Fact check: Are 5 million nondisabled Medicaid recipients watching TV all day? That's unsupported
Scott Jennings on "CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip" on July 1
____
Republicans defended the GOP megabill's Medicaid changes as targeting a group of people they believe shouldn't qualify: people who can work but instead choose to stay home and chill.
Several Republican politicians and pundits, including CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings, pegged that group's size at about 5 million people.
"There are like almost 5 million able-bodied people on Medicaid who simply choose not to work," Jennings said July 1 on "CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip." "They spend six hours a day socializing and watching television. And if you can't get off grandma's couch and work, I don't want to pay for your welfare."
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz picked up on some of these points during a July 14 appearance on Fox News. "When the program was created 60 years ago, it never dawned on anyone that you would take able-bodied individuals who could work and put them on Medicaid. Today the average able-bodied person on Medicaid who doesn't work, they watch 6.1 hours of television or just hang out," Oz said.
Medicaid is a federal-state health insurance program that covers medical care for lower-income people.
Jennings cited two pieces of data: an estimate of how many fewer people would have coverage because of the work requirement and an analysis of how nonworking Medicaid recipients spend their time. But he made assumptions that the data doesn't support.
Jennings Misrepresents CBO Estimate
The 4.8 million figure stems from a June 24 Congressional Budget Office analysis of a preliminary House version of the massive tax and spending package. The office, Congress' nonpartisan research arm, projected that provisions of the bill would cause 7.8 million fewer people to have health coverage by 2034. They would include 4.8 million people previously eligible for Medicaid described as "able-bodied" adults 19 to 64 years old who have no dependents and who "do not meet the community engagement requirement" of doing "work-related activities" at least 80 hours a month.
Apart from working, doing community service and attending school also fulfill the community engagement requirement.
Jennings paired that statistic with a separate analysis of how nondisabled adult Medicaid recipients without dependent children spend their time.
But the CBO estimate was a projection - it doesn't represent the current number of nondisabled Medicaid recipients, nor does it say 4.8 million people in this group "choose not to work." The figure represented how many fewer people would have coverage because of the bill's community engagement requirement.
"The challenge with Jennings' comments - and they've been echoed elsewhere by elected Republicans - is that CBO never said that 4.8 million people were out of compliance with the proposed work requirements; they said that 4.8 million people would lose coverage because of the work requirements," said Adrianna McIntyre, an assistant professor of health policy and politics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Among the Medicaid expansion population, the law requires most adults without dependent children and parents of children older than 13 to work or participate in other qualifying activities 80 hours every month. States will need to verify that applicants met the work requirement for one to three months before they applied. States will also be required to verify that existing enrollees met the work requirement for at least a month between eligibility determinations, which will be required at least twice a year.
Research into Medicaid work requirements imposed at the state level has shown that people found it difficult to fulfill them and submit documentation, contributing to coverage losses.
In Arkansas, which added a work requirement to Medicaid in 2018, a study based on nearly 6,000 respondents found that about 95% of the target population were already working or qualified for an exemption, but a third of them did not hear about the work requirements. As a result, nearly 17,000 Medicaid recipients subject to work requirements lost coverage.
KFF found that adults ages 50 to 64 are more at risk of losing Medicaid coverage because of the new work requirements. More than 1 in 10 in that age group said they had retired, and among them, 28% reported being disabled, said KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.
Benjamin Sommers, a health care economics professor at the Harvard Chan school, said many of the 4.8 million "able-bodied" people in the CBO estimate "will actually be engaged in the activities they are supposed to be doing, and lose coverage because they are not able to navigate the reporting requirements with the state and lose coverage from red tape."
When Recipients Don't Work, It's Rarely From Lack of Interest
There is no universal definition for "able-bodied"; disability can be assessed in different ways. But other studies offer much smaller estimates than 4.8 million Medicaid recipients without dependents who can work but choose not to.
Millions of working-age, nondisabled adults joined the Medicaid ranks in states that expanded eligibility under the Affordable Care Act. There were about 34 million working-age nondisabled Medicaid enrollees in 2024, according to the CBO, 15 million of whom enrolled through the ACA.
