logo
Idaho bill to limit refugee eligibility for medical aid program heads to governor

Idaho bill to limit refugee eligibility for medical aid program heads to governor

Yahoo17-03-2025

The Idaho State Capitol Building in Boise shines in the sunlight on Jan. 7, 2025. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun)
A bill to reduce the maximum income refugees can earn to still access a federal medical assistance program is headed to Idaho Gov. Brad Little for final consideration.
House Bill 199, cosponsored by Rep. John Vander Woude, R-Nampa, would decrease the maximum income refugees in Idaho can earn to remain eligible for the Refugee Medical Assistance program to 133% of the federal poverty level, down from its higher current cap of 150% of the federal poverty level.
Under the bill, the new income cutoff for refugee medical assistance for a single person would be about $20,814 in annual income, down from the $23,475 it is under the existing income cap, based on annually updated federal poverty guidelines.
The Refugee Medical Assistance program is a federally funded program that provides short-term medical coverage for refugees who aren't eligible for Medicaid, according to the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement.
In the last fiscal year, Idaho spent about $1 million on the Refugee Medical Assistance program, Idaho Reports reported. The bill is not anticipated to change state revenue, or increase state or local government spending, the bill's fiscal note says.
The Idaho Senate passed the bill on a 29-6 vote on Monday. All six Senate Democrats opposed it.
When the bill is transmitted to the governor's desk, he has five days — excluding Sundays — to decide how to act on it. He has three options: He can sign the bill into law, allow it to become law without his signature, or veto it.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
In the Senate Health and Welfare Committee's hearing on the bill nearly two weeks ago, Sen. Josh Keyser, R-Meridian, who is cosponsoring the bill in the Senate, pitched the bill as a way to 'match every other Idaho federal poverty guideline of 133%.'
But Idaho Medicaid expansion has a slightly higher income eligibility cap, of 138% of the federal poverty level, according to the Department of Health and Welfare's website. The new bill would set the Refugee Medical Assistance's income eligibility cap at 133% of the federal poverty level.
Effectively, the bill would create a lower income eligibility cap for the Refugee Medical Assistance gap than for Medicaid expansion — which is part of the broader Medicaid program that the Refugee Medical Assistance Program is an alternative to.
The income cap difference — of five percentage points in the federal poverty level — is a gap of about $782 for a single-person household. But the gap grows as family size increases.
CONTACT US
Only 19 people's eligibility would be affected by the reduced income eligibility cap, Keyser told the committee on March 6.
Several Republican senators on the committee said they supported the bill because it set uniform public health assistance standards.
'I don't want to be callous to the fact that 19 people are going to be affected by the vote that we're about to cast,' Sen. Camille Blaylock, R-Caldwell, told the committee. 'That being said, it doesn't sit well with me either to have Idahoans at a different, at a lower rate — understanding even the traumatic situations that they're coming from.'
Asked about how the bill would set a lower income eligibility cap for the refugee aid program than for Idaho Medicaid expansion, Vander Woude, a House lawmaker cosponsoring the bill, told the Sun on Monday 'If it's if it's an alternative to Medicaid, then it doesn't have to deal with the Medicaid (expansion population) that's at 138 (percent of the federal poverty level). Because this is not part of Medicaid. It's part of the refugee program, and so their benefits are the same as the U.S. citizens are.'
Keyser, the Senate cosponsor, declined to comment.
An Idaho Department of Health and Welfare spokesperson declined to answer questions about if the bill could create a health care program assistance gap, saying the agency does not comment on pending legislation.
Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, opposed the bill in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee and on the Senate floor.
'Maybe it is a special treatment. But to say, in our heart of hearts, 'If you have watched a loved one murdered in front of you and had to leave your country for your own well being and safety, that we should give you an extra boost.' And I'm willing to do it — because it's not that much,' Wintrow said in committee on March 6. 'It's not — it's not a ton of money that we're doing, but it matters a lot to those people.'
That echoed what some members of the public testified in the Senate committee.
'The numbers are not astronomical, but for the lives that it will make a difference in, it will make a difference. And it could access the kind of health care they can get based on what private insurance they're able to get,' said Holly Beech, communications manager for the Idaho Office of Refugees.
Hannah Habineza, a refugee medical case manager who said she was testifying for herself in opposition of the bill, said she's seen many refugees who have had to choose between work and their health.
'If they lose this assistance, then they're having to either stay home and not go to the hospital … and then continue to work. And maybe they're not even able to continue to work because of those … conditions that they have,' she testified.
The program's higher eligibility cap was created through an agency administrative rule by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. The bill would shift much of that administrative rule on the program into state law, but would reduce the program's income eligibility cap.
Administrative rules are policies adopted by agencies, subject to legislative approval. But agency rules are generally easier to change than state laws.
If the bill becomes law, it would take effect July 1.
The Idaho House passed the bill last month. Only eight Democrats voted against the bill, compared to all 61 House Republican lawmakers who backed the bill. One Democrat, Rep. Brooke Green, D-Boise, was absent for the House floor vote.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

