local elections, like the police union, sat out the first round of voting. By the numbers: Voters showed low enthusiasm for the May 3 election, which overlapped with Fiesta, at 9.26%. In the runoff, turnout rose to nearly 17%.

The Biggest Boondoggles in Trump's Big Beautiful Bill
The Biggest Boondoggles in Trump's Big Beautiful Bill

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The Biggest Boondoggles in Trump's Big Beautiful Bill

The House reconciliation bill — officially known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — is extraordinary in how much it robs from the poor to boost the rich. Its tax cuts for the wealthy are financed by cuts to health care coverage (both in Medicaid and Obamacare) that will help Republicans swell the ranks of the uninsured by 16 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But the Big Beautiful Bill is not just an ugly tax bill where society's less fortunate are made to sacrifice for the benefit of the wealthiest. It's also a spending bill that steers hundreds of billions of dollars into new pet projects. This is financed with debt. All in, the BBB will spike deficits by $2.4 trillion over 10 years, according to CBO, likely increasing the national debt by $3 billion when interest payments are included. The bill's spending has angered budget hawks in the Senate like Rand Paul (R.-Ky.). It has been part of the public split between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who calls the bill a 'disgusting abomination' that will squander any supposed savings imposed by DOGE, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. Conservative budget analysts are sounding the alarm: 'This inability to set priorities is going to bring a debt crisis,' Jessica Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute tells Rolling Stone. In fact, the bill would create so much new debt that it risks triggering a mechanism called 'sequestration,' which would impose deep, mandatory cuts to Medicare. These cuts to the health care of America's seniors would start next year, and rise to half-a-trillion dollars over ten years. The BBB's spending provisions have received far less scrutiny than the tax cuts and safety-net slashes. But the bill lards new funds on a range of already-fat-cats — from the military-industrial complex and Big Tech to private prisons and construction concerns. Below we survey the biggest boondoggles of the Big Beautiful Bill: The BBB proposes spending nearly $50 billion for construction of Trump's border wall with Mexico. Sen. Paul, in an appearance on Face the Nation last week, accused the administration of waste. He cited an existing Customs and Border Patrol estimate that wall construction should cost only about $6.5 billion over 1,000 miles: 'They have inflated the cost of the wall eightfold,' said Paul. (After his TV hit, CPB appears to have scrubbed the construction cost estimate Paul quoted from its website.) Paul even questioned the need for more wall, at all, given his view that Trump has 'essentially stopped the border flow without new money and without new legislation.' Offering just a small taste of the anticipated building bonanza, the Trump administration awarded a $70 million, 7-mile wall-construction contract to California-based Granite Construction in March. The bill includes $45 billion for 'Adult Alien Detention Capacity' and 'Family Residential Centers.' This funding would enable the administration to ramp up its mass deportation program for undocumented immigrants. As the nation has seen from recent high-profile Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids at restaurants, this involves ripping productive members out of society and making them wards of the state, at great public cost, until they can be deported. The money would be a boon to private prison contractors and construction firms. For a taste of where this is headed, consider that the administration has already inked a 15-year, $1 billion deal with GEO Group to house ICE detainees at Delaney Hall, a 1,000 bed facility in Newark, New Jersey. The mayor of the city was arrested by ICE amid a recent protest at the facility. The private prison company is well connected to the Trump administration. As Rolling Stone has reported, Attorney General Pam Bondi is a former lobbyist for GEO Group, which also made a $500,000 donation to the Trump inaugural committee. A GEO subsidiary donated $1.3 million to a Super PAC that backed Trump's 2024 election. The BBB puts up nearly $25 billion for the Golden Dome. The satellite-based missile defense project builds off the branding of Israel's 'Iron Dome,' a ground-based defensive system that can intercept rockets and missiles launched from local militants or state actors like Iran. 'To the extent we match Iron Dome technology, we will be well protected from a missile attack from Canada or Mexico,' says Riedl of the Manhattan Institute, sarcastically. 'But not necessarily from Russia, North Korea or China.' In reality the Golden Dome appears to be Trump's revival of the Ronald Reagan era Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI — a hugely expensive, largely ineffective space-based missile-defense system derided in the 1980s as 'Star Wars.' 'Ultimately this is $25 billion more for SDI' says Rieidl. 'This is a noble idea — but a lot of spending up until now hasn't brought a lot of success.' Trump envisions the BBB as a downpayment on a total investment of $175 million. The Golden Dome promises to be a golden goose for defense contractors. SpaceX, the rocket company founded by Trump's billionaire benefactor Elon Musk, who's currently feuding with Trump, is reportedly vying for a contract. So are the Peter Thiel-linked tech firm Palantir and longtime military-industrial heavyweights like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. Including the Golden Dome, the Big Beautiful Bill increases America's Pentagon spending by a colossal $150 billion. 'This is a bill from the military-industrial complex advocates who are padding the military budget,' according to Paul, who has long criticized the Defense Department for failing to pass every audit to which it's been subjected. Budgets are moral documents. And metaphorically people often speak of the tradeoff between 'guns and butter' — or programs that defend the public and those that keep the public out of misery. The guns side of the Big Beautiful Bill is financed entirely by cuts to butter. The bill strips $128 billion in funding to the states for the SNAP food assistance program that keeps American families from going hungry. It also aims to avoid another $92 billion in spending by knocking people out of the program with red tape and work requirements, including for parents of argues that the Pentagon should be forced to achieve cost efficiencies before it receives any new federal dollars. 'One of DOGE's great failures was essentially ignoring the enormous waste and cost overruns inside the Pentagon. There is a reason the Defense Department cannot pass an audit. There is so much waste. It has significant cost overruns — particularly in government contracts and procurement — that absolutely must be addressed before we further increase defense spending,' says the Manhattan institute fellow. The House bill steers new money to more than a dozen weapons systems, including many dogged by cost overruns, construction delays, performance issues, and questions of combat capability. On the airplane side, this list includes: $4.5 billion for the B-21 Raider, the Air Force's newest long-range stealth bomber, which cost nearly $700 million per aircraft to produce. The two-person Northrup Gruman-built plane may be poorly suited to modern warfighting, where swarms of unmanned drones are becoming the dominant air threat. $3.2 billion for the Boeing-built F-15EX. The planes cost $90 million a pop, making them more expensive than the notoriously costly F-35A. Unlike that fighter, the F-15EX is not a stealth aircraft. And production has been snarled by manufacturing problems. A recent federal assessment put it bluntly: 'Boeing has experienced increased quality deficiencies.' Ships include: $4.6 billion for Virginia Class submarines. The nuclear submarine program has a reported cost overrun of $17 billion and has delivered boats massively behind schedule. The contractors are General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries. The Pentagon already has 23 of these submarines. $2.1 billion for San Antonio Class 'amphibious transport docks.' This ship was put on production pause in 2023 because of massive cost overruns. The boats are supposed to land Marines into onshore combat, but have been found by DOD testers to only be suitable 'in a benign environment' because the ship is 'not effective, suitable and not survivable in a combat situation.' Huntington Ingalls Industries is the contractor. The Pentagon already has 13 of these boats. More from Rolling Stone Donald Trump Is Destroying the Economy and Waging War on the Poor Trump Moves to Deploy National Guard to L.A. Over ICE Protests 'Dejected' Trump Says Relationship With Musk Is Over; Calls Him a 'Big-Time Drug Addict': Report Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence

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