A KFF analysis found a smaller figure of 26 million Medicaid-covered adults, ages 19 to 64, who don't receive Supplemental Security Income, Social Security Disability Insurance, or Medicare benefits.
Among this group, KFF estimated, 64% were working either full time or part time. The reasons the rest were not working included caregiving (12%); illness or disability (10%); retirement, inability to find work, or other reason (8%); and school attendance (7%).
Few people cited lack of interest in working as the reason for their unemployment. An Urban Institute study found 2% of Medicaid expansion enrollees without dependents who neither worked nor attended school - or 300,000 people out of a projected 15 million subject to work requirements - cited a lack of interest in working as the reason they were unemployed.
This was consistent with the Brookings Institution's June 5 analysis that found that, of 4.3 million adult enrollees who worked fewer than 80 hours a month and did not have any activity limitations or illnesses, about 300,000 reported that they "did not work because they did not want to."
Mostly Women, Mostly With a High School Degree or Less
When Republicanshave described nondisabled adult Medicaid recipients, they have often portrayed them as men in their 30s "playing video games" in their parents' basement or who "smoke weed all day." Research paints a different picture.
Jane Tavares and Marc Cohen, of the University of Massachusetts-Boston Gerontology Department, researched Medicaid recipients who are not disabled or working, have no dependent children under 18, and are not in school. They cited 2023 census data from the American Community Survey.
They found:
--The average age of this population is 41, and 26% are older than 50.
--Almost 80% are female.
--Most, 80%, have a high school education or less.
--Their median individual income is $0, and their median household income is $44,800.
--About 56% worked in the past five years, and 23% worked in the prior year. About 30% are looking or available for work.
"They are not healthy young adults just hanging out," the authors, along with health law experts Sara Rosenbaum and Alison Barkoff, wrote April 30.
"It's clear based on their prior work history and family size/income that they are exceptionally poor and have likely left the workforce to care for adult children or older adults," Tavares told PolitiFact. "Even if these individuals could work, they would have very few job opportunities and it would come at the cost of the people they are providing care for."
AEI Study Not Definitively Linked to CBO Estimate
On the social platform X, Jennings posted the CBO letter and a May 29 analysis by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, about "how nondisabled Medicaid recipients without children spend their time." PolitiFact contacted CNN to reach Jennings but did not receive a reply.
The author of that study, American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Kevin Corinth, analyzed survey data and found that Medicaid recipients who do not report working spend on average 6.1 hours a day "on all socializing, relaxing and leisure activities (including television and video games)."
But it's uncertain whether the people in the survey population he analyzed overlap with the people included in the CBO analysis, said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of KFF's Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
Corinth told PolitiFact "it is difficult to say" how the population he analyzed differs from the CBO's. Tavares, Cohen, Rosenbaum, and Barkoff said Corinth's dataset defined disability narrowly, leading to a "serious underestimation of disability" among the population of Medicaid recipients he looked into. It focused on Medicaid recipients who receive Supplemental Security Income or have a health condition that prevents them from working. The researchers said this approach is too narrow because the SSI program accounts for only those "most deeply impoverished adults with severe disabilities."
The group gave a hypothetical example of a 54-year-old woman with a serious heart condition who can work only a few hours a week. She may not be considered disabled under the SSI program, but she may be limited in the work she can do and may need time to rest.
"Using her 'leisure time' to justify a work requirement grossly misrepresents her reality," the group wrote.
Corinth's analysis also shows that nonworking Medicaid recipients spend less time socializing, relaxing, or engaged in leisure activities than nonworking people who aren't covered by Medicaid. Nonworking Medicaid recipients also spend more time looking for work and doing housework and errands, it found.
Our Ruling
Jennings said almost 5 million nondisabled Medicaid recipients "simply choose not to work" and "spend six hours a day socializing and watching television."
The 5 million figure stems from a CBO projection that 4.8 million people would go without coverage by 2034 as a result of not fulfilling the community engagement requirements. It is not descriptive of current enrollees and does not specify that these people choose not to work.
