Latest news with #FoundationforGovernmentAccountability
Epoch Times
16-05-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
The ‘N' in SNAP Means Nutrition
Commentary SNAP, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, is one of the nation's largest welfare programs. And, like all welfare programs, it is massive, it has grown prodigiously over the years and it is inefficient. One glaring issue, which is gaining attention as a result of new Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again campaign, is the kinds of foods that recipients of SNAP funds can purchase. And here we have convergence of bodily health and fiscal health. The 'N' in SNAP stands for nutrition. The point of the whole program is to help poor Americans eat and not forgo nutrition as result of insufficient funds to buy food. So why should government funds be used to purchase foods that are not fundamental to meeting the requirements of basic nutrition? Related Stories 5/13/2025 5/5/2025 The program is funded by the federal government but administered by the states. Now three Republican governors—governors of Arkansas, Idaho and Indiana—are joining the governor of West Virginia in seeking waivers from the federal government to permit them to remove soda, candy, and other sweets from the foods that can be purchased with SNAP funds. SNAP funds flow from the Department of Agriculture, and new Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins showed her support for this move by appearing alongside of Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders when she announced that her state would seek a waiver to eliminate soda and candy. According to the Foundation for Government Accountability, 'Soda is the number one commodity purchased with food stamps. More food stamp money is spent on soda, candy, snacks, ice cream, and cakes than on fruit, vegetables, eggs, pasta, beans, and rice. Purchases of sweetened beverages, desserts, salty snacks, and candy exceed the program's combined sales of fruits and vegetables by $9.4 billion a year.' FGA goes on to point out that the incidence of obesity is higher among food stamp recipients than among those not on food stamps at similar income levels and that food stamp participants are 'more likely to be at very high or extremely high risk' of the many health problems that result from obesity. Per the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, in 1975, federal funding to the SNAP program was $4.6 billion. By 2000, it was $14.6 billion. In 2023, it was up to $111.2 billion. Per Pew Research, in 1974, there were 12.9 million Americans receiving SNAP funds. In 2023, it was up to 42.4 million. Most recipients are adults—63 percent are over the age of 18—and of adults receiving food stamps, 62 percent had not been employed at all during the year, 24 percent were employed over the year and 14 percent were employed part of the year. Among children receiving food stamp payments, 56 percent were in homes with one or no parent. Much discussion about reform of SNAP involves a more rigorous application of work requirements to receive funding. This points back to importance of health. If SNAP funds permit purchase of foods that are unhealthy, or damage health, so it seems SNAP funds contribute to undermining the ability of recipients to work. Needless to say, as this initiative gains momentum, as it should, and as more states seek waivers to streamline their SNAP funding to foods that clearly aim to fundamental nutritional needs, the beverage and candy industry can be expected to be all over Congress to block the change. The Wall Street Journal reported last December about ramped up lobbying by Coke, Pepsi and the American Beverage Association to leave their soft drinks in the purview of SNAP funding. Some concerns have been expressed by grocers that increased specificity regarding what can be purchased can make administration and monitoring difficult. But surely technology can deal with this. Removing non-nutritious foods and beverages from SNAP won't balance our federal budget. But it is a no-brainer for our fiscal and physical health. Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Miami Herald
14-05-2025
- Health
- Miami Herald
Meet the Florida group chipping away at public benefits one state at a time
PHOENIX - As an Arizona bill to block people from using government aid to buy soda headed to the governor's desk in April, the nation's top health official joined Arizona lawmakers in the state Capitol to celebrate its passage. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said to applause that the legislation was just the start and that he wanted to prevent federal funding from paying for other unhealthy foods. "We're not going to do that overnight," Kennedy said. "We're going to do that in the next four years." Those words of caution proved prescient when Arizona's Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, vetoed the bill a week later. Nevertheless, state legislation to restrict what low-income people can buy using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits is gaining momentum, boosted by Kennedy's touting it as part of his "Make America Healthy Again" platform. At least 14 states have considered bills this year with similar SNAP restrictions on specific unhealthy foods such as candy, with Idaho and Utah passing such legislation as of mid-April. Healthy food itself isn't largely a partisan issue, and those who study nutrition tend to