On August 14, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a final rule, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds. The rule makes significant changes to the standards DHS will use to determine whether an immigrant is likely to become a “public charge”—a person dependent on the government for support—which will have consequences for certain immigrants’ legal status. This document provides answers to frequently asked questions about whom the rule will impact, what benefits are implicated by the rule, and how the rule might be administered.
On August 14, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a final rule, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds. The rule makes significant changes to the standards DHS will use to determine whether an immigrant is likely to become a “public charge”—a person dependent on the government for support—which will make it more difficult for certain immigrants to obtain lawful permanent residence (a green card) in the US. State
State Health and Value Strategies, in partnership with Manatt Health, has developed a variety of resources for states regarding the revised public charge rule and implications for states.
On October 1, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s State Health and Value Strategies program hosted a webinar, facilitated by experts at Manatt Health on the long-anticipated proposed rule released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on September 22. The proposed rule seeks to change how DHS determines whether immigrants—when seeking admission to the United States, an extension of their stay, or status change to become a legal permanent resident—are “likely at any time to become a public charge” (i.e., dependent on the government for financial support). Consequentially, being determined a “public charge” may put immigration status at risk. The webinar reviewed the proposed rule and its potential impacts on consumers, states and providers. Specifically, we highlighted the key ways the proposed rule departs from current guidance, with a particular focus on the implications for Medicaid and other health-related public benefits, and how the proposed rule may impact consumers’ access to certain benefits. Click here for the webinar slides.
Medicaid Expansion and Enhanced Match: How Proposals to Grandfather Medicaid Enrollees Could Impact States
Some federal proposals implement enrollment freezes for the Medicaid Expansion population, while grandfathering the enhanced match for enrollees that remain in the system. States have experiences with enrollment freezes in recent years and the changes in enrollment levels provide lessons for states moving forward. This issue brief, authored by the team at Manatt Health, highlights the experiences of three states and how enrollment freezes impact state Medicaid rolls.
While the focus of debate regarding repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been on Marketplaces and the Medicaid expansion, myriad other provisions of the ACA are at risk of repeal—including those that streamline Medicaid eligibility and enrollment systems and implement a national, simplified standard for income eligibility. As of January 2016, 37 states are able to complete an eligibility determination in real time, defined as less than 24 hours, and among these, 11 states report that at least half of their applicants receive an eligibility determination in real time. The future of the ACA’s streamlined eligibility and enrollment-related provisions and the system improvements states have invested in to implement them are the subject of this issue brief.
Because Medicaid is the single largest payer in every state, governors are using Medicaid to drive multi-payer reforms, including adoption of value-based payment methodologies and advancement of population health models. Proposals being considered by Congress and the new administration to repeal the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion and implement limits on federal Medicaid funding through block grants and per capita caps could have a significant impact on these advances. This issue brief, developed by Manatt Health, considers how much states have accomplished to drive value in and through their Medicaid programs over the last 50 years, and most especially over the last five years, and what states stand to lose in terms of progress and innovation in their Medicaid programs and health care delivery systems if federal support for Medicaid is reduced.
Data Points to Consider When Assessing Proposals to Cap Federal Medicaid Funding: A Toolkit for States
Key leaders in Congress and high-ranking members of the Trump Administration are proposing major changes to Medicaid financing through the adoption of a block grant or per capita caps. To assist states in assessing the potential implications of proposals to cap federal Medicaid funding, the State Network team at Manatt Health has developed a toolkit providing state-by-state data on Medicaid enrollment and expenditure trends—factors that are central to establishing the amount each state would be allocated under various capped funding proposals.
Recent proposals for the incoming Congress and presidential administration to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have also included calls for an overhaul of the current Medicaid program financing structure. Such a change, aimed at reducing federal Medicaid spending, would have significant implications for state Medicaid programs. A new webinar examined these proposals and the potential impact that they could have on states.
Section 1115 waivers allow states to waive certain Medicaid statutory requirements in order to advance state policy priorities and test innovations in their Medicaid programs, provided that they are budget neutral and “further the goals of the Medicaid program.” Since 2014, seven states have used 1115 waivers to implement alternative Medicaid expansions, and these waivers are likely to be leveraged by states in the next four years to advance changes to Medicaid. This issue brief, developed by Manatt Health, provides an overview of the features of these alternative Medicaid expansion waivers.
Proposals for the incoming Congress and presidential administration to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have also included a call for a fundamental overhaul of the Medicaid program by imposing caps on federal funding to states. Such capped funding would replace the central feature of Medicaid’s financing structure, the federal government’s legal obligation to share all allowable state Medicaid costs. While the design of various proposals to cap federal Medicaid funding may differ in several ways, they all aim to allow the federal government to achieve budget certainty and reduce federal Medicaid spending.