Jennings cited an American Enterprise Institute analysis on how nondisabled Medicaid recipients with no dependents spend their time, but it is uncertain if the population in that analysis overlaps with that in the CBO estimate.
Current snapshots of the population Jennings described produce a smaller number. A survey by the Urban Institute found that 2% of Medicaid expansion enrollees without dependents who were neither working nor attending school - about 300,000 people - cited a lack of interest in working. Other research has found reasons this group doesn't work include caregiving, illness or disability, retirement, and inability to find work.
Studies of nonworking Medicaid recipients have found the majority are women and have a high school education or less. Their average age is 41, and more than half have a work history in the past five years.
We rate Jennings' statement False.
____
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Hashtags

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


USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Ebooks are on the line as Congress considers future of library funding
Like checking out library ebooks? Congress, Trump could make it harder by cutting federal funding for libraries. CROFTON, Maryland ‒ Claire Holahan, 34, takes her toddler to the library once or twice a week for story time, so she can play with other children and the library's toys. It's not until after bedtime that she has time to click open her own ebook, downloaded from the library. "I don't want to have a collection (of paper books). It seems kind of wasteful … I'd rather just take it out from the library and then somebody else borrows it and gets to enjoy it," she said. Holahan is among millions of Americans who could lose ebook access from their local library under the budget bill the House is currently considering. At Trump's request, it eliminates federal funding for libraries and museums, which is often used to fund ebooks among other services. Without ebooks through the local library "I would have a hard time reading as many books as I do," Holahan said. States' libraries to lose as much as half their funding The Institute for Museum and Library Services, a tiny, little known federal agency, provides grants to states, accounting for between 30% and 50% of state library budgets, according to the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies. For decades it has distributed hundreds of millions of dollars in congressionally approved funds through grants to state libraries in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. and to library, museum and archives programs. It serves 35,000 museums and 123,000 libraries across the country, according to its website. The impact of losing the money will be different in each state because each one spends its portion of the funding differently. Some will have to fire staff and end tutoring and summer reading programs. Others will cut access to electronic databases, end intra-library loans or reduce access to books for the deaf and blind. Many will have to stop providing internet service for rural libraries or ebook access statewide. With the expectation that Congress won't buck Trump and fund the IMLS, the future of these backbone "compassionate" library services is now under discussion across the nation, said John Chrastka, founder of EveryLibrary, a nonprofit that organizes grassroot campaigns for library funding and blocking book bans. It isn't clear whether states will be able to fill the gap left if federal funding ends, especially with other responsibilities the Trump administration is passing off to the states, like requiring them to pick up a larger share of Medicaid costs and a percentage of food assistance benefits for the first time, along with changing education and disaster funding. 'We cannot possibly at the State Library save our way out of an $8 million hole,' said California State Librarian Greg Lucas. 'The state's budget isn't in real great shape on its own and so the badness is compounded by these actions by the federal government. It's kind of: OK, where are we going to go? There aren't any easy answers to this.' The institute 'shall be eliminated' On March 14 Trump issued an executive order eliminating the Institute of Museum and Library Services 'to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.' The order states that the Institute must be reduced to its "statutory functions.' It also requires that 'non-statutory components and functions … shall be eliminated.' The proposed budget would cut federal funding for libraries and museums from nearly $300 million to $5.5 million. The agency's budget justification says the remaining money is for "sunsetting" or ending the agency. Requests for comment about the cuts sent to an IMLS spokesperson and to the Labor Department where acting IMLS Director Keith Sonderling is Deputy Secretary of Labor were not answered. After the majority of IMLS staff were laid off in late March, state libraries in California, Connecticut and Washington were abruptly told that their state grants had been canceled and received almost no other information. Panicked, Mississippi