GOP House Homeland chairman Green to retire from Congress early

timean hour ago

GOP House Homeland chairman Green to retire from Congress early

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- The House Homeland Security Committee's chairman, Republican Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee, announced Monday that he will retire from Congress once the House votes again on the sprawling tax and budget policy bill backed by President Donald Trump. In a statement, Green said he was offered a private sector opportunity that was 'that was too exciting to pass up' so he informed House Speaker Mike Johnson on Monday of his retirement plans. The move comes more than a year after Green announced he wouldn't run again in 2024, but changed his mind when fellow Republicans implored him to stick around. Green's next election would have been in 2026. Green voted for Trump's sweeping legislation when it passed the House last month. The bill is now in the Senate's hands, and would need to return to the House for agreement on any changes. Trump wants the bill on his desk for his signature by July 4. Green's delayed departure could help with the GOP's narrow margins in the House. Republican leaders need every vote they can get on their big tax bill, which they managed to pass last month by a single vote and will have to pass again once changes are made in the Senate. They now have a 220-212 majority. 'It was the honor of a lifetime to represent the people of Tennessee in Congress," Green said. "They asked me to deliver on the conservative values and principles we all hold dear, and I did my level best to do so.' Green's seat will be decided in a special election. The timing will depend on when he leaves office. Ahead of his 2024 reelection, Green had announced that February 2024 he would not run again. The decision was revealed a day after the impeachment of then-President Joe Biden's Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. But many fellow Republicans had called on him to reconsider, and he jumped back into the running just two weeks later. He was unopposed in the Republican primary and then defeated Democrat Megan Barry — the former Nashville mayor who resigned in 2018 in scandal — by more than 21 percentage points in November 2024. Green, 60, has served since 2019 in the 7th Congressional District, which was redrawn in 2022 to include a significant portion of Nashville. The city was carved up three ways in the 2022 redistricting so Republicans could flip a Democratic district in Congress that had covered Music City, which they successfully did. Green previously served as an Army surgeon and in the state Senate and is from Montgomery County. Green flirted running for governor in 2017, but suspended his campaign after he was nominated by former President Donald Trump to become the Army secretary. He later withdrew his nomination due to criticism over his remarks about Muslims and LGBTQ+ Americans.

World Cup host city organizers acknowledge immigration crackdown may impact next year's tournament

time2 hours ago

World Cup host city organizers acknowledge immigration crackdown may impact next year's tournament

