Arkansas Senate committee rejects 12-month postpartum Medicaid coverage
Elizabeth Pitman (left), director of the Division of Medical Services for Arkansas Medicaid, and State Medicaid Director Janet Mann (second from left) speak against House Bill 1004, co-sponsored by Sen. Breanne Davis (right), R-Russellville, before the Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee on Wednesday, April 9, 2025. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
An Arkansas Senate committee voted down a bill that would have extended Medicaid coverage for women 12 months after giving birth if they do not already qualify for the state's Medicaid expansion program.
House Bill 1004 passed the House April 1 with a bipartisan 71 votes but failed in the Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee on a split voice vote Wednesday. More than half of births in Arkansas are covered by Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance system for low-income Americans.
Arkansas' Medicaid expansion program covers people up to 138% of the federal poverty level, but since Jan. 1, 2023, Medicaid covers pregnant Arkansans with incomes of up to 214% of the federal poverty level, or about $45,200 for a family of 2 or $68,700 for a family of four. This coverage expires two months after birth, leaving many postpartum Arkansans to 'fall through the cracks,' said Sen. Breanne Davis, a Russellville Republican and HB 1004's Senate sponsor.
Davis mentioned that Arkansas has one of the nation's highest maternal mortality rates and the third highest infant mortality rate. Maternal mortality is measured by the rate at which women die during childbirth or within a year of giving birth.
'We have got to address this holistically, and I think there's been a lot of really good work done, but it has not included this group of women,' who do not qualify for Medicaid expansion, Davis said.
Extending postpartum Medicaid coverage has the support of legislative Democrats, and House Minority Leader Andrew Collins of Little Rock sponsored House Bill 1008, which is similar to HB 1004 but has not been heard in committee.
Arkansas maternal health care landscape needs more coordination and teamwork, physicians say
Without the policy outlined in the bills, Arkansas remains the only state that has taken no action to adopt the federal option of extending postpartum Medicaid coverage from 60 days to 12 months after birth, according to KFF.
Davis told the Public Health committee that the bill was 'narrowly tailored' and would not create any 'duplicative' services.
Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Human Services Secretary Kristi Putnam said repeatedly last year that 12-month postpartum Medicaid would be 'redundant' and 'duplicative,' since the state has other insurance coverage options for postpartum low-income Arkansans. A maternal health task force convened by Sanders did not include the 12-month policy in its September 2024 list of recommendations to improve the state's maternal health care landscape.
State Medicaid officials Janet Mann and Elizabeth Pitman expressed DHS' opposition to HB 1004 Wednesday. Mann mentioned that DHS estimated it would cost more than $11.2 million to add 10 months of coverage to existing programs.
DHS' assessment of the bill's overall fiscal impact states that the federal government would cover more than $8.8 million of the cost, leaving the state to cover less than $2.4 million. Davis told the committee that Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funds would support the proposed coverage extension.
From July 1 to Dec. 31, 2024, roughly 60% of postpartum Arkansans remained Medicaid-eligible after the 60-day limit, according to two quarterly reports that a 2024 law requires DHS to submit to the Legislature. Putnam and Mann presented the first report in October, and the Advocate received the second report from DHS in February via a public records request.
Arkansas DHS officials say they want to find insurance for low-income, Medicaid-ineligible new moms
Of the 1,787 women who did not qualify for Medicaid past 60 days postpartum between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, 42% of them had income above 138% of the federal poverty level, and 38% were not U.S. citizens, according to DHS' second quarterly report.
By July 1, Arkansas' Medicaid program will include presumptive Medicaid eligibility for pregnant Arkansans, reimbursements for doulas and community health workers and pregnancy-related Medicaid coverage for specific treatments, Mann said Wednesday.
In February, Sanders signed the Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies Act to put these policies into effect. The legislation had bipartisan sponsorship, including from Davis and HB 1004's House sponsor, Knoxville Republican Rep. Aaron Pilkington.
One day we'll get these women covered, and I'm sure people will ask what took so long.
– Rep. Aaron Pilkington, R-Knoxville, House sponsor of HB 1004
The five Arkansans who spoke in favor of HB 1004 were all Black women; Arkansas' Black maternal mortality rate more than doubled from 1999 to 2019, according to a 2023 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Extending postpartum Medicaid coverage is essential for 'helping families heal and remain together,' said Stephanie Garner, CEO of the Arkansas River Valley Area Council, a Russellville-based assistance organization for low-income families.
'Substance use disorders and mental health conditions don't resolve in two months,' Garner said. 'When coverage ends, I've seen women relapse, return to unsafe environments or even lose custody of their children, not because they didn't want to get better, but because they lost access to care that was helping them recover.'
Danielle Wright, a single mother from Jackson County, said she lost Medicaid coverage after having her third child via an emergency Caesarean section that led her to seek mental health care.
'At one point [I was] even finding myself crying in a DHS office because I was having to prove a difficult moment that I was not ready to experience and relive in that moment,' said Wright, who also supported HB 1004 before the House Public Health committee in March.
Maternal mental health 'cannot be separated' from maternal health as a whole, and untreated mental health issues during pregnancy can lead to poor birth outcomes and increased maternal mortality, therapist and social worker Mackenzi Foreman said.
Foreman and Arkansas Birthing Project executive director Zenobia Harris both said they have worked with women who unexpectedly lost their Medicaid coverage while they were pregnant.
Latoya Morgan said she supported HB 1004 on behalf of her friend, Helena Stanton, who died after the complicated premature birth of her third child.
'Shortly after giving birth, Helena began experiencing severe difficulties with her mobility, struggling to move her limbs and ultimately [to] breathe,' Morgan said. 'She didn't have access to a doctor until it became an emergency because she didn't have access to Medicaid.'
After the committee voted down the bill, Morgan expressed frustration with the outcome in an interview, saying DHS officials and the majority of the committee lacked empathy for low-income pregnant Arkansans.
'[Lawmakers] claim to be Christians and believers of Christ, but you're unwilling to take care of all of the people, the sick, the women that create life… because of what, funding?' Morgan said. 'Because it's not your sister, because it's not your wife, because it's not your daughter?'
A 2023 bill similar to HB 1004 never received a committee hearing, and Pilkington was the House sponsor of both bills. He said Wednesday that he was disappointed HB 1004 did not advance.
'I promised that I wouldn't leave these women behind, and I did all I could,' he said. 'The fact that I had to fight back against so many lies was the most disheartening part about this whole process. One day we'll get these women covered, and I'm sure people will ask what took so long.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

