Congratulations! Don't forget about your college RA when you're famous. 😜

This is well said, thanks for taking a close look at the results!

Good point, this was not well phrased. Suspended would have been a better choice, thanks for flagging.

cc: @adrianna.bsky.social @acinthedc.bsky.social @lizananat.bsky.social @laurenhlb.bsky.social @paulgp.com @gregggonsalves.bsky.social @aschwartz.bsky.social

RESULT 4:

Some towns reversed work requirements, what happened?

For our cohort, this was *not* associated with a change in SNAP enrollment — people didn't get back on the program

Implication: WR may be a "one-way door" out of safety net coverage

From a new JAMA HF pape that dropped last Friday

RESULT 3: Work requirements led to substantial coverage losses even for those with incomes

Translation — More evidence that not only about whether folks are working, even those with incomes are screened out...

This appears to be about paperwork.

@pamherd.bsky.social @donmoyn.bsky.social

5/

RESULT 2: Sickest folks hit hardest by work requirements

Disenrollment risk was

≈2× higher for people with diabetes

and

≈5.5× higher for older adults (40-49) with ≥3 chronic conditions

Concerning evidence the sickest and most vulnerable folks are screened out by work requirements.

4/

RESULT 1: Work requirements --> coverage losses

When CT imposed WR, SNAP coverage fell 25% + Medicaid enrollment was flat.

Translation — People lost nutrition support, not because they earned more, but because of paperwork.

If they were earning more they would be losing Medicaid eligibility.

3/

METHODS:

Chima Ndumele and Hannah Factor led study of SNAP work requirements taking effect in 87/169 CT towns

Triple-diff w/ variation across time, towns, and populations

Linked Medicaid-SNAP data see health + demographics of those who lost coverage.

First pape in @jamainternalmed.com.

2/

Fieldhouse is a Swattie! (You probably know that)