Congress should reject work requirement proposals, which are just code for cuts to Medicaid, and protect health coverage for millions. #ProtectMedicaid

The harm from work requirements is real - as seen in Arkansas where nearly 1 in 4 people lost coverage under a Medicaid work req. and in Georgia where excessive paperwork and complex rules have kept many people from getting coverage. www.cbpp.org/blog/georgia...

And exemptions would not work to protect all parents and people with disabilities from coverage loss. They could fall through the cracks due to overly narrow exemptions or difficulty navigating red tape to obtain an exemption.

But even people who are working would be affected. Workers could lose coverage due to paperwork barriers in reporting their work hours, having fluctuating hours or only being able to work a limited number of hours due to health conditions or employer scheduling.

9 in 10 adult Medicaid enrollees are either working or would likely be considered for an exemption to a work requirement because they are in school, have a disability or chronic illness, or have caregiving responsibilities. www.cbpp.org/charts/most-...

Work requirements would make it harder for people to get and stay healthy enough to work, which is the opposite of common sense. Evidence from Arkansas’ Medicaid work requirement found no increase in employment and a CBO study had similar findings. www.cbo.gov/system/files...

Recent reports suggest that Republicans may be considering a work requirement “just” for the Medicaid expansion population. One version of a Medicaid work requirements would put 20M Medicaid expansion enrollees at risk of losing their coverage. www.cbpp.org/research/hea...

Eliminating Medicaid expansion was a key goal of Republicans’ failed effort to repeal the ACA eight years ago, and Congress should once again reject efforts to undermine it. #ProtectMedicaid

A proposal to put a per capita cap on federal funding for the expansion group would shift between $72B and $190B in costs to states from 2026 to 2034, increasing state expansion costs by 41 to 108 percent and jeopardizing coverage for millions of people. www.cbpp.org/research/hea...

Reducing the 90% federal matching rate would shift significant costs to states. Some states have laws that would require them to automatically drop their expansion. In other states, it would cost more than $1B a year to keep expansion enrollees covered. www.cbpp.org/research/hea...

Proposals to cut the Medicaid expansion include 1) reducing the 90% federal matching rate, 2) putting a per capita cap on the expansion group, 3) imposing work reqs. on expansion enrollees and 4) adding red tape by requiring renewals multiple times a year.

One study estimates that expansion has saved over 27,000 lives, while decisions not to expand in the remaining non-expansion states cost almost 13,000 lives. drive.google.com/file/d/1SiJI...

Expansion also increased coverage for people w/ disabilities, allowing many to qualify based on income rather than strict disability eligibility criteria.

Medicaid expansion drove coverage gains for parents, which improves access to care & overall well-being for their children. Without expansion, parents in a family of 3 in Kentucky with incomes as low as $5,000/year could have their coverage terminated. www.macpac.gov/wp-content/u...

Attacks on Medicaid expansion make false claims that covering low-income adults takes care away from traditionally eligible groups. In reality, expansion supports better outcomes for all groups, incl. children, older adults, & people w / disabilities. www.cbpp.org/research/hea...

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is considering $880B in cuts and Medicaid expansion appears to be a prime target. www.cbpp.org/blog/house-r...