Republicans push Medicaid work requirements through the New Hampshire Senate
Senate Bill 134 seeks to require that New Hampshire Medicaid recipients work in order to receive health care through the program. (Photo by Getty Images)
The New Hampshire Senate voted on party lines, 16-8, Thursday to approve a Republican-backed work requirement plan for Medicaid — the latest in a series of proposals that could dramatically alter the Medicaid landscape in the Granite State.
Senate Bill 134 seeks to require that New Hampshire Medicaid recipients work in order to receive health care through the program. Because Medicaid is a program jointly run by the state and federal government, any work requirements would need to be submitted by the state to the federal government. This bill would instruct the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services to draft and submit a request — known as a Section 115 demonstration waiver — to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. That request would have to be approved by the Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee, a financial committee composed of members of both the state Senate and House.
In addition to providing health care coverage for 183,000 low-income and high-need New Hampshire residents, Medicaid finances the medical costs of over 1 in 5 births and care for about 2 of every 3 nursing home patients in the state, according to CMS. Approximately 65% of Medicaid recipients are currently working, according to DHHS.
Republicans framed the proposal as a way to help Medicaid recipients get out of poverty.
'We are a state that prides itself on work to support our families, independence, and self-sufficiency,' Sen. Howard Pearl, a Loudon Republican, said on the Senate floor Thursday. 'Medicaid and other welfare programs should be a bridge for non-aged, non-disabled adults, not a destination.'
He pointed out that other programs like the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program — also known as SNAP or food stamps — have work requirements.
Democrats pushed back, arguing that taking away people's health care when they're out of work does not help them find work, but rather it makes it more difficult for them to find work.
'When Granite Staters have access to health care, then they are healthy and when they are healthy, we have a healthy workforce,' Sen. Suzanne Prentiss, a West Lebanon Democrat, said. 'We have heard this from the hospitals, we have heard this from the businesses, and we've heard it from the people themselves.'
Indeed, research compiled by the Brookings Institution suggests that work requirements for programs like SNAP and Medicaid do not increase employment and often strip benefits from people. For Medicaid specifically, the research found that in states with work requirements, many people lost their health care coverage not because they didn't meet the work requirement, but because they struggled with complex reporting systems these states implemented to enforce the work requirements.
This bill will need to be reviewed by the Senate Finance Committee before the House of Representatives considers it.
New Hampshire has attempted Medicaid work requirements before, but failed upon implementation. The state added Medicaid work requirements through legislation that went into effect in 2019. This required Medicaid recipients to work 100 hours a month to receive coverage. However, just one month into the new system, the state reversed course. Only about 8,000 of the 25,000 people subject to the requirement complied and documented their hours. Before the remaining roughly 17,000 people lost coverage, then-Gov. Chris Sununu, a Republican, halted the requirement. The state had already spent more than $130,000 sending letters and text messages, making phone calls, holding public information sessions, and setting up information tables outside grocery stores and other locations in an effort to inform recipients of the requirements. They also sent state employees to go door-to-door in high-enrollment neighborhoods in Manchester, Nashua, and Laconia.
New Hampshire's botched work requirements came after Arkansas, the first in the nation to attempt Medicaid work requirements, failed to implement a similar system in 2018. There, the system revoked Medicaid coverage from more than 18,000 people — nearly 1 in 4 of those subject to work requirements — in just seven months. Evidence suggests many of those who lost coverage did so not because they didn't meet the 80-hour-per-month requirements but because of bureaucratic dysfunction.
This is one of several changes being proposed to Medicaid in New Hampshire.
Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte is attempting to cut down the costs of the program in a tight budget year for the state. Ayotte's proposed budget, and the accompanying policy-related 'trailer bill,' would charge some recipients premiums, increase pharmacy cost-sharing, and end the already winding down continuous eligibility system.
If Ayotte's proposals are enacted, Medicaid recipients, with children, who earn 255% of the federal poverty level and those without children who earn between 100% and 138% of the poverty level, would have to make payments of up to 5% of their household income in order to receive coverage. Additionally, the amount Medicaid recipients pay for their prescriptions would rise from $1 or $2 to $4 per prescription (unless that exceeds 5% of household income). Lastly, Ayotte is attempting to end continuous enrollment, a system that began during the COVID-19 pandemic and allowed people to keep their Medicaid coverage even after they no longer met the requirements. (That system already ended, but the state needed time to disenroll recipients.)
