Call for Medicaid work requirements is greeted by a chorus of boos
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
What Archambault does not acknowledge is that Medicaid serves the working poor, which includes low-wage workers who are working multiple part-time jobs that don't provide coverage or positions that fall just below the threshold that would qualify them for coverage by their employer (an all-too-common practice by companies to avoid providing benefits).
Advertisement
Moreover, some family members who are caregivers might not be able to meet the work requirement. In a June 2 op-ed,
Advertisement
Finally, this hyperfocus on which low-income people deserve access to subsidized medical care distracts from what should be the primary focus: that our federal leaders are promising 'savings' on the cost of benefits in order to advance massive tax cuts that will benefit the wealthy and increase the national debt.
Rosemarie Buxton
Haverhill
With health care costs skyrocketing, reform is needed — but not this kind
My Pioneer Institute colleague, Josh Archambault, is correct that we do need Medicaid reform, but the solutions he offers, an old trope of work-or-volunteer remedies that recall the 'welfare queen' stereotype of 40 years ago, will
As Archambault states, the original idea behind national Medicaid was to provide health insurance to seniors and people who are blind or have other disabilities. Over time, however, rapidly escalating health care costs strained the limits of employer-sponsored health insurance, and by 1995 the
Since that time, Massachusetts has chosen policies to expand health insurance coverage. Eligibility for Medicaid, known here as MassHealth, has grown to include those who are not only below poverty lines but also those who are at certain levels above poverty rates. This includes nondisabled people and many more children.
At the same time, health care prices in Massachusetts have skyrocketed, with
Advertisement
Barbara Anthony
Cambridge
The writer is a senior fellow at the Pioneer Institute and former undersecretary of the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation.
National health safety net is frayed enough as it is
Josh Archambault's op-ed does nothing to advance an important debate around our national health safety net. The situation is far more complicated than the talking points he offers.
An estimated
We have seen this before. When Arkansas and Georgia implemented work requirements, most of the people who lost coverage actually met the requirements but got caught up in red tape. We hear from callers every day on
We stand with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in pushing back against the unprecedented health care cuts in the House bill.
Advertisement
Amy Rosenthal
Executive director
Health Care for All
Boston
Instead of prodding the 'able-bodied,' strengthen workforce development
Josh Archambault's argument that imposing work requirements on 'able-bodied' adults who receive Medicaid will improve health is wrong on several levels.
First, multiple evaluations of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion demonstrate improved health overall and improved outcomes for specific populations (for example, reduced deaths from opioid use). The
Second, evaluations of the impact of work requirements for welfare recipients have generally shown the initial increased work participation failed to sustain income or reduce poverty over time because of low wages and insufficient work supports.
Third, to get Medicaid via disability, people must meet strict Social Security definitions of disability — a high severity bar — and large numbers of people with significant disabilities do not. Many of the 'nondisabled' childless adults on Medicaid have major mental health conditions, substance use disorders, and developmental disorders, including autism, that significantly affect their ability to succeed in the workforce. The population of low-income adults who became eligible for Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act also includes many parents, who too would be subject to paperwork burdens every six months.
Work that provides a living wage is a desirable outcome. Rather than imposing burdensome administrative requirements, real reform means strengthening workforce development policies — at all ages — through apprenticeship programs, other training work, coaching, reliable hours and transportation, and other policies that encourage jobs for previously unemployed people.
Advertisement
Real reform also means strengthening health care prevention and promotion. MassHealth has taken clear leadership in promoting comprehensive primary care by transforming payment systems and providing incentives for team care, including the integration of mental-behavioral health care. Such efforts should be amplified rather than impeded through work requirement efforts.
Dr. James M. Perrin
Boston
Dr. Charles J. Homer
Brookline
Perrin is a professor emeritus of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and John C. Robinson Distinguished Chair in Pediatrics at MassGeneral Brigham for Children and former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Homer is senior adviser at Economic Mobility Pathways and former deputy assistant secretary, human services policy, at the US Department of Health and Human Services.
The less fortunate don't need more hoops to jump through
There are a number of sleights of hand in Josh Archambault's call for Medicaid reform, not the least of which is judging a program that pays for access to our medical system by the outcomes provided by that system. But it's his call for government-mandated community engagement as a condition for having your doctor's visit subsidized that is truly gobsmacking.
