Expanded Medicaid, SNAP work requirement bill approved by Senate subcommittee
Legislation setting work requirements to receive Medicaid and SNAP benefits was approved by a Senate appropriations subcommittee Thursday.
The bill, Senate File 599, directs the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services to seek a waiver from the federal government to institute work requirements for the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan (IHAWP), the state's Medicaid expansion program. The bill adds work requirements for other public assistance programs as well, including for food aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The work requirements would apply to Iowans between age 19 and 65, with exceptions listed to the work requirements, including people with disabilities, parents of children under age 6, people with a high-risk pregnancy and those in substance abuse treatment programs for a period of up to six months.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
While an earlier version of the bill set a requirement for Iowans to work or volunteer 20 hours a week to maintain IHAWP membership, language in the current legislation does not specify how many hours would be necessary to maintain benefits.
Several speakers said denying Iowans assistance who do not fit into these exceptions would lead to much higher overall costs for Iowa's health care system, by not giving consideration to people like parents of children with disabilities, who are unable to work while caring for their child, or for people who are not disabled but still require access to their prescription medicine in order to avoid being hospitalized and to maintain a job.
Leslie Carpenter with Iowa Mental Health Advocacy gave a fiscal estimates for the cost of 100 people who would need to make a hospital emergency department visit if they cannot access their medication after being removed from Medicaid coverage. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated the average cost of an emergency department visit to be $1,506, she said, which means a there would be a cost of roughly $150,000 for 100 patients being hospitalized for a day and $1,316,000 if they were hospitalized for a week.
'I suspect that my estimates of having only 100 people who are severely sick being at risk for having their Medicaid insurance lost is actually quite low,' Carpenter said. 'If those numbers are actually higher, you can imagine the fiscal impact on the taxpayers.'
Others called for Iowa legislators to look at other states, including Georgia, which have tried to implement Medicaid work requirements as proof that the policy does not work. Anne Discher with Common Good Iowa, a progressive nonprofit, also cautioned against Iowa lawmakers moving on work requirements when federal action is expected on the subject.
'It feels a little bit like we're rushing forward on this bill at a point where we know at the federal level, Republicans are very interested in making massive changes to SNAP and to Medicaid, and the area where there seems to be agreement at the federal level is on something in the vicinity of reporting requirements,' Discher said. 'We certainly oppose those at the federal level. However, the worst case scenario, the worst of both worlds would be for Iowa to rush ahead, the feds do something different, and then we have to come back and clean it up.'
The bill proposes suspending Iowa's expanded Medicaid program if work requirements are not implemented, and would resume it if the work rules take effect. That could at least temporarily halt IHAWP, which provides health coverage to adults age 19 through 65 who have an income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level — roughly $20,030 for a single adult and $27,186 for a married couple. According to data compiled by the Legislative Services Agency, there were 179,918 Iowa adults on IHAWP in fiscal year 2025.
At the subcommittee meeting, multiple advocates criticized the bill for tying IHAWP coverage to receiving federal approval. MaryNelle Trefz with Iowa ACEs 360, an advocacy group focused on trauma recovery and support, said this provision will create financial hardships for Iowa's economy by requiring federal approval for Iowa's expanded Medicaid program to continue to exist.
'If those requirements aren't approved now or in the future, Iowa would be forced to walk away from expansion entirely, jeopardizing coverage for thousands, increasing costs for hospitals and businesses, and worsening our workforce shortage,' Trefz said.
Sen. Mark Costello, R-Imogene, said there were 'misunderstandings' about the IHAWP trigger provisions, saying he received letters from constituents who believed other Medicaid and benefit programs would be impacted if the federal government does not approve Iowa's request to implement reporting requirements.
'That is, you know, a group that is already in a higher income or (a part of the) expanded population there, that we would hope some of them would be able to get insurance through the exchange or whatever,' Costello said.
Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny, said he has been involved in state government since former Gov. Terry Branstad signed IHAWP into law in 2013. He said adding work requirements to the program 'is common sense and is in line with why and how the bill passed at the very beginning.'