temporarily halted ebook lending so it wouldn't be accountable for the cost while the future of funding was in doubt. The state grants for California, Connecticut and Washington were restored May 5. Then came another letter from IMLS telling states that they were only getting 50% of their allocated funding. To get the rest, they needed to fill out a questionnaire about how the libraries were complying with Trump's executive orders on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, how they were supporting American's education needs and America's 250th anniversary. On April 4, 21 states sued in federal court saying that Trump can't end the agency without permission from Congress. The judge ordered IMLS to reinstate grants and staff until the case is heard. Congress, which must approve the agency's shutdown, had been scheduled to discuss its funding in late July, but pushed it off until after their summer recess ends in September. Struggling to afford ebooks, despite 'huge appetite from the public' Losing the money for ebooks would be particularly hard for states, Hoboken (New Jersey) Public Library Director Jennie Pu told USA TODAY. Interest in ebooks spiked during the pandemic, she said, but digital copies of books cost far more than paper and licensing agreements come with strings. Libraries pay three to five times as much for an ebook than what they cost in a private sale. Anecdotally, Pu said, some cost $70 per title. Some major publishers lease ebooks to libraries for two years, with the limit that only one patron can check out each digital copy at a time. Other licensing agreements expire after a set number of checkouts or are a mix of the two methods. 'We're spending more and more money in our budgets towards ebooks. There is a huge appetite from the public,' said Pu, adding that her library saw a 20% increase in ebook usage this year. 'We are so committed to meeting that need from the public and our challenge is we don't have an unlimited source of funds." In May, the Connecticut legislature passed a law aimed at reducing the cost of ebooks to libraries. New Jersey and other states have introduced similar legislation. California hopes to spend as much of its remaining federal funding as possible putting more ebooks into its 300,000-item statewide catalog, Lucas, the state librarian, said. The goal is to make sure that the 8,700 people in Modoc County, one of the least populous places in the state, have access to the same ebooks and audio books that are available to the 9.6 million people in Los Angeles County ‒ home to the second largest library system in the country, Lucas said. Part of what the State Library still needs to do is figure out how to pay the yearly $146,000 in platform fees to keep providing access to the ebooks and audiobooks it has. And, it's hoping to save some of the other services normally funded by the federal grant, like the California Revealed program, which digitizes audio, video, photos and newspapers to preserve state history, Lucas said. Because federal money is distributed based on population, his state has the most to lose ‒ roughly $15 million, according to Lucas. 'We're operating under the assumption there'll be no federal money to support us," he said. 'Always on his Kindle' At the Crofton Community Library in Maryland, patrons are greeted by boxes of free fresh vegetables. Dozens of house plants decorate the shelves and window sills, absorbing the light from windows that run from the tops of bookshelves to the ceiling. A buzz fills the room from kids working on an art activity for the summer reading program, which Maryland's State Library helps fund with its federal grant. Adult patrons talk with the librarians or with one another at broad wooden tables. Amanda Kelly, 30, of Crofton told USA TODAY that every time her family moves to a new Air Force station she immediately finds the local library to begin building their new community. Her children played in a garden outside as they waited for a summer reading event to start. Her husband is "always on his Kindle" reading library eBooks, she said, while she prefers paper copies. "I don't agree with cutting funding for libraries at all, never," she said. "That stinks." Other patrons said they check out audio books for friends, use the library for its social aspects or attend classes there, ranging from chair yoga to how to avoid online scams. Only one of the dozen people who spoke to USA TODAY knew that the federal library funding might be cut. Marquita Graham, 42, of Upper Marlboro told USA TODAY she often brings a group of children, including several with special needs, to the Crofton library for story time, as well as to use the computers and read-along audio books. "I'm shocked," she said. Ending library services "would be sad." We want to hear from people affected by or who have knowledge of the Trump administration's efforts to reshape the government, including actions by DOGE. Know something others should? Reach out at swire@ or Signal at sarahdwire.71


Chicago Tribune
25 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Gov. Pritzker needs to veto this pension bill. Chicago can't afford it.