At the same time, Medicaid recipients and advocates are bracing for potential cuts at the federal level. Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution last month that instructed congressional committees to impose a series of cuts to the federal budget. In order to make these cuts happen, experts believe the government would need to slash an estimated $800 billion from Medicaid nationwide.
In New Hampshire, the concern is particularly acute due to a so-called trigger law the state passed in 2018. That law would cut state funding for New Hampshire's Medicaid expansion program — which is funded jointly by the state and federal government — if federal funding falls below 90% of the cost of the program.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lopez: Why this overheated invasion of L.A. looks so ugly and feels so personal
I was driving while listening to the news Sunday when I heard House Speaker Mike Johnson justify President Trump's move to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles. 'We have to maintain the rule of law,' Johnson said. I almost swerved off the road. Maintain the rule of law? Trump pardoned the hooligans who ransacked the Capitol because he lost the 2020 presidential election. They clashed with police, destroyed property and threatened the lives of public officials, and to Trump, they're heroes. Maintain the rule of law? Trump is a 34-count felon who has defied judicial rulings, ignored laws that don't serve his interests, and turned his current presidency into an unprecedented adventure in self-dealing and graft. And now he's sending an invading army to Los Angeles, creating a crisis where there was none. Arresting undocumented immigrants with criminal records is one thing, but is that what this is about? Or is it about putting on a show, occupying commercial and residential neighborhoods and arresting people who are looking for — or on their way to — work. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that U.S. Marines were on high alert and ready to roll, and in the latest of who knows how many escalations, hundreds are headed our way. What next, the Air Force? I'm not going to defend the vandalism and violence — which plays into Trump's hands—that followed ICE arrests in Los Angeles. I can see him sitting in front of the tube, letting out a cheer every time another "migrant criminal" flings a rock or a scooter at a patrol car. But I am going to defend Los Angeles and the way things work here. For starters, undocumented immigration is not the threat to public safety or the economy that Trump like to bloviate about. It's just that he knows he can score points on border bluster and on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), so he's going full gasbag on both, and now he's threatening to lock up Gov. Gavin Newsom. Read more: Reopen Alcatraz as a prison? Yes, but Trump shouldn't stop there To hear the rhetoric, you'd think every other undocumented immigrant is a gang member and that trans athletes will soon dominate youth sports if someone doesn't stand up to them. I can already read the mail that hasn't yet arrived, so let me say in advance that I do indeed understand that breaking immigration law means breaking the law, and I believe that President Biden didn't do enough to control the border, although it was Republicans who killed a border security bill early last year. I also acknowledge the cost of supporting undocumented immigrants is substantial when you factor in public education and, in California, medical care, which is running billions of dollars beyond original estimates. But the economic contributions of immigrants — regardless of legal status — are undeniably numerous, affecting the price we pay for everything from groceries to healthcare to domestic services to construction to landscaping. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that a surge in immigrants since 2021 — including refugees, asylum seekers and others, legal and illegal — had lifted the U.S. economy "by filling otherwise vacant jobs," as The Times reported, and "pumping millions of tax dollars into state, local and federal coffers." According to a seminal 2011 study by the Public Policy Institute of California, 'many illegal immigrants pay Social Security and other taxes but do not collect benefits, and they are not eligible for many government services." In addition, the report said: 'Political controversies aside, when illegal immigrants come, many U.S. employers are ready to hire them. The vast majority work. Estimates suggest that at least 75 percent of adult illegal immigrants are in the workforce.' Trump can rail against the lunatic radical left for the scourge of illegal immigration, but the statement that 'employers are ready to hire them' couldn't be more true. And those employers stand on both sides of the political aisle, as do lawmakers who for decades have allowed the steady flow of workers to industries that would suffer without them. Read more: What happened during three days of protests over immigration raids in downtown L.A. On Sunday, I had to pick up a couple of items at the Home Depot on San Fernando Road in Glendale, where dozens of day laborers often gather in search of work. But there were only a couple of men out there, given recent headlines. A shopper in the garden section said the report of federal troops marching on L.A. is "kind of ridiculous, right?" He said the characterization by Trump of "all these terrible people" and "gang members" on the loose was hard to square with the reality of day laborers all but begging for work. I found one of them in a far corner of the Home Depot lot, behind a fence. He told me he was from Honduras and was afraid to risk arrest by looking for work at a time when battalions of masked troops were on the move, but he's got a