Update on this topic as it pertains to the work requirement. I am on record with no hard objection to some form of work requirement, but I also am in agreement that it may be self-defeating if it is too costly to administer (more expense to track the work requirement than simply giving it away to people who could work).
Seems like Georgia may have answered that question for us.
Two years ago, Georgia began allowing low-income adults to join Medicaid on the condition that they work or train for a job. Republicans now tout the state as a model of compassionate cost-saving health policy.
But Georgia’s experience may actually offer reason for caution, even as House Republicans this week advanced measures to impose similar conditions nationwide.
Just 12,000 of the nearly 250,000 newly eligible Georgians ultimately received Medicaid, the public health insurance program for the poor and disabled, well short of the state’s initial 50,000 goal. Administrative costs far outpaced spending on medical care. Some who do work had a tough time proving it to state officials - or their work, such as caring for ailing relatives, didn’t qualify.
A lot more detail at the link and of course another state might do it better but when your admin costs are greater than the cost of care, it would seem to be a no brainer to cut the additional layer of admin created by a work requirement.
More:
A spokesman for Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R), who spearheaded the Medicaid expansion with work requirements, called the governor’s health policy a success because hundreds of thousands of low-income Georgians also received insurance from private plans, including more than 1,000 who “graduated” from Medicaid to better health insurance.
Just 1,000 out of a potential 250,000 - at a cost greater than what it would have cost to simply provide them Medicaid. Win?
It might have been cheaper to give those 1000 a state-based non-refundable EITC to get a job.