It was not so long ago that such a proposal would be derided by conservatives as government social engineering because, among other things, it's literally that. Does Archambault truly believe that the federal government is capable of creating a meaningful social fabric for the less fortunate among us, or does he think that, as proven time and time again, adding requirements to social safety net benefits will simply discourage recipients from applying, thus reducing the costs of the programs?
Saul Tannenbaum
Boston
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘No Kings,' eh? Where were those protests when Obama, Biden just made up policy?
It's heartening to see 'No Kings' protests planned around the country to object to a president's sweeping changes to immigration policy without congressional approval. They must have missed it in 2012 when President Barack Obama created, out of nowhere, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an action he took after stating publicly that he did not have the power to do so. And as they rally Saturday in Fort Worth, Arlington and hundreds more cities, No Kings protesters will be standing firm against a commander in chief's irrational and unilateral plans to spend billions of dollars, especially by stretching 'emergency' power. Oh, wait — that was President Joe Biden, making up authority to take student-loan borrowers off the hook and transfer their debt obligations to taxpayers. This protest movement isn't new. It's the same brand of garden-variety, big-government liberalism and social-justice warriors. In other words, the modern left. And it isn't really opposed to increased executive authority. 'No Kings' is a clever new way of framing the same old complaints about President Donald Trump. All of which is OK! It's just the framing and self-righteousness that are cringey. These protests are not a glorious defense of the Constitution, democracy and separation of powers. The 'No Kings' folks love it when a president uses his pen and phone, as Obama memorably put it, to enact policies that they like. It's unfortunate, but one thing that increasingly unites various factions in American politics is the idea of a strong president with a 'mandate' boldly doing the things these voters have wanted for years and telling the opposition: 'Mess around and find out.' (Given the vulgarity of our age, 'mess' is not exactly the word, but you get the idea.) Congress is an afterthought. Building up a coalition by changing minds, applying political pressure and compromising where necessary? That is soooo 1980s. Exploiting loopholes, defying courts and daring others to stop you? That's only authoritarian when the other guys do it. Executive power has been expanding for decades, and both parties have been pouring on the Miracle-Gro. The root of the protest is supposedly to present an objection and counter-message to the big military parade Trump has ordered up in Washington on the same day. It's a thin reed — as Los Angeles proves, progressives have been itching to get into the streets to denounce Trump. The 'No Kings' framing may look new, but it recycles beams and boards from every panicky Democratic response to Republican governance everywhere. Organizers contend that the military parade is an affront because it will cost tens of millions of dollars 'while millions are told there's no money for Social Security, SNAP, Medicaid, or public schools.' Really — no money? In 2024 (the federal fiscal year), the Social Security Administration spent $1.5 trillion. SNAP, the food-assistance program, got $100 billion in federal money. Medicaid? In fiscal 2023, federal and state governments spent $880 billion. And public education? Revenue from all sources topped $878 billion in fiscal 2022. It's perfectly legitimate to agitate for more spending on this or argue against proposed cuts to that. But these programs are awash in cash and almost never see their funding go down. 'No money' is the kind of claim that, were it from the right, media fact-checkers would scrutinize to the penny. The Associated Press has already spent nearly 700 words on facts about the rallies but couldn't quite see this whopper. Another driver of 'No Kings' is deportations of immigrants in the country illegally. These righteous confronters of King Donald must have missed it when King Barack sent so many people home, immigrants-rights groups called him the 'deporter in chief.' In reality, the left craves its own form of authoritarianism. It wants an all-powerful government that can tell you what you can drive, what you can eat, how you can respond to your child's gender transition. It loves King Administrative State and King Bureaucrat every bit much as it dislikes Donald of Orange. Have a great protest, progressives. Express yourselves proudly, and best of luck turning it all into a viable political movement. Just don't pretend you won't be thrilled when King Gavin or Queen Kamala uses the same techniques you now decry. After all, they learned it from King Barack and King Joe. We love to hear from Texans with opinions on the news — and to publish those views in the Opinion section. • Letters should be no more than 150 words. • Writers should submit letters only once every 30 days. • Include your name, address (including city of residence), phone number and email address, so we can contact you if we have questions. You can submit a letter to the editor two ways: • Email letters@ (preferred). • Fill out this online form. Please note: Letters will be edited for style and clarity. Publication is not guaranteed. The best letters are focused on one topic.
