3 Key questions about the Arkansas Medicaid work and reporting requirements case
- Collection:
- Health Policy and Services Research
- Series Title(s):
- Issue brief (Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation)
- Author(s):
- Musumeci, MaryBeth, author
- Contributor(s):
- Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, issuing body.
- Publication:
- San Francisco, CA : Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, March 2020
- Language(s):
- English
- Format:
- Text
- Subject(s):
- Eligibility Determination Medicaid -- organization & administration Arkansas United States
- Genre(s):
- Technical Report
- Abstract:
- On February 14, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a unanimous decision setting aside the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary's approval of a Section 1115 Medicaid waiver amendment that included work and reporting requirements and restriction of retroactive coverage in Arkansas. The court found that Secretary's approval was unlawful because he failed to consider the impact on coverage. The case was decided by a 3-judge panel, and the opinion was written by Judge David Sentelle, appointed by President Reagan. The appeals court affirmed the district court's earlier decision that reached the same conclusion. In addition to Arkansas, the district court has set aside similar waiver approvals in Kentucky and New Hampshire. The appeals court's decision likely ultimately affects not only the Arkansas Medicaid program and its enrollees but also is being watched by other states with pending litigation, other states with waiver approvals and those seeking approvals for work requirements, and other states considering adopting similar policies. While litigation is ongoing, in January 2020, the Trump Administration released guidance inviting states to apply for new Section 1115 demonstrations that would allow states to impose work requirements and other restrictions on eligibility and benefits in exchange for a cap on federal financing and has again proposed a legislative change to condition Medicaid on work and reporting requirements in all states in its budget for fiscal year 2021. This issue brief answers three key questions about the implications of the appeals court's decision.
- Copyright:
- Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further use of the material is subject to CC BY license. (More information)
- Extent:
- 1 online resource (1 PDF file (3 pages)).
- NLM Unique ID:
- 101779114 (See catalog record)
- Permanent Link:
- http://resource.nlm.nih.gov/101779114