agree that reducing the amount of sugary food people eat is a good idea to avoid health consequences such as heart disease. But the question over the government's role in deciding who can buy what has become political. The organization largely behind SNAP restriction legislation is the Foundation for Government Accountability, a conservative policy think tank out of Florida, and its affiliated lobbying arm, which has used the name Opportunity Solutions Project. FGA has worked for more than a decade to reshape the nation's public assistance programs. That includes SNAP, which federal data shows helps an average of 42 million people afford food each month. It also advocates for ways to cut Medicaid, the federal-state program that connects 71 million people to subsidized health care, including efforts in Idaho and Montana this year. FGA's proposals often seek to limit who taps into that aid and the help they receive. Those backing the group's mission say the goal is to save tax dollars and help people lift themselves out of poverty. Critics argue that FGA's proposals are a backdoor way to cut off aid to people who need it and that making healthy food and health care more affordable is a better fix. Now, FGA sees more room for change under the Trump administration and the Kennedy-led health department, calling 2025 a "window of opportunity for major reform," according to its latest annual report. A Vision for Limiting Government Benefits Tarren Bragdon, a former Maine legislator, founded FGA in 2011 to promote policies to "free millions from government dependency and open the doors for them to chase their own American Dream," he said in a statement on FGA's website. The main foundation started out as a staff of three with about $60,000 in the bank. As of 2023, it had a budget of more than $15 million and a team of roughly 64, according to the latest available tax documents, and that's not counting the lobbying arm. The foundation got early funding from a grant from the State Policy Network, which has long backed right-leaning think tanks with ties to conservative activists including brothers Charles and David Koch. FGA declined several interview requests for this article. In recent years, the nonprofit helped draft a 2017 Mississippi law, the Jackson Free Press found, which intensified eligibility checks for public aid that made it more difficult for some applicants to qualify. It successfully pushed a 2023 effort in Idaho to impose work requirements for food benefits that health care advocates said led some recipients to lose access. The same year, the group helped pass SNAP restrictions affecting eligibility in Iowa. Since those restrictions have taken effect, the Food Bank of Iowa has seen a record number of people show up at its pantries amid rising grocery prices and a scaling back of covid pandemic-era federal support, said Annette Hacker, a vice president at the nonprofit. Part of the group's strategy is to pass legislation state by state, with the idea that the crush of new laws will increase pressure on the federal government. For example, states can't limit what food is purchased through SNAP without federal approval through a waiver process. And in the past, some of FGA's efforts have stalled because states never got that approval. Kennedy's agenda now echoes some of FGA's key messages, and he has said states can expect approval of their waivers. Meanwhile, congressional leaders are eyeing nationwide Medicaid cuts and work requirements, which FGA considers among its major issues. The foundation also has a connection working inside the administration: Its former policy director, Sam Adolphsen, was tapped to advise President Donald Trump on domestic matters. "We're excited to fight from Topeka to Washington, D.C., as opposed to Washington, D.C., to Topeka," Roy Lenardson, FGA's state government affairs director, told Kansas lawmakers in February when testifying in support of SNAP legislation there. Shaping State Policies In the states, FGA has become known as a conservative "thought leader," said Brian Colby, vice president of public policy for Missouri Budget Project, a progressive nonprofit that provides analysis of state policy issues. "Conservatives used to try to chop away at the federal budget," Colby said. "These guys are doing it at the state level." In its 14 years, FGA has created a playbook to shape state policy discussions around public benefits behind the scenes. In Montana, retired Republican legislator Cary Smith, who worked with FGA, said not all of the think tank's ideas split along party lines. "They offer a buffet of options," he said. "Their agenda is making government accountable; it's in the name." He said besides drafting legislation, FGA provides talking points and data to help policymakers support their arguments. "They would go in and would say, 'This is what Medicaid fraud is costing us,'" Smith said. "That would be the number you'd want to use in your bill." In January, FGA released a memo for states to "stop taxpayer-funded junk food." In February, Stateline reported that Wyoming Republican state Rep. Jacob Wasserburger said the group asked him to sponsor a SNAP restriction bill. The state sponsor of similar legislation in Missouri has repeated at least one of FGA's talking points, as reported by the Missouri Independent. In Arizona, Republican Rep. Leo Biasiucci, who sponsored the SNAP legislation there, told KFF Health News FGA was behind that bill as well. Opponents of such bills argue the proposals are not as simple as they sound. Amid debate on a SNAP bill in Montana, Kiera Condon, with the Montana Food Bank Network, testified the legislation would force grocery store workers to sort through what counts as soda or candy, "which could result in retailers not participating in SNAP at all." State lawmakers tabled the Montana bill in April. Montana legislators also easily passed a bill to extend the state's Medicaid expansion program even after FGA began publishing a series of papers that asserted the program was "breaking" Montana's budget. FGA had presented data saying most Montanans on the program don't work, which state data refutes. Ed Bolen, who leads food aid strategies at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities think tank, said FGA has a pattern of proposing technical changes to existing laws and "unworkable work requirements" that cause people to lose benefits. After working with policymakers in Kansas for a decade, FGA helped pass legislation that limited how long people can access cash assistance, added work requirements to SNAP, and banned the state from spending federal or state funds to promote public aid. Many of those changes came through 2015 legislation known as the "HOPE Act" drafted by FGA, The Washington Post reported. Analysis from Kansas Appleseed, an advocacy organization for low-income Kansans, found the SNAP caseload sharply declined after the bill was enacted because of the new hurdles, dropping from 140,000 households in January 2014 to 90,000 as of January 2020. "It's death by a thousand cuts," said Karen Siebert, an adviser for Harvesters, a community food bank network in Kansas and Missouri. "Some of these FGA proposals are such complex policies, it's hard to argue against and to explain the ripple effects." In 2024, the foundation produced more than two dozen videos featuring state politicians from across the nation touting the organization's goals and dozens of research papers arguing public benefits are wrecking state budgets. FGA also has its own polling team to produce data out of the states it's working to influence. The organization released a list of 14 states it labeled as "redder and better" places to exert more influence. That included Idaho, where the group has four registered lobbyists in the state Capitol. In 2023, FGA helped present and successfully lobby for legislation there to require people receiving food aid to work at least 80 hours a month. The organization called the resulting law "landmark welfare reform" years in the making. And this year, Idaho lawmakers passed more requirements for people enrolled in Medicaid who can work. FGA staffers worked with one of the co-sponsors of the legislation on a similar bill last year that failed, then again this year. A compromise bill passed with FGA's backing, marking another victory for the foundation. David Lehman, a lobbyist for the Idaho Association of Community Providers, which represents health organizations that have opposed FGA bills, said Idaho illustrates how FGA works with sympathetic lawmakers in conservative states to gain more ground. "They're pushing an already rolling rock downhill," he said. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Miami Herald
08-05-2025
- Health
- Miami Herald
Florida group is chipping away at public food, health benefits a state at a time
As an Arizona bill to block people from using government aid to buy soda headed to the governor's desk in April, the nation's top health official joined Arizona lawmakers in the state Capitol to celebrate its passage. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said to applause that the legislation was just the start and that he wanted to prevent federal funding from paying for other unhealthy foods. 'We're not going to do that overnight,' Kennedy said. 'We're going to do that in the next four years.' Those words of caution proved prescient when Arizona's Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, vetoed the bill a week later. Nevertheless, state legislation to restrict what low-income people can buy using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits is gaining momentum, boosted by Kennedy's touting it as part of his 'Make America Healthy Again' platform. At least 14 states have considered bills this year with similar SNAP restrictions on specific unhealthy foods such as candy, with Idaho and Utah passing such legislation as of mid-April. Healthy food itself isn't largely a partisan issue, and those who study nutrition tend to agree that reducing the amount of sugary food people eat is a good idea to avoid health consequences such as heart disease. But the question over the government's role in deciding who can buy what has become political. The organization largely behind SNAP restriction legislation is the Foundation for Government Accountability, a conservative policy think tank out of Florida, and its affiliated lobbying arm, which has used the name Opportunity Solutions Project. FGA has worked for more than a decade to reshape the nation's public assistance programs. That includes SNAP, which federal data shows helps an average of 42 million people afford food each month. It also advocates for ways to cut Medicaid, the federal-state program that connects 71 million people to subsidized healthcare, including efforts in Idaho and Montana this year. FGA's proposals often seek to limit who taps into that aid and the help they receive. Those backing the group's mission say the goal is to save tax dollars and help people lift themselves out of poverty. Critics argue that FGA's proposals are a backdoor way to cut off aid to people who need it and that making healthy food and healthcare more affordable is a better fix. Now, FGA sees more room for change under the Trump administration and the Kennedy-led health department, calling 2025 a 'window of opportunity for major reform,' according to its latest annual report. A vision for limiting government benefits Tarren Bragdon, a former Maine legislator, founded FGA in 2011 to promote policies to 'free millions from government dependency and open the doors for them to chase their own American Dream,' he said in a statement on FGA's website. The main foundation, based in Naples, Florida, started out as a staff of three with about $60,000 in the bank. As of 2023, it had a budget of more than $15 million and a team of roughly 64, according to the latest available tax documents, and that's not counting the lobbying arm. The foundation got early funding from a grant from the State Policy Network, which has long backed right-leaning think tanks with ties to conservative activists including brothers Charles and David Koch. FGA declined several interview requests for this article. In recent years, the nonprofit helped draft a 2017 Mississippi law, the Jackson Free Press found, which intensified eligibility checks for public aid that made it more difficult for some applicants to qualify. It successfully pushed a 2023 effort in Idaho to impose work requirements for food benefits that health care advocates said led some recipients to lose access. The same year, the group helped pass SNAP restrictions affecting eligibility in Iowa. Since those restrictions have taken effect, the Food Bank of Iowa has seen a record number of people show up at its pantries amid rising grocery prices and a scaling back of covid pandemic-era federal support, said Annette Hacker, a vice president at the nonprofit. Part of the group's strategy is to pass legislation state by state, with the idea that the crush of new laws will increase pressure on the federal government. For example, states can't limit what food is purchased through SNAP without federal approval through a waiver process. And in the past, some of FGA's efforts have stalled because states never got that approval. Kennedy's agenda now echoes some of FGA's key messages, and he has said states can expect approval of their waivers. Meanwhile, congressional leaders are eyeing nationwide Medicaid cuts and work requirements, which FGA considers among its major issues. The foundation also has a connection working inside the administration: Its former policy director, Sam Adolphsen, was tapped to advise President Donald Trump on domestic matters. 'We're excited to fight from Topeka to Washington, D.C., as opposed to Washington, D.C., to Topeka,' Roy Lenardson, FGA's state government affairs director, told Kansas lawmakers in February when testifying in support of SNAP legislation there. Shaping state policies In the states, FGA has become known as a conservative 'thought leader,' said Brian Colby, vice president of public policy for Missouri Budget Project, a progressive nonprofit that provides analysis of state policy issues. 'Conservatives used to try to chop away at the federal budget,' Colby said. 'These guys are doing it at the state level.' In its 14 years, FGA has created a playbook to shape state policy discussions around public benefits behind the scenes. In Montana, retired Republican legislator Cary Smith, who worked with FGA, said not all of the think tank's ideas split along party lines. 'They offer a buffet of options,' he said. 'Their agenda is making government accountable; it's in the name.' He said besides drafting legislation, FGA provides talking points and data to help policymakers support their arguments. 'They would go in and would say, 'This is what Medicaid fraud is costing us,'' Smith said. 'That would be the number you'd want to use in your bill.' In January, FGA released a memo for states to 'stop taxpayer-funded junk food.' In February, Stateline reported that Wyoming Republican state Rep. Jacob Wasserburger said the group asked him to sponsor a SNAP restriction bill. The state sponsor of similar legislation in Missouri has repeated at least one of FGA's talking points, as reported by the Missouri Independent. In Arizona, Republican Rep. Leo Biasiucci, who sponsored the SNAP legislation there, told KFF Health News FGA was behind that bill as well. Opponents of such bills argue the proposals are not as simple as they sound. Amid debate on a SNAP bill in Montana, Kiera Condon, with the Montana Food Bank Network, testified the legislation would force grocery store workers to sort through what counts as soda or candy, 'which could result in retailers not participating in SNAP at all.' State lawmakers tabled the Montana bill in April. Montana legislators also easily passed a bill to extend the state's Medicaid expansion program even after FGA began publishing a series of papers that asserted the program was 'breaking' Montana's budget. FGA had presented data saying most Montanans on the program don't work, which state data refutes. Ed Bolen, who leads food aid strategies at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities think tank, said FGA has a pattern of proposing technical changes to existing laws and 'unworkable work requirements' that cause people to lose benefits. After working with policymakers in Kansas for a decade, FGA helped pass legislation that limited how long people can access cash assistance, added work requirements to SNAP, and banned the state from spending federal or state funds to promote public aid. Many of those changes came through 2015 legislation known as the 'HOPE Act' drafted by FGA, The Washington Post reported. Analysis from Kansas Appleseed, an advocacy organization for low-income Kansans, found the SNAP caseload sharply declined after the bill was enacted because of the new hurdles, dropping from 140,000 households in January 2014 to 90,000 as of January 2020. 