hungry family back home, including three kids. He said he was available for any kind of jobs, including painting, hauling and cleanup. Two men in a pickup truck told me they were undocumented too and available for construction jobs of any type. They said they were from Puebla, Mexico, but there wasn't enough work for them there. I've been to Puebla, a city known for its roughly 300 churches. I was passing through about 20 years ago on my way to a small nearby town where almost everyone on the street was female. Where were the men? I was told by a city official that the local economy was all about corn, but local growers couldn't compete with American farmers who had the benefit of federal subsidies. So the men had gone north for work. Another reason people head north is to escape the violence wrought by cartels armed with American-made weapons, competing to serve the huge American appetite for drugs. In these ways, and more, the flow of people across borders can be complicated. But generally speaking, it's simply about survival. People move to escape poverty or danger. They move in search of something better for themselves, or to be more accurate about it, for their children. The narratives of those journeys are woven into the fabric of Los Angeles. It's part of what's messy and splendid and complicated about this blended, imperfect corner of the world, where many of us know students or workers or families with temporary status, or none at all. That's why this overheated invasion looks so ugly and feels so personal. We're less suspicious of our neighbors and the people we encounter on our daily rounds than the hypocrites who would pardon insurrectionists, sow division and send an occupying army to haul away members of our community. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Illinois woman with terminal illness fights for legal right to die
The Brief Debra Robertson, a Lombard woman with terminal cancer, has been advocating for the right to die with dignity. The Illinois General Assembly failed to legalize medical aid in dying during its spring session. Supporters say the bill would provide terminal patients with end-of-life options, while skeptics argue it could allow doctors to violate their oath to "do no harm." LOMBARD, Ill. - Lombard resident Debra Robertson has been fighting for the right to die on her own terms for the last three years. She's been advocating for a bill that was considered but ultimately not passed by state lawmakers, to allow her the option to stop her suffering. The backstory Robertson said she understands why that might be controversial, but she has one request: don't call it suicide. "I get very upset when people talk about this being assisted suicide," Robertson told FOX 32 Chicago. "I'm already dying. I want to die with dignity and I wanna die the way I wanna die." Robertson was diagnosed with an aggressive rare form of cancer in 2022, called neuro-endocrine carcinoma. She was given six months to live. "I think I was just in denial for a while because I couldn't believe that's where I was at, because the doctor said I was gonna die," she said. Three years and four debilitating rounds of treatment later, Robertson said she's out of options and fears she will suffer if not given the option to die via medication. "I know that my death is going to be painful based on the type of cancer I have," she said. Robertson said she's already expressed her wishes to her two children and grandchildren, and they've come to accept her decision. "At first they struggled because they said, 'Granny are you gonna die now? Are you gonna die today?'" Robertson said. "And I said no and I explain to them about what medical aid in dying is and what it means to me and other people, and now they're very supportive of it. They have some sort of a peace." Big picture view Illinois would become the 11th state in the nation to legalize medical aid in dying if the legislation passes. Last month it stalled in the Senate, after some Democrats joined all Republicans in opposition. The sponsor, State Rep. Robyn Gabel (D-Evanston), said the debate was passionate, and lawmakers simply ran out of time. "These complex pieces of legislation need time to make sure we get them right," Gabel said. Under the bill, a patient would need to be diagnosed with a terminal illness and given six months or less to live. They must be evaluated for mental health concerns and get verbal and written approval from two physicians, five days apart. And doctors who prescribe would be immune from any prosecution, unless they coerce a patient, in which case, they would face felony charges. Gabel said the bill is simply about giving terminal patients end-of-life options. "Just because you ask for the medicine doesn't mean you have to take it – 38% don't take it. What they tell me is it gives them peace of mind knowing they can," Gabel said. Downstate Republican Rep. Bill Hauter is also a physician. He said the medical community is split, but believes the bill would allow doctors to violate their Hippocratic oaths that state "first do no harm." "Medicine is a field of healing, taking care of patients and comforting them and trying to solve their issues and not to partake in the act of suicide," Hauter said. Gabel said she believes lawmakers will have the votes to pass the bill next year. Robertson realizes she might not be around to see it, but said she hopes to pave the way for others that are suffering. "I'm dying and I don't have any control over it. The only thing I could have control over is how I die if this was passed," she said. A representative from the Illinois State Medical Association said the organization took an official position to support the bill, but that they "remain a house divided," with physicians advocating passionately on both sides of the issue.