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


San Francisco Chronicle
24 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how
A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics: Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter? A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill.

25 minutes ago
Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS
Even by the standards of President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk's relationship -- an unprecedented alliance punctuated by a meme-inspired reshaping of the government, numerous rocket launches, assassination attempts, a quarter-billion-dollar political gamble and electric car photo-ops -- it's been an unusual week. For months, Musk had been the closest of Trump's advisers -- even living at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and spending time with the president's family. More recently, Trump gave Musk a congratulatory Oval Office sendoff from his work leading cost-cutting efforts in his administration, giving him a golden key with a White House insignia. But the billionaire's muted criticisms of Trump's "big, beautiful bill" grew louder and more pointed, culminating in posts Thursday on his social media platform taking credit for Trump's November win and Republicans' takeover of the Senate. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk posted. "Such ingratitude." Some lawmakers and Republicans worry Musk's apparent acrimonious departure from Trump's orbit could create new uncertainties for the party -- and stoke GOP divisions that would not serve Republicans well heading into a critical legislative stretch before the midterm elections. The back-and-forth attacks, which continued into the weekend and took a sharply personal turn, reverberated across a capital they have both reshaped. Trump on Friday told several reporters over the phone that he was not thinking about Musk and told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that Musk had "lost his mind." In the near term, Trump and the GOP are trying to muscle their signature tax and domestic policy megabill through the House and Senate, with the slimmest of margins and no shortage of disagreements. Any shift on the key issues could topple the high-wire act needed to please House and Senate Republicans. A nonstop torrent of criticism from Musk's social media megaphone could collapse negotiations, harden the position of the bill's critics and even undermine other pieces of Trump's first-term agenda. "You hate seeing division and chaos," Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who represents a swing district, told ABC News about the Trump-Musk fracas. "It's not helpful." Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, called Musk a "credible voice" on "debt and spending" issues. "It's never helpful when he says those things. He's a believable person and he has a broad reach, but I think he's frustrated and people understand the context," Arrington said, predicting that both men will eventually resolve their dispute. Republican operatives watching the spat unfold this week told ABC News it is too early to say how the feud between Trump and Musk could affect the next election. The billionaire spent more than anyone else on the last election, pouring $270 million into groups boosting Trump and other Republicans up and down the ballot, according to Federal Election Commission filings. He already suggested he would cut back on his political donations next cycle, more than a year out from the midterm elections. In the final stretch of the 2024 race, he relocated to Pennsylvania, hosting town halls and bankrolling his own get-out-the-vote effort in the critical swing state. Since his foray into Washington, Musk has become a deeply polarizing and unpopular figure, while the president's approval rating has ticked up in some recent surveys. Groups affiliated with Musk spent $20 million this spring on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, only for the liberal candidate to win -- signaling to some Republicans the limits of Musk's political pull. While his support may be missed by Republicans next cycle, Trump has continued to raise millions of dollars to support his future political plans, a remarkable sum for a term-limited president that underscores his central role in the party and undisputed kingmaker status. Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who is mulling a gubernatorial bid in 2026, downplayed the tensions or political implications, suggesting that reporters "spend way more time worrying about these things than most average people." "I'm sure they will make peace," Lawler told ABC News on Friday. There were some signs of a détente. While Musk continued to hurl insults at Trump ally and critic Steve Bannon, his social media activity appeared to cool off on Friday, and the billionaire said one supporter was "not wrong" for saying Trump and Musk are "much stronger together than apart." Through nearly a decade in politics and three campaigns for the White House, Trump has demonstrated a remarkable ability to move past disputes or disagreements with many intraparty rivals and onetime critics, including some who now serve in his Cabinet. Now, some Republicans left Washington this week asking themselves if Musk is willing to do the same.


Hamilton Spectator
28 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how
A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics: Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter? A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation . There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. ___ AP college sports: Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .