Call for Medicaid work requirements is greeted by a chorus of boos
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
What Archambault does not acknowledge is that Medicaid serves the working poor, which includes low-wage workers who are working multiple part-time jobs that don't provide coverage or positions that fall just below the threshold that would qualify them for coverage by their employer (an all-too-common practice by companies to avoid providing benefits).
Advertisement
Moreover, some family members who are caregivers might not be able to meet the work requirement. In a June 2 op-ed,
Advertisement
Finally, this hyperfocus on which low-income people deserve access to subsidized medical care distracts from what should be the primary focus: that our federal leaders are promising 'savings' on the cost of benefits in order to advance massive tax cuts that will benefit the wealthy and increase the national debt.
Rosemarie Buxton
Haverhill
With health care costs skyrocketing, reform is needed — but not this kind
My Pioneer Institute colleague, Josh Archambault, is correct that we do need Medicaid reform, but the solutions he offers, an old trope of work-or-volunteer remedies that recall the 'welfare queen' stereotype of 40 years ago, will
As Archambault states, the original idea behind national Medicaid was to provide health insurance to seniors and people who are blind or have other disabilities. Over time, however, rapidly escalating health care costs strained the limits of employer-sponsored health insurance, and by 1995 the
Since that time, Massachusetts has chosen policies to expand health insurance coverage. Eligibility for Medicaid, known here as MassHealth, has grown to include those who are not only below poverty lines but also those who are at certain levels above poverty rates. This includes nondisabled people and many more children.
At the same time, health care prices in Massachusetts have skyrocketed, with
Advertisement
Barbara Anthony
Cambridge
The writer is a senior fellow at the Pioneer Institute and former undersecretary of the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation.
National health safety net is frayed enough as it is
Josh Archambault's op-ed does nothing to advance an important debate around our national health safety net. The situation is far more complicated than the talking points he offers.
An estimated
We have seen this before. When Arkansas and Georgia implemented work requirements, most of the people who lost coverage actually met the requirements but got caught up in red tape. We hear from callers every day on
We stand with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in pushing back against the unprecedented health care cuts in the House bill.
Advertisement
Amy Rosenthal
Executive director
Health Care for All
Boston
Instead of prodding the 'able-bodied,' strengthen workforce development
Josh Archambault's argument that imposing work requirements on 'able-bodied' adults who receive Medicaid will improve health is wrong on several levels.
First, multiple evaluations of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion demonstrate improved health overall and improved outcomes for specific populations (for example, reduced deaths from opioid use). The
Second, evaluations of the impact of work requirements for welfare recipients have generally shown the initial increased work participation failed to sustain income or reduce poverty over time because of low wages and insufficient work supports.
Third, to get Medicaid via disability, people must meet strict Social Security definitions of disability — a high severity bar — and large numbers of people with significant disabilities do not. Many of the 'nondisabled' childless adults on Medicaid have major mental health conditions, substance use disorders, and developmental disorders, including autism, that significantly affect their ability to succeed in the workforce. The population of low-income adults who became eligible for Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act also includes many parents, who too would be subject to paperwork burdens every six months.
Work that provides a living wage is a desirable outcome. Rather than imposing burdensome administrative requirements, real reform means strengthening workforce development policies — at all ages — through apprenticeship programs, other training work, coaching, reliable hours and transportation, and other policies that encourage jobs for previously unemployed people.
Advertisement
Real reform also means strengthening health care prevention and promotion. MassHealth has taken clear leadership in promoting comprehensive primary care by transforming payment systems and providing incentives for team care, including the integration of mental-behavioral health care. Such efforts should be amplified rather than impeded through work requirement efforts.
Dr. James M. Perrin
Boston
Dr. Charles J. Homer
Brookline
Perrin is a professor emeritus of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and John C. Robinson Distinguished Chair in Pediatrics at MassGeneral Brigham for Children and former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Homer is senior adviser at Economic Mobility Pathways and former deputy assistant secretary, human services policy, at the US Department of Health and Human Services.
The less fortunate don't need more hoops to jump through
There are a number of sleights of hand in Josh Archambault's call for Medicaid reform, not the least of which is judging a program that pays for access to our medical system by the outcomes provided by that system. But it's his call for government-mandated community engagement as a condition for having your doctor's visit subsidized that is truly gobsmacking.
It was not so long ago that such a proposal would be derided by conservatives as government social engineering because, among other things, it's literally that. Does Archambault truly believe that the federal government is capable of creating a meaningful social fabric for the less fortunate among us, or does he think that, as proven time and time again, adding requirements to social safety net benefits will simply discourage recipients from applying, thus reducing the costs of the programs?
Saul Tannenbaum
Boston
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
6 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful' Bill Gets Slimmed Down in Senate
WASHINGTON—President Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill is getting smaller just as Republicans head into a crucial week, after the Senate's rules arbiter decided several controversial provisions don't qualify for the special procedure the GOP is using to bypass Democratic opposition. The tax-and-spending megabill centers on extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts, delivering on the spirit of his campaign promises to eliminate taxes on tips and overtime, and providing big lump sums of money for border security and defense. Those new costs are partially offset by spending cuts, in particular to Medicaid.
New York Post
12 hours ago
- New York Post
Don't fall for the lies about the GOP's plan for Medicaid: We're actually STRENGTHENING it
President Donald Trump has asked Congress to follow through on his domestic-policy agenda by extending tax cuts for Americans, investing in our military and border security and cutting waste, fraud and abuse in entitlement spending, which threatens the solvency our nation's safety-net programs. For my House Committee on Energy and Commerce, this meant hitting a 10-year savings target of $880 billion across our jurisdiction — energy, environment, telecommunications and health care — which I knew could only be reached through careful consideration and resolve. Advertisement The committee came through, and then some: The most recent estimate from the Congressional Budget Office found that our efforts will save nearly $1.1 trillion. More than a quarter of this amount, $344 billion, comes from new community-engagement rules (i.e., work requirements) for able-bodied adults who receive Medicaid benefits but choose not to work. The rules will promote greater accountability and refocus Medicaid to better serve the most vulnerable. Advertisement What exactly do these community-engagement requirements consist of? If you're an able-bodied, unemployed adult who receives Medicaid, they ask that you demonstrate that you are either working, volunteering, in job training or in school for an average of 80 hours per month. Health care and work are inextricably linked in this country: Nearly half of all Americans get their health insurance through their jobs, seniors get Medicare after years of contributing payroll taxes and members of our military and our veterans get their coverage through their service to our country. To require Medicaid recipients who are able-bodied and unemployed to either work, go to school or volunteer in their communities in order to continue receiving subsidized health insurance should be a no brainer. Advertisement You may have heard misinformation that work requirements are really just a sneaky way to take health care away from hard-working Americans, or even people with disabilities. Let me set the record straight: This policy applies only to able-bodied, unemployed adults who have chosen not to work. Our bill couldn't be clearer about that; it includes a long list of exempted individuals. For instance: If you're pregnant, a member of a federally designated tribe, a caregiver or parent, under 19 or over 65, you're exempt from the requirements. Advertisement You're exempt if you're medically frail, which includes anyone who's blind, disabled, battling a chronic substance-use disorder or living with a serious and complex medical condition like cancer. If you meet work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (welfare), you're also relieved of the requirements. If you're in jail, prison or were released from incarceration within the past 90 days, you're exempt. And if you're a former foster youth under 26, the requirements don't apply. Plainly, the policy is targeting just a subset of fully able adults who are voluntarily choosing not to work or give back to their communities. There are strong grounds for this policy: A new study from the American Enterprise Institute found that able-bodied, unemployed adult Medicaid recipients without dependents average 6.1 hours a day — 184 hours a month — watching television and socializing. That figure is 50% higher than for employed beneficiaries. These individuals spend less than a combined one hour a day looking for work or caring for others. Advertisement And we're only asking that, in return for their Medicaid coverage, they choose from an array of options — work, go to school or volunteer — for just 80 hours per month. That's eminently reasonable, and can help them become more self-reliant and productive. Note, too, that a sizable number — 38% of beneficiaries, per a new White House Council of Economic Advisors study — are able-bodied, working-age adults. There's no good reason for them not to be contributing to their communities or at least on a path to becoming productive. Advertisement Americans are smart enough not to fall for the false narratives, lies and smears against work requirements. They share Republicans' desires to purge government programs of rampant waste, fraud and abuse. Our requirements help do just that, strengthening Medicaid for those who truly need it. Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) is chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
CBS News
12 hours ago
- CBS News
Keller: Rep. Katherine Clark shares her thoughts on Trump's "big beautiful bill"
The opinions expressed below are Jon Keller's, not those of WBZ, CBS News or Paramount Global. Voters don't always expect their political leaders to act benignly. They are often called on to "fight" for various things, "get tough" on crime or other issues, and so on. But you rarely hear folks clamoring for cruelty from their elected officials. Yet that's exactly what House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Fifth District) said her Republican counterparts are up to with their so-called "big beautiful bill" cutting taxes and budgets. In an interview with WBZ-TV, Clark said "it was very obvious from early on in the President's term that this was the play, huge cuts, historic cuts to health care, especially the Medicaid program. And then they were going to go after food programs, school lunches, Meals on Wheels, Women and Infants food programs, all to pay for tax breaks for the 900 billionaires in this country. And then on top of it, what we've seen is they also are adding almost $3 trillion to our deficit." The bill drew fire from some House GOP members before passing with near-unanimous partisan support and being shipped to the Senate, where a similar process is now underway. But Clark said she finds criticisms from Republican representatives and senators hollow. "We have different members of the House Republican Party saying, 'I can't go along with how big these Medicaid cuts are,' right? Then they vote for it. We have different members who say the cuts aren't large enough, I can't expand the deficit like this, but they fall in line. And this is an established pattern that is so harmful to the American people." Clark said she believes many of her Republican colleagues believe they are vulnerable to political backlash. "I think they are ducking for cover in a lot of these situations. I think the object here is to not focus on the cruelty and not level with the American people. We've seen members of the House write letters to the speaker saying, 'I could never support these cuts to Medicaid,' and now what we're seeing is that's expanded. They're cutting Medicare by half a trillion dollars, Medicaid by $800 billion. That's 16 million people when you add up the cuts to Medicaid, the ACA program, the children's insurance program, 16 million Americans they are kicking off of health care and for what? Not for some common good. But when people are telling us that they're not making it, 60% of American households are struggling to meet the basic needs for their family, how do we create jobs by taking away health care and taking away food programs?" And the second-ranking House Democrat said she believes the Republicans will pay a political price after promising during the campaign to focus on improving the economic status of voters. "They have gone a 180, the exact opposite," said Clark. "They have betrayed their own voters. They said cost of living is what we're going to address on day one. And between this horrendous bill and what we're seeing with tariffs, we are going to see a marked increase in cost of living for the American people. I don't know what their political view of this is, but it is an incredibly cruel bill, and it's saying to the American people that the Republican Party doesn't value them and is not going to work for them." Clark also discussed the state of play on issues of housing and child care, and the ability of her office to engage with the executive branch in the interview. Keller @ Large Part 2: Keller at Large airs every Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on WBZ-TV.