NEW YORK -- Philadelphia's host city executive for the 2026 World Cup says organizers accept that an immigration crackdown by President Donald Trump's administration may be among the outside events that impact next year's tournament. "There are certainly things that are happening at the national level, the international level, there are going to be geopolitical issues that we don't even know right now that are going affect the tournament next year, so we recognize that we're planning within uncertainty,' Meg Kane said Monday at a gathering of the 11 U.S. host city leaders, one year and two days ahead of the tournament opener. The World Cup will be played at 16 stadiums in the U.S., Mexico and Canada from June 11 to July 19 next year, a tournament expanded to 48 nations and 104 games. All matches from the quarterfinals on will be in the U.S., with the final at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. 'Whether it's the Olympics, whether it's a World Cup, whether it's a Super Bowl, you name it, anytime you've got a major international sporting event, geopolitics is going to have a role,' said Alex Vasry, CEO of the New York/New Jersey host committee. Kane said the host committees must adapt to decisions made by others. 'One of the things that I think we all recognize is that we have to be really good at operating within that uncertainty,' Kane said. 'I think for each of our cities, we want to be prepared to make any person that is coming and makes the decision to come to the United States or come to this World Cup feel that they are welcome. We do not play a role necessarily in what is happening in terms of the decisions that are made.' Trump's travel ban on citizens from 12 countries exempted athletes, coaches, staff and relatives while not mentioning fans. 'We allow for FIFA to continue having constructive conversations with the administrations around visas, around workforce, around tourism,' Kane said. FIFA is running the World Cup for the first time without a local organizing committee in the host nation. Asked in late April whether FIFA president Gianni Infantino was available to discuss the tournament, FIFA director of media relations Bryan Swanson forwarded the request to a member of the media relations staff, who did not make Infantino available. Legislation approved by the House of Representatives and awaiting action in the Senate would appropriate $625 million to the Federal Emergency Management Agency 'for security, planning, and other costs related to the 2026 FIFA World Cup.' The 11 U.S. host committees have been consulting with each other on issues such as transportation for teams and VIPs, and for arranging fan fests. At the last major soccer tournament in the U.S., the 2024 Copa America final at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida, started 82 minutes late after fans breached security gates. 'Certainly we were not involved in the planning or the logistics for that particular match,' said Alina Hudak, CEO of the Miami World Cup host committee. She said local police 'have done an extensive review of the after-action reports related to that in collaboration with the stadium and so all of the things that happened are in fact being reviewed and addressed and I can assure you that everything is being done within our power to make sure that the appropriate measures are being placed, the appropriate perimeters.'

Minnesota budget deal cuts health care for adults who entered the US illegally

time2 hours ago

Minnesota budget deal cuts health care for adults who entered the US illegally

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Adults living in the U.S. illegally will be excluded from a state-run health care program under an overall budget deal that the closely divided Minnesota Legislature convened to pass in a special session Monday. Repealing a 2023 state law that made those immigrants eligible for the MinnesotaCare program for the working poor was a priority for Republicans in the negotiations that produced the budget agreement. The Legislature is split 101-100, with the House tied and Democrats holding just a one-seat majority in the Senate, and the health care compromise was a bitter pill for Democrats to accept. The change is expected to affect about 17,000 residents. After an emotional near four-hour debate, the House aroved the bill 68-65. Under the agreement, the top House Democratic leader, Melissa Hortman, of Brooklyn Park, was the only member of her caucus to vote yes. The bill then went to the Senate, where it passed 37-30. Democratic Majority Leader Erin Murphy, of St. Paul, called it 'a wound on the soul of Minnesota,' but kept her promise to vote yes as part of the deal, calling it "among the most painful votes I've ever taken." Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, who insisted on maintaining eligibility for children who aren't in the country legally, has promised to sign the legislation, and all 13 other bills scheduled for action in the special session, to complete a $66 billion, two-year budget that will take effect July 1. 'This is 100% about the GOP campaign against immigrants,' said House Democratic Floor Leader Jamie Long, of Minneapolis, who voted no. 'From Trump's renewed travel ban announced this week, to his effort to expel those with protected status, to harassing students here to study, to disproportionate military and law enforcement responses that we've seen from Minneapolis to L.A., this all comes back to attacking immigrants and the name of dividing us.' But GOP Rep. Jeff Backer, of Browns Valley, the lead author of the bill, said taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize health care for people who aren't in the country legally. Backer said California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has proposed freezing enrollment for immigrants without legal status in a similar state-funded program and that Illinois' Democratic governor, JB Pritzker, has proposed cutting a similar program. He said residents can still buy health insurance on the private market regardless of their immigration status. 'This is about being fiscally responsible,' Backer said. Enrollment by people who entered the country illegally in MinnesotaCare has run triple the initial projections, which Republicans said could have pushed the costs over $600 million over the next four years. Critics said the change won't save any money because those affected will forego preventive care and need much more expensive care later. 'People don't suddenly stop getting sick when they don't have insurance, but they do put off seeking care until a condition gets bad enough to require a visit to the emergency room, increasing overall health care costs for everyone,' Bernie Burnham, president of the Minnesota AFL-CIO, told reporters at a news conference organized by the critics. Walz and legislative leaders agreed on the broad framework for the budget over four weeks ago, contrasting the bipartisan cooperation that produced it with the deep divisions at the federal level in Washington. But with the tie in the House and the razor-thin Senate Democratic majority, few major policy initiatives got off the ground before the regular session ended May 19. Leaders announced Friday that the details were settled and that they had enough votes to pass everything in the budget package.

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