'The safety net is intended to be just that, a safety net that bounces people back up, not a poverty trap that has folks that are consistently sticking and staying and have no incentive to get off of those taxpayer-funded services,' Bousselot said. 'The work and job training requirements that are found in this bill, and the goal to align those, are in line with the idea that job and work requirements have existed for folks that are disabled on Medicaid for decades, have existed for other social services that taxpayers provide.'
While Iowa lawmakers are pursuing legislative action to implement work requirements, Gov. Kim Reynolds also said during her Condition of the State address in January she plans to apply for a federal waiver to implement Medicaid work requirements.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
24 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California voters will decide redistricting in November, escalating battle with Trump and Texas
SACRAMENTO — Ratcheting up the pressure in the escalating national fight over control of Congress, the California Legislature on Thursday approved a November special election to ask voters to redraw the state's electoral lines to favor Democrats and thwart President Trump's far-right policy agenda. The ballot measure, pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state and national Democratic leaders, is the latest volley in a national political brawl over electoral maps that could alter the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections and the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives. If voters approve the redrawn lines on Nov. 4, Democrats in the Golden State would see the odds tilted further in their favor, while the number of California Republicans in the House could be halved. Newsom initially said that new electoral districts in California would only take effect if another state redrew its lines before 2031. But after Texas moved toward approving its own maps this week that could give the GOP five more House seats, Democrats stripped the so-called 'trigger' language from the amendment — meaning that if voters approve the measure, the new lines would take effect no matter what. The ballot measure language, which asks California voters to override the power of the independent redistricting commission, was approved by most Democrats in the Assembly and the Senate, where they hold supermajorities. California lawmakers have the power to place constitutional amendments on the statewide ballot without the approval of the governor. Newsom, however, is expected later Thursday to sign two separate bills that fund the special election and spell out the lines for the new congressional districts. Democrats' rush to the ballot marks a sudden departure from California's 15-year commitment to independent redistricting, often held up as the country's gold standard. The state's voters stripped lawmakers of the power to draw lines during the Great Recession and handed that partisan power to a panel of independent citizens whose names are drawn in a lottery. The change, Democrats said, was forced by an extraordinary change in circumstances: After decades of the United States redrawing congressional lines once a decade, President Trump and his political team have leaned on Republican-led states to redraw their district lines before the 2026 midterm elections to help Republicans retain control of the House. 'His playbook is a simple one: Bully, threaten, fight, then rig the rules to hang onto power,' said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. 'We are here today because California will not be a bystander to that power grab. We are not intimidated, and we are acting openly, lawfully, with purpose and resolve, to defend our state and to defend our democracy.' Republicans in the state Assembly and the state Senate criticized Newsom's argument that Democrats must 'fight fire with fire,' saying retaliation is a slippery slope that would erode the independent redistricting process California voters have chosen twice at the ballot box. 'You move forward fighting fire with fire, and what happens? You burn it all down,' said Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City). He said Trump was 'wrong' to push Gov. Greg Abbott to redraw Texas' lines to benefit Republicans, and so was California's push to pursue the same strategy. State Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach), who co-authored the bill drawing the proposed congressional districts, said Democrats had no choice but to stand up, given the harm the Trump administration has inflicted on healthcare, education, tariffs and other policies that affect Californians. 'What do we do? Just sit back and do nothing?' Gonzalez said. 'Or do we fight back and provide some chance for our Californians to see themselves in this democracy?' Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) said the effort is 'a corrupt redistricting scheme to rig California's elections' that violates the 'letter and the spirit of the California constitution.' 'Democrats are rushing this through under the guise of urgency,' Jones said. 'There is no emergency that justifies this abuse of process.' Three Assembly Democrats did not vote in favor of the constitutional amendment. Jasmeet Bains (D-Delano), who is running for Congress against Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) in the San Joaquin Valley, voted no. Progressive Caucus chair Alex Lee (D-San Jose), and Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay), did not vote. Democrats will face an unusual messaging challenge with the November ballot measure, said Matt Lesenyie, an assistant professor of political science at Cal State Long Beach. The opponents of mid-decade redistricting are stressing that the measure would 'disadvantage voters,' he said, which is 'wording that Democrats have primed Democrats on, for now two administrations, that democracy is being killed with a thousand cuts.' 