Memo to Springfield: Chicago is broke. Gov. JB Pritzker has a bill on his desk that would sweeten pension benefits for Chicago's police and firefighters hired in 2011 or later, to the tune of $60 million more out of the city budget in 2027 alone and more than $11 billion over the next three decades, according to the city's own projections. The measure passed unanimously in both chambers at the end of the spring session, allowing for next to no debate and, astoundingly, was supported by every Chicago House member and senator. At the time of the bill's passage, we wrote that the entire Chicago delegation had effectively had voted to increase property taxes on their constituents. Property taxes, of course, are the main means municipalities have of financing their pension obligations to their workers. Interestingly, the governor acknowledged the conundrum last week. Asked about the bill, he said, 'One thing to consider, of course, is the finances of the city of Chicago. How will they pay for it?' The other important consideration, he said, was ensuring Chicago's first responders are 'well taken care of.' We're glad to see Pritzker explicitly state why he's mulling whether to veto despite the strange prospect of rejecting legislation that passed without a single dissenting vote. By asking rhetorically if Chicago can 'pay for it,' the governor has answered his own question. Of course Chicago can't pay for it. The police and fire pension funds have a mere 25% of the assets needed to meet their current and future obligations as it stands. Since we wrote about this measure in June, the city has estimated what it would do for its woefully underfunded first-responder funds. That percentage would drop to an almost unfathomably low 18%. To those who say it's nonsensical to veto a bill with such overwhelming support, remember that GOP lawmakers mainly went along because of the Chicago delegation's unanimous backing and the fact that only Chicagoans' taxes would be affected. All the Chicago Democrats who voted yes could justify reversing their positions by saying (truthfully) they didn't have the city's projections on just how much these changes would cost taxpayers. Chicago taxpayers already are chewing their nails wondering how the city will plug a 2026 budget deficit exceeding $1 billion. The following year looks even worse. Pritzker already tossed an $80 million hot potato in Chicago's lap with his 2023 initiative to phase out the state's 1% tax on groceries, the proceeds of which had been distributed to municipalities. More than 200 municipalities have approved their own 1% grocery taxes, as the state allows them to do. Mayor Brandon Johnson wants the City Council to do the same for Chicago, which must happen by a state-set deadline of Oct. 1. There are no guarantees, given Johnson's fraught relationship with the council and Chicagoan's understandable resistance to tax hikes of any sort, that aldermen will do as he wishes. Meanwhile, this pension time bomb would cost the city nearly as much as repeal of the grocery tax and in the future will cost far more. Speaking of the mayor, while he has spoken tepidly against this bill, he ought to be forcefully urging Pritzker to veto it and Chicago lawmakers to vote to sustain that veto, despite their earlier support of the measure. The city essentially has been missing in action on this issue, and Johnson apparently is struggling to balance his political brand as an ardent union backer with his duty to Chicago taxpayers. This is no time for such timidity. At this stage, it's worth laying out the origins of this bill. In 2010, in a bid to reform Illinois' public-sector pensions, the state created a second tier of beneficiaries hired in 2011 and thereafter — so-called Tier 2 workers — whose retirement payouts were to be substantially less than the overly generous benefits of existing employees and retirees that had gotten Illinois so deeply in pension debt. Six years ago, Pritzker signed into law sweetened pension benefits for Tier 2 cops and firefighters in Illinois outside of Chicago as part of a consolidation of downstate police and fire pension funds. Ever since, Chicago police and fire unions have argued their Tier 2 workers ought to get the same treatment. In addition, proponents cite concerns that the benefits for Tier 2 workers don't rise to the level of Social Security benefits, which would violate federal law. This page has been consistent on the issue of Tier 2 pension benefits and Social Security. State policymakers should do no more than ensure they are compliant with the law and rebuff union efforts to use the Social Security argument in effect to do away with Tier 2 and pension reform altogether. As much as we appreciate and rely on Chicago's first responders, everyone who went to work for the Police or Fire departments after 2010 knew — or should have known — what their retirement benefits were. In a perfect world, their pensions would be equivalent to those earned by their counterparts outside the city. We don't live in that world. Far from it. Mayor Johnson, you should advocate for your city's beleaguered taxpayers and call on Gov. Pritzker and Chicago's Springfield delegation to do the right thing. And, Governor, adding to Chicago's fiscal crisis hurts the whole state. Whether the mayor asks or not, veto the bill.


