Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Medicaid Beneficiaries Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires states and U.S. territories to implement asset verification programs and resources tests for all enrollees as a condition of Medicaid eligibility (such requirements are currently generally limited to individuals who are eligible for Medicaid on the basis of being aged, blind, or disabled, and do not apply in all U.S. territories). The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) must distribute any resulting federal savings to states for two years; states may use the funds to support maternal and child health under Medicaid or for other purposes that are approved by the CMS. The CMS must also track and report on any savings. The Government Accountability Office must report on the efficacy of the asset verification programs.
Sponsors: Sen. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK]
Target Audience
Population: People enrolled in Medicaid
Estimated Size: 90000000
- Medicaid is a government insurance program that serves low-income individuals and families.
- Before this bill, asset verification was primarily used for the aged, blind, or disabled, not all enrollees.
- This bill expands asset verification requirements to all Medicaid enrollees, increasing oversight.
- Around 90 million individuals are enrolled in Medicaid nationally.
- This change would predominantly impact low-income individuals and families across all demographics in the U.S.
- There might be individuals currently eligible who do not qualify under the new asset test.
Reasoning
- The policy affects all Medicaid enrollees, expanding asset verification requirements beyond the elderly, blind, and disabled to all recipients.
- A key consideration is the potential disenrollment of those who are no longer eligible due to the asset test, impacting their wellbeing.
- The policy should result in federal savings, part of which will be reinvested in Medicaid services such as maternal and child health, impacting the wellbeing of these specific groups positively.
- Not everyone will be affected equally; some may see no change if they remain eligible post verification.
Simulated Interviews
Part-time retail worker (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new policy worries me because I'm concerned about possibly losing Medicaid benefits for my kids.
- I have modest savings and worry they might make us ineligible under the new rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Long haul truck driver (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's fair to check if people can afford insurance without Medicaid, but I'm anxious about hidden snags in what they look at for assets.
- We live paycheck to paycheck without much saving, so I hope we remain eligible.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (San Antonio, Texas)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't seem to affect me since I already had my assets checked when I applied for Medicaid.
- I hope the funds saved are used beneficially for healthcare.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Unemployed (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm already used to verification for my disability, but I hope it doesn’t become more cumbersome.
- What matters is that they continue to cover my essential treatments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Nurse (Raleigh, North Carolina)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring that the policy aims to ensure funds reach those in real need.
- Our household is on Medicaid mostly for the kids, so any change scares me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 60 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Medicaid is vital for medical stability during my unpredictable income phases.
- I worry about what they consider assets and my eligibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
College Student (Miami, Florida)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I doubt this policy directly affects me since I'm covered through my parents.
- Hope it means more funds to help out in state healthcare.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Home Care Aide (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relying heavily on Medicaid and fear losing it if asset verification trips us up.
- It's tough balancing financial constraints while ensuring healthcare needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Retail worker (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm scared it will become more difficult to keep Medicaid with the new verifications.
- Hope they offer support if any changes come up impacting my eligibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Waiter (New York, New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Asset verification seems daunting; I hope it doesn't make healthcare out of reach.
- Given my family obligations, Medicaid is a lifeline.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $40000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $90000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The extent of state savings will depend significantly on how stringently states implement asset verification programs.
- Potential reductions in Medicaid enrollment due to more stringent asset verification.
- Administrative burdens may vary between states.