'It's a weird, sort of up-is-down moment,' Lesenyie said. Trump's political team began pressuring Abbott and Texas Republicans in early June to redraw the state's 38 congressional districts in the middle of the decade — which is very uncommon — to give Republicans a better shot at keeping the House in 2026. 'We are entitled to five more seats,' Trump later told CNBC. Some Texas Republicans feared that mid-decade redistricting could imperil their own chances of reelection. But within a month of the White House floating the idea, Abbott added the new congressional lines, which would stack the deck against as many as five Texas Democrats in Congress, to the Legislature's special session in July. By mid-July, Newsom was talking about California punching back. In an interview with the progressive news site the TN Holler, Newsom said: 'These guys, they're not f—ing around. They're playing by a totally different set of rules.' Democrats in Texas fled the state for nearly two weeks, including some to California, to deny Republicans the quorum they needed to pass the new lines. Abbott signed civil arrest warrants and levied fines on the 52 absent Democrats while they held news conferences in California and Illinois to bring attention to the fight. While the Texas drama unfolded, consultants for the campaign arm of House Democrats in California quietly drew up maps that would further chop down the number of Golden State Republicans in Congress. The proposed changes would eliminate the district of Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) and dilute the number of GOP voters in four districts represented by Reps. Doug LaMalfa, Kevin Kiley, David Valadao and Darrell Issa. The Democrats agreed to return to Texas last week and pointed to California's tit-for-tat effort as one measure of success, saying the Golden State could neutralize any Republican gains in Texas. Since then, other Republican-led states have begun to contemplate redistricting too, including Indiana, Florida and Missouri. Trump's political allies are publicly threatening to mount primary challenges against any Indiana Republican who opposes redrawing the lines. In California, the opposition is shaping up as quickly as the ballot measure. California voters received the first campaign mailer opposing the ballot measure a day before the Legislature voted to approve it. A four-page glossy flier, funded by conservative donor and redistricting champion Charlie Munger Jr., warned voters that mid-decade redistricting is 'weakening our Democratic process' and 'a threat to California's landmark election reform.' Republicans have also gone to court to try and stop the measure, alleging in an emergency petition with the state Supreme Court that Democrats violated the state Constitution by ramming the bills through without following proper legislative procedure. The high court Wednesday rejected the petition. A wave of legal challenges are expected, not only in California but in any state that reconfigures congressional districts in the expanding partisan brawl. Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) said Thursday morning that a lawsuit challenging the California ballot measure would be filed in state court by Friday evening. He said Republicans also plan to litigate the title of the ballot measure and any voter guide materials that accompany it. And, he said, if voters approve the new lines, 'I believe we will have ample opportunity to set the maps aside in federal court.'
Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
California lawmakers pass first of three bills to counter Texas in nationwide fight over election maps
Advertisement California lawmakers say their new Democrat-leaning maps — adding as many as five blue seats — are necessary to respond to what they view as a power grab by Texas House Republicans, who approved a new map Wednesday night that would give their party an edge in winning as many as five new GOP seats in Congress. The Texas Senate is expected to follow suit by Friday, sending the measure to Republican Governor Greg Abbott for his signature. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The California Assembly bill, ACA 8, passed with the required two-thirds vote of 57-20. It was the first of three related measures that were being concurrently debated by the California Assembly and Senate early Thursday. Democrats hope to pass all three bills by Thursday afternoon and send them to Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom, who plans to sign them immediately. Advertisement A short time after the Assembly voted, the California Senate passed its first redistricting bill, AB 604, which outlined the new congressional maps that the voters will be asked to consider on the November ballot. The Senate bill passed 30-9 in a party-line vote. California state Senator Lena Gonzalez, an author, called it a 'reasonable and rational response to the anti-democratic actions of the Republican Party as they attempt to rig our congressional elections.' Senate Republicans argued that California's independent commission is the best way to do redistricting and should not be set aside, even temporarily. 'The ends don't justify the means,' state Senator Tony Strickland, a Republican, told his Democratic colleagues. 