The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats seek to leverage Trump's low approval ratings
Democrats must center their political arguments around rising costs since President Trump took office so their struggling party can capitalize on his dismal polling numbers, political strategists tell The Hill. Relatable messaging on affordability is how Democrats can criticize Trump effectively and show voters that they represent the interests of working-class Americans, many of whom supported the president during the 2024 presidential election. They must shift from the usual broad-stroke statements that have previously fallen flat with voters. Instead, the message should be tailored to the price of specific items — like beef or timber — that have spiked during the early months of the Trump administration. 'Talk about the price of beef,' said Republican strategist Susan Del Percio, who doesn't support Trump, adding that the approach mirrors a strategy the president took during the campaign last year to defeat then-Vice President Kamala Harris. 'Just like Donald Trump talked about eggs, it's more than talking about the economy. It's making it relatable, and nothing is more relatable than hamburgers and a barbecue.' As fall inches closer, Democrats need to telegraph that message in town halls, in interviews and on social media to reach mass audiences in purple and even red districts, strategists say. 'Every minute of every day should be spent talking about rising costs,' said one Democratic strategist who has been in conversations where affordability has been the central topic of how Democrats find their way out of the wilderness. 'Every second that's not spent on talking about affordability, we're losing the argument.' Democrats say they are trying to seize upon the opportunity now, when Republicans are divided on the controversy surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, which has dominated the headlines this month, putting Trump and Republican lawmakers on defense. But some strategists are weary of how much Democrats need to emphasize messaging, even with 2026 midterms on the horizon. 'Messaging is not necessarily the determining factor in midterm elections ever by the party out of power,' seasoned Democratic strategist Garry South said. 'It is a referendum on the party in power.' Trump has stumbled on issues including tariffs and immigration, weakening his position from when he entered office more than six months ago. This week, a Silver Bulletin poll conducted by pollster Nate Silver showed that Trump's approval ratings steadily decreased from 52 percent to 44 percent during his first four months in office. And in recent months, the same poll revealed that Trump's approval ratings have hovered in the mid-40s, some of their lowest levels across his two terms. In the past two weeks, separate CNN-SSRS polling and Quinnipiac University polling have shown Trump's approval ratings as low as 42 percent and 40 percent, respectively. In recent days, some Republican lawmakers have sought to cocoon themselves until the Epstein storm passes, further inviting Democrats to fill the void. '[Republicans] are scared of their voters. They're scared of the president,' Democratic strategist Basil Smikle said. 'Go in areas where Republicans won't go, in areas where Republicans are. But countermessage. You may not win every day, but you may get a few voters to pay attention.' 'There are a lot of independents that are souring on the president and on the administration, and I think that's where there's opportunity,' Smikle added, referring to voters who can move the needle for Democrats in future election cycles. 'There are not going to be many Republicans that Democrats are going to get, so this is really about independents.' Even in the first six months of the Trump presidency, Republicans have given Democrats a gift in terms of strategy and messaging, Democratic operatives say. And while Democrats had traditionally gone after Trump himself in recent cycles, operatives say they should take aim at the Republican Party as a whole. 'They should talk about how Republicans are focused on protecting the president while the dangers of the big ugly bill are looming,' Smikle said. 'That, I think, is probably the most salient message here, that some of the most wealthy and powerful in this country are not just hoarding the money, they are also protecting themselves' with tax cuts in the 'big, beautiful bill.' Smikle added that Democrats need to follow that up with alternatives to Republican policies. '[Democrats] have got to offer something in return. They've got to give voters an opportunity to vote for something as opposed to just against something.' Other strategists say that right now, the best thing Democrats can do is not interfere and let Trump continue driving his approval ratings into the ground. 'Based on the Napoleonic principle that one should never interfere with an enemy when he's in the process of destroying himself, I'm not sure there's a lot Democrats proactively need to do,' South said. He added that midterms have historically been 'throw-the-bums out' elections that reflect exclusively the party in power. 'Republicans have that trifecta, the White House, the Senate, the House, and they're going to pay a price for it in 2026 no matter what Democrats do.'