Miami Herald
5 hours ago
- Miami Herald
US Could Make Childbirth Free, To Tackle Falling Birth Rates
America could make childbirth free for privately-insured families, in an effort to tackle declining birth rates. The bipartisan Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, which would designate maternity care as an essential health benefit under the Affordable Care Act, was introduced in the Senate in May. If passed, insurance companies would be required to cover all childbirth-related expenses, including prenatal care, ultrasounds, delivery and postpartum care, without any co-pays or deductibles. Medicaid, America's government‐funded health insurance program, already covers these costs. Democratic New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who has cosponsored the bill, told Newsweek: "Even with insurance, the costs associated with having a baby can be astronomical, and expenses are even greater for women who have health complications during pregnancy, a high-deductible insurance plan, or gaps in their coverage. By requiring insurance companies to fully cover care throughout pregnancy and a year postpartum, this bill will make childbirth more affordable for families." It comes amid growing concerns about America's population. Fertility rates are projected to average 1.6 births per woman over the next three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest forecast released this year. This number is well below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman required to maintain a stable population without immigration. The Donald Trump administration has made this issue one of its priorities, the White House exploring giving women a "baby bonus" of $5,000, according to an April New York Times report. Many trying to tackle this global issue have called for public health policies and financial plans to help make it easier for couples to have children in society. The financial crisis and its effect on housing, inflation and pay is generally named as a major contributor to people's decisions to delay having children, to have fewer children or not to have them at all. Republican Mississippi Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, who introduced the bill along with Gillibrand, Democratic Virginia Senator Time Kaine and Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, said she hopes her bill will help change this. "Bringing a child into the world is costly enough without piling on cost-share fees that saddle many mothers and families with debt. This legislation would take away some of the burden for childbearing generations," she said in May. "By relieving financial stresses associated with pregnancy and childbirth, hopefully more families will be encouraged to embrace the beautiful gift and responsibility of parenthood." Pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum care average a total of $18,865 with average out-of-pocket payments totaling $2,854, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research organization, based on data from claims between 2018 and 2022. Financial concerns are repeatedly cited as a reason for not having children. Indeed, just a few days ago, the United Nations Population Fund warned of a global birth rate crisis, after finding that one in five had not had or did not expect to have the number of children they wanted. Some 39 percent said this was because of financial limitations. But Suzanne Bell, who studies fertility and related behaviors with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that while "making childbirth cheaper or free is incredibly important," she does not think it will effect the birth rate. "The cost of raising a child, in particular the cost of child care, is very high and far outweighs the cost of childbirth," she told Newsweek. "We desperately need policies that support families with the cost of child care, especially families with low incomes." Beth Jarosz, a senior program director U.S. programs at the Population Reference Bureau, agreed that "reducing health care costs is important, but may not be enough to move the needle on births." "The cost of childbirth is just one of the many costs of having a child, and people are also reeling from the much bigger costs of child care, housing, and other necessities," she told Newsweek. Theodore D Cosco, a research fellow at the University of Oxford's Institute of Population Aging, called the bill "a step in the right direction" but said the same as Bell and Jarosz. "Parents generally aren't deciding whether to have children based on a $3,000 delivery bill, they're looking at the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent actually raising the child," he told Newsweek. But he added: "The policy certainly carries some symbolic weight, signaling bipartisan support for families and could potentially help build momentum for broader reforms, such as child care subsidies or paid parental leave." The other concern is that, while financial concerns are generally accepted as a major contributor to declining birth rates, they are not the lone cause. Bell said that even the policies she calls for "are also unlikely to increase the birth rate, as evidence from other countries with much more supportive policies suggest." Norway is considered a global leader in parental leave and child care policies, and the United Nations International Children's Fund (UNICEF) ranks it among the top countries for family-friendly policies. But it too is facing a birth rate crisis. Norway offers parents 12 months of shared paid leave for birth and an additional year each afterward. It also made kindergarten (similar to a U.S. day care) a statutory right for all children aged one or older in 2008. The government subsidizes the policy to make it possible for "women and men to combine work and family life," as Norway's former Minister of Children, Equality, and Social Inclusion Solveig Horne said at a parental leave event in 2016. And yet, Norway's fertility rate has