'You know this is not good for democracy in California.' California has more hurdles in its process than in Texas, because the state constitution requires that an independent nonpartisan panel draw its congressional maps. Thursday's bills create a proposed constitutional amendment that would come before voters in November, allowing them to bypass that commission and approve the Democratic-leaning maps. 'This isn't politics as usual. It's an emergency for our democracy. And we're acting now to save our future,' Newsom wrote on X Thursday. Republican lawmakers in California tried several parliamentary maneuvers to delay the vote. The Republican leader of the California Assembly, James Gallagher, noted in his speech on the floor Thursday morning that the state's voters weighed in against gerrymandering, through ballot measures in 2008 and 2010, and created the state's independent redistricting commission that aims to draw nonpartisan lines. 'Twice, they told us they want independent redistricting, fair representation,' Gallagher told his colleagues on the Assembly floor. 'You move forward fighting fire with fire - what happens? You burn it all down. And in this case, it affects our most fundamental American principle: representation.' Advertisement Originally, Democratic lawmakers said in the bill that the changes to California's maps would kick in only if Texas or another Republican-controlled state gives final approval to changes in its own map. But they amended the bill Thursday morning to remove that trigger language and any mention of Texas or other states. Democrats were working on a tight deadline because the orders for the special election must be transmitted to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat, by Friday to get the measure on the November ballot. Newsom and his Democratic allies in the Legislature insist that they still support the independent redistricting committee process, which was created by voter-approved ballot measures in 2008 and 2010 and is popular with the state's voters. But they argue that their partisan response to Texas is necessary to check the power of Trump, who urged Texas's governor to redraw his state's maps. Republicans hold a 219-212 US House majority with four vacancies. Democratic control would give the opposition power to thwart Trump's legislative agenda and launch investigations into him and his administration. GOP leaders in the California Legislature have argued that Democrats controlling the process have allowed little transparency, even shrouding the identities of the lawmakers involved in drawing the new district lines. 'This is a battle between people and politicians,' Gallagher said in an interview Wednesday. 'The people spoke very loudly in California twice, saying they didn't want politicians drawing district lines, that they wanted the people to have that power. And I think that very deeply ingrained mindset in California voters is going to win out in the end." Advertisement
Politico
25 minutes ago
- Politico
California Republicans trust tech companies as much as Trump on AI
It's also not an obvious outcome for Golden State conservatives, especially as traditional social media companies like Meta are among those investing billions in cutting-edge AI research. Just last year, a Senate committee called top tech CEOs to task on child safety, forcing Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to stand and apologize to families that said his social media products had harmed their kids. That hearing saw Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tell the assembled group and Zuckerberg in particular: 'You have blood on your hands.' 'That seems like a real cultural reversal,' Possibility Lab Director and UC Berkeley political scientist Amy Lerman told Decoded. 'Not so long ago, we really thought about tech companies, particularly in California, as being sort of progressive or socially minded, and I think that has really changed with an alignment of tech companies with the federal administration.' According to the poll, 58 percent of Republican voters surveyed said they would trust U.S. tech companies to make good policy decisions about how AI should be developed and regulated. That is compared with 43 percent of Democratic voters. That 58 percent of Republicans who said they'd trust tech companies on AI was nearly the same as those who said they would trust the federal government to do the job, at 59 percent. The poll asked about trust in technology companies generally and concluded before a bombshell Reuters report about Meta's policies on sensual conversations with children came out on August 14, prompting calls for investigations from Congress. Trump's recent AI Action Plan focused on building out AI technology to maximize its economic potential on U.S. soil and said little about safety testing of the technology. The administration is also experimenting with allowing federal workers to use AI to automate parts of their jobs. The findings on trust in tech companies when it comes to AI are in line with other findings from the poll that found 58 percent of Republican voters compared with 49 percent of Democrats said they felt positive about AI despite its drawbacks since it could increase productivity, speed up scientific breakthroughs and create new knowledge and opportunities. It also lines up with the ongoing debate on whether states should regulate AI at all. A measure to stymie states from doing just that for a decade failed to make it into the Republican spending bill, but leaving AI regulation largely up to companies remains a priority for some GOP members and AI companies.
