Breaking News
Investing Pro 0
Free Webinar - Decode the market's secrets! | Tuesday, May 30, 2023 | 01:00PM EDT Enroll Now

U.S. Supreme Court takes up Trump bid to revive Medicaid work requirements

Published Dec 04, 2020 05:59PM ET Updated Dec 04, 2020 10:40PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
© Reuters. A cherub figure with a book, symbolizing learning, is seen in a general view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a bid by President Donald Trump's administration to revive pilot programs adopted by the states of Arkansas and New Hampshire that allow work requirements to be imposed on people who receive healthcare under the Medicaid program for the poor.

The justices took up the administration's appeals of rulings by a lower court that found the work requirement programs to be unlawful. The case potentially could become moot once Democratic President-elect Joe Biden takes office on Jan. 20. Seventeen other states are pursuing similar policies.

"The Biden administration can certainly change this policy, and we hope that will happen," said Jane Perkins, legal director of the National Health Law Program, a healthcare advocacy group.

The administration said in court papers that the appeals court rulings cast a legal shadow on the efforts in those other states to adopt work requirements for Medicaid, a state-federal program that provides medical insurance for the poor. New Hampshire and Arkansas filed court papers in support of the administration.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2018 approved those projects as part of a push to put a conservative stamp on Medicaid, which was expanded in 37 states and the District of Columbia following the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, to help provide coverage to millions more Americans.

Under the Republican Trump, the department gave the go-ahead for states to carry out test projects requiring able-bodied people on Medicaid to work or do volunteer work.

The approval of the waivers prompted lawsuits by residents enrolled in various states' Medicaid programs, including ones in Arkansas and New Hampshire.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in 2019 struck down the agency's approval of the Arkansas program, called Arkansas Works. Boasberg later used the same reasoning in rejecting New Hampshire's work requirements.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in February upheld Boasberg's decision in the Arkansas case, saying HHS failed to adequately consider the extent to which the state's requirements would cause people to lose healthcare coverage. The D.C. Circuit reached the same conclusion for the New Hampshire program in a May ruling.

In court papers, Trump's administration argued that a federal law called the Social Security Act specifically allowed HHS to approve any experimental or pilot project that is likely to assist in promoting the objectives of Medicaid.

The D.C. Circuit ruled that Medicaid has "one primary purpose, which is providing healthcare coverage without any restriction geared to healthy outcomes, financial independence or transition to commercial coverage." The court noted that 18,000 people - about a quarter of those subject to the requirement - lost their coverage in the first five months after Arkansas Works was put in place.

U.S. Supreme Court takes up Trump bid to revive Medicaid work requirements
 

Related Articles

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:  

  •            Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.

  •           Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed. 

  •           Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases. Comments that are written in all caps and contain excessive use of symbols will be removed.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and comments containing links will be removed. Phone numbers, email addresses, links to personal or business websites, Skype/Telegram/WhatsApp etc. addresses (including links to groups) will also be removed; self-promotional material or business-related solicitations or PR (ie, contact me for signals/advice etc.), and/or any other comment that contains personal contact specifcs or advertising will be removed as well. In addition, any of the above-mentioned violations may result in suspension of your account.
  • Doxxing. We do not allow any sharing of private or personal contact or other information about any individual or organization. This will result in immediate suspension of the commentor and his or her account.
  • Don’t monopolize the conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also strongly believe in giving everyone a chance to air their point of view. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.
  • Any comment you publish, together with your investing.com profile, will be public on investing.com and may be indexed and available through third party search engines, such as Google.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
Post also to:
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
Comments (1)
min liu
min liu Dec 04, 2020 6:06PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
No work no food, it is so natural unless you are born with disabilities.
Brandon Olds
Brandon Olds Dec 04, 2020 6:06PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
but lazy liberals want everything for free and don't want to work. look at California!
Me comment
Me comment Dec 04, 2020 6:06PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
min liu that comment is so racist by implying people with disabilities cannot work to put food on the table.
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email