'It's death by a thousand cuts,' said Karen Siebert, an adviser for Harvesters, a community food bank network in Kansas and Missouri. 'Some of these FGA proposals are such complex policies, it's hard to argue against and to explain the ripple effects.' In 2024, the foundation produced more than two dozen videos featuring state politicians from across the nation touting the organization's goals and dozens of research papers arguing public benefits are wrecking state budgets. FGA also has its own polling team to produce data out of the states it's working to influence. The organization released a list of 14 states it labeled as 'redder and better' places to exert more influence. That included Idaho, where the group has four registered lobbyists in the state Capitol. In 2023, FGA helped present and successfully lobby for legislation there to require people receiving food aid to work at least 80 hours a month. The organization called the resulting law 'landmark welfare reform' years in the making. And this year, Idaho lawmakers passed more requirements for people enrolled in Medicaid who can work. FGA staffers worked with one of the co-sponsors of the legislation on a similar bill last year that failed, then again this year. A compromise bill passed with FGA's backing, marking another victory for the foundation. David Lehman, a lobbyist for the Idaho Association of Community Providers, which represents health organizations that have opposed FGA bills, said Idaho illustrates how FGA works with sympathetic lawmakers in conservative states to gain more ground. 'They're pushing an already rolling rock downhill,' he said. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Axios
25-03-2025
- Business
- Axios
Florida's proposed solution for losing migrant workers: more teen labor
Amid state and national immigration crackdowns that are narrowing the workforce, Florida lawmakers are exploring what Gov. Ron DeSantis considers a potential solution: more child labor. Why it matters: Allowing kids to work longer hours could cut into their education, hurting their academic prospects, and would likely disproportionately harm low-income youth who have to work because of their circumstances, advocates told the Tampa Bay Times. State of play: A Senate committee on Tuesday advanced Senate Bill 918, which would allow teenagers as young as 14 to work overnight shifts and remove time limitations and required meal breaks for 16- and 17-year-old workers. The vote comes a week after DeSantis suggested that young workers could help replace "dirt cheap" labor performed by undocumented workers. "Why do we say we need to import foreigners, even import them illegally, when you know, teenagers used to work at these resorts, college students should be able to do this stuff," DeSantis said at a panel discussion with President Trump's border czar, Tom Homan. Zoom in: The bill, sponsored by Sen. Jay Collins, R-Tampa, removes all time restrictions in Florida law for 16- and 17-year-old workers. Those regulations include bans on working before 6:30am or after 11pm on school days or for more than eight hours in one day or 30 hours in a week when school is in session. It would also remove those protections for 14- and 15-year-old workers under certain conditions, including if they've graduated high school or obtained their GED, are enrolled in virtual or home school, or work for their parents. Flashback: A similar proposal last year, pushed by the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability, was watered down by the end of the lawmaking session, the Times reported. What they're saying: At Tuesday's meeting, Collins said his bill fills a gap in teaching kids "executive function." "We want our kids to be academically prepared," he said, "but let's talk about soft skills. Let's talk about adult function. Let's talk about executive thought process and management. Where do they learn that? Do we teach them that in school?" Child labor is "fundamentally a parental rights issue," he added. "This is the free state of Florida. … We do what's right, no matter how difficult it is or how many people stand up against it." Yes, but: Even members of Collins' party expressed discomfort with some aspects of the bill and said it needed work. "I share many of the same concerns that my colleagues do up here," Sen. Nick DiCeglie, R-Indian Rocks Beach, told Collins. "We're talking about 14- and 15-year-olds." Between the lines: Federal child labor laws also place limits on work by kids younger than 16, including hours restrictions. Workers who are 16 or 17 don't face a federal hours limit for non-agricultural jobs. The bill passed the Senate Committee on Commerce and Tourism 5-4, with one Republican lawmaker, Sarasota Sen. Joe Gruters, joining Democrats in voting against it.
