Finance
e-Newsletter
Intelligence Unit Special Reports Special Events Subscribe Sponsored Departments Follow Us

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn RSS

Few Options for Working Poor in States that Block Medicaid Expansion

John Commins, for HealthLeaders Media, September 6, 2013

Collins says that 29% of people who would qualify for subsidized coverage saw an income change from 2011 to 2012 that dropped their income below 100% of the poverty level, meaning they would no longer qualify for subsidized coverage through the marketplaces. Another 12% of those earning between 133% and 249% of poverty in 2011 also experienced an income change that lowered their earnings to less than the poverty level in 2012.

In contrast, 30% of people with incomes below 100% of poverty had an income gain that would have made them eligible for subsidized coverage.

The study calls on states to accept the Medicaid expansion. In the likely event that they do not, at least in the near term, Collins says Congress could pass legislation that would allow those making less than 100% of the federal poverty level, who are not eligible for Medicaid, to be eligible for subsidized coverage through the state marketplaces.

Such legislation would be unlikely to clear the Republican-controlled U.S. House, which has voted 40 times to repeal the PPACA.


John Commins is a senior editor with HealthLeaders Media.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Comments are moderated. Please be patient.

1 comments on "Few Options for Working Poor in States that Block Medicaid Expansion"


Phyllis Kritek (9/6/2013 at 5:16 PM)
Thank you for disseminating the work of the Commonwealth Fund. Their work on the ACA provides some of the most in depth comprehensive analysis available, and emerges from a place where health care is itself a value, rather than merely a commodity. I'd like to think that the definition of poverty you share with your readers would itself be unsettling to health care providers. That we would, as a society, knowingly withhold health care from these, the least fortunate among us, stuns me. The 40 House votes to repeal the ACA without offering an alternative is not a statement about political ideology; it is a statement about moral choice.