Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6636

Bill Overview

Title: Due Process Continuity of Care Act

Description: This bill allows an otherwise eligible individual who is in custody pending disposition of charges (i.e., pretrial detainees) to receive Medicaid benefits at the option of the state. The bill also provides funds for state planning grants to support the provision of such benefits.

Sponsors: Rep. Trone, David J. [D-MD-6]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals in custody pending disposition of charges (pretrial detainees)

Estimated Size: 500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Retail worker (Texas)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope this policy will allow me to get the medical treatment I need without my family worrying about the costs.
  • It's tough not knowing if I'll have access to necessary medications while I wait for trial.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 5 3
Year 5 5 3
Year 10 4 3
Year 20 4 3

Unemployed (California)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The ability to get healthcare while waiting for my case to go through could be life-saving for me.
  • It's nice to see a policy that considers our health needs even though we're detained.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 3
Year 2 7 3
Year 3 6 3
Year 5 6 3
Year 10 5 3
Year 20 5 3

Construction worker (New York)

Age: 46 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think it'll be really useful for those of us who need regular healthcare while dealing with our cases.
  • Access to diabetes care is my biggest concern right now.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 5 4
Year 3 4 4
Year 5 4 4
Year 10 4 4
Year 20 4 4

Nurse (Florida)

Age: 53 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 16/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I support this legislation as it could help my son and many others maintain their health while awaiting trial.
  • These detainees are often forgotten about, so this policy is a crucial step.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Software developer (Illinois)

Age: 30 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While I don't need much medical care, I think this policy is good for those who do.
  • It's one less thing to worry about during a stressful time.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 4
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 5 4

Teacher (Ohio)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 17/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is a step forward in humanity and justice reform.
  • Detainees deserve dignity during their pretrial process.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Student (Alabama)

Age: 21 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm worried about how this affects my family's finances, so Medicaid coverage would help.
  • Every resource counts when you're in a tough spot.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 5 4
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 5 4

Retired (Georgia)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's upsetting to know my grandson may not get proper care pretrial.
  • I hope this policy can change that for him and others.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 5

Public defender (Michigan)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could tremendously help my clients who don't have resources while detained.
  • Pretrial shouldn't mean a loss of basic rights like healthcare.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Small business owner (Nevada)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having been in their shoes, I know this kind of policy is necessary.
  • Healthcare in pretrial detention should be a given, not an option.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $800000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $1000000000)

Year 2: $810000000 (Low: $640000000, High: $1020000000)

Year 3: $820000000 (Low: $660000000, High: $1040000000)

Year 5: $850000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $1100000000)

Year 10: $900000000 (Low: $760000000, High: $1160000000)

Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $2000000000)

Key Considerations