Yahoo
16-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Opinion - What to do about $1.1 trillion in improper Medicaid payments
As the 119th Congress seeks to reduce government spending through reconciliation, talk of Medicaid reductions has raised concerns about vulnerable populations losing Medicaid coverage. But simply following the law and paying only for what Medicaid allows would save hundreds of billions of dollars without ending coverage for any of Medicaid's intended recipients. According to official reports, the government issued $543 billion in improper Medicaid payments from 2015 to 2024. But that's only what the government measured. Based on the few years that the government performed full audits, I coauthored a report with Paragon Health Institute President Brian Blase that estimated that the true amount of improper payments is twice that, totaling roughly $1.1 trillion over the last decade. That's a whopping $8,200 per U.S. household. The primary reason for the discrepancy is that the Obama and Biden administrations excluded eligibility checks in their audits of improper payments in Medicaid. But eligibility errors and failures to properly assess eligibility prior to enrollment are the biggest sources of improper payments. Since Medicaid is a means-tested welfare program and includes different federal reimbursement rates based on enrollees' eligibility status, checking eligibility is crucial. In many cases, individuals who are not eligible for the program are enrolled in it, and in other instances, those enrolled are wrongly classified. The federal government reimburses states for between 50 percent and 75 percent of Medicaid costs for their traditional Medicaid enrollees — which includes children, pregnant women, seniors and individuals with disabilities — with lower rates in wealthier states. The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid to able-bodied, working-age and generally childless individuals, which crowded out access to care for traditional enrollees. Because expansion enrollees receive a much higher 90 percent federal reimbursement, states have the incentive to wrongly classify traditional enrollees as expansion enrollees. Moreover, hospitals can use presumptive eligibility, which is an expedited Medicaid enrollment process that permits hospitals to essentially enroll people into Medicaid based on only a few questions about income and household size and without verification. People receive temporary Medicaid coverage pending a review. The Foundation for Government Accountability found that in 2018, 70 percent of people deemed eligible by hospitals were eventually determined ineligible or did not complete the application and have their information verified. Measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic — including increasing federal support of Medicaid so long as states did not update their eligibility requirements or remove ineligible people from the program — led to an estimated 20 million ineligible enrollees on Medicaid by the time President Biden finally declared an end to the public health emergency. Failing to even check for these eligibility errors in state Medicaid audits causes massive underreporting of improper payments. In 2019 and 2020 when the government conducted full audits that included eligibility determinations, the improper payment rates averaged 27 percent. When we apply a 25 percent improper payment rate for all years between 2014 and 2023, we estimate roughly $1.1 trillion in improper Medicaid payments. Much of this is money that should not have been spent if the federal and state governments were following the law. Congress enacted legislation directing the Health and Human Services secretary to push the cost of excessive improper payments back onto states by withholding federal funds for improper payments over three percent. Despite states routinely issuing improper payments many times that level, HHS has never withheld funds under that requirement. To automatically incorporate accountability into improper payment rates, Congress should require CMS to reduce future federal Medicaid reimbursements to high-offender states so those states, which are responsible for managing the programs, bear the cost of their failures instead of federal taxpayers. Moreover, to prevent underreporting of improper payments, federal policymakers should require states to conduct more frequent eligibility redeterminations, improve hospitals' presumptive eligibility enrollment and require full audits of improper payments including eligibility checks. Many changes are necessary to improve Medicaid and protect the integrity of federal taxpayers' spending on it. Following the law and cracking down on improper payments is a common sense first step that could provide hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid savings. Rachel Greszler is a visiting fellow in workforce at the Economic Policy Innovation Center and co-author with Brian Blase of the report, 'Medicaid's True Improper Payments Double Those Reported by CMS.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