dropped dramatically from 1.98 children per woman in 2009 to 1.44 children per woman in 2024, according to official figures. The rate for 2023 (1.40) was the lowest ever recorded fertility rate in the country. Financial barriers "are only part of the picture," Cosco said, "psychological, cultural, and structural factors matter too." Newsweek spoke to several experts about Norway specifically, who all cited recent culture changes. For example, "young adults are more likely to live alone" and "young couples split up more frequently than before," Rannveig Kaldager Hart, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Centre for Fertility and Health said. He went on to speak about "intensive parenting," which refers to the modern parenting style in which parents invest time, money and energy into creating successful adults. The expectations of this parenting style "may cause some to postpone or have fewer children than they otherwise would," Hart said. Nevertheless, backers of the American bill seem to believe that it may be part of the solution. "Being pro-family means fostering an economy that makes it feasible to raise a child. But too often, parents find themselves dealing with sky-high medical bills following the birth of a child. This legislation would eliminate out-of-pocket maternity costs for families with private health insurance and prohibit private carriers from imposing cost-sharing on beneficiaries, empowering parents to focus on what matters most," said Hawley. Related Articles Warning Of Global Birth Rate 'Crisis' After Study Of 14 CountriesChina Makes Childbirth Change Amid Falling Birth RateTrump Administration To Give $1,000 Boost to All Newborn BabiesMore Gen Z Delay Having Kids Than Millennials Amid Birth Rate Decline Fears 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Newsweek
5 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump Administration Shares Medicaid Data With Deportation Officials: Report
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's administration provided immigration officials with the personal data of millions of Medicaid recipients this week, including their immigration status, the Associated Press reported. Newsweek contacted the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for comment on Saturday via online press inquiry forms. Why It Matters During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to carry out the largest mass deportation program in U.S. history. Since returning to office on January 20, the president has overseen widespread Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations across the country. The administration's use of Medicaid data, which could be used to track migrants, has raised questions about data security and federal government power. What To Know Citing an internal memo and emails, the AP reported that two close advisers to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered officials at the CMS to transfer Medicaid data to immigration enforcement personnel at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Tuesday. The publication said the order was given after Medicaid employees initially sought to prevent the transfer based on legal and ethical concerns, and that they were given 54 minutes to comply with the renewed request. The information handed over included data from California, Washington state, Illinois and Washington, D.C.—all of which allow non-U.S. citizens to apply for state-funded Medicaid. President Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 12. President Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 12. SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY DHS employees' use of the data could affect migrants' ability to apply for permanent residency or citizenship if they have received federally funded Medicaid. Under the Trump administration's direction, the Internal Revenue Service has also been providing information to ICE that could help track illegal migrants. A legal bid to block the order was defeated in May. Last month, the CMS announced a review into Medicaid enrollment to ensure federal money had not been used to fund coverage for those with "unsatisfactory immigration status." The agency said the move was to comply with the "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders" executive order that Trump issued on February 19. What People Are Saying Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, said in statement provided to Newsweek: "HHS and CMS take the integrity of the Medicaid program and the protection of American taxpayer dollars extremely seriously. With respect to the recent data sharing between CMS and DHS, HHS acted entirely within its legal authority—and in full compliance with all applicable laws—to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them. He continued: "This action is not unprecedented. What is unprecedented is the systemic neglect and policy failures under the Biden-Harris administration that opened the floodgates for illegal immigrants to exploit Medicaid—and forced hardworking Americans to foot the bill." Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, said Trump had "promised to protect Medicaid for eligible beneficiaries. To keep that promise after Joe Biden flooded our country with tens of millions of illegal aliens CMS and DHS are exploring an initiative to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits that are meant for law-abiding Americans." California Governor Gavin Newsom said: "This potential data transfer brought to our attention by the AP is extremely concerning, and if true, potentially unlawful, particularly given numerous headlines highlighting potential improper federal use of personal information and federal actions to target the personal information of Americans." What Happens Next The Trump administration is expected to continue its hard-line immigration policies. It remains to be seen whether the transfer of data from the HHS to the DHS will be challenged in court.
