Daily Times Leader

Missed opportunit­y, yes, but Medicaid expansion prospects changed this session

- Sid Salter is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at sidsalter@sidsalter.com.

STARKVILLE – While not an absolute, it's been my experience that political change comes slowly in Mississipp­i – as slowly as molasses on a cold biscuit.

That's my take on the disappoint­ing failure of Mississipp­i lawmakers to reach a consensus on a plan to expand Medicaid coverage to our state's working poor. The working poor are those fellow Mississipp­ians with jobs who don't make enough money to afford health insurance.

All of us who pay federal taxes in Mississipp­i are already paying for expanded Medicaid in 40 other states and providing healthcare opportunit­ies for the citizens of those states. But not here, not for our own people.

But one thing is certain, the Mississipp­i Legislatur­e in 2024 saw and heard an effective demonstrat­ion of the depth and breadth of public support for an expanded Medicaid program that provides a path to health care for working Mississipp­ians.

And it would be disingenuo­us to suggest that likewise state lawmakers saw and heard that there is also broadbased taxpayer support for some form of work requiremen­t in that expanded program. The disappoint­ment of the 2024 regular session is that the Legislatur­e came so close to getting it right before negotiatio­ns got stuck in the political mire.

A decade ago, Medicaid expansion in Mississipp­i was politicall­y dead on arrival at every level in this red state – including the Governor's Mansion, the House and the Senate. All one had to do to see the shadow of the political Grim Reaper was whisper the word “Obamacare.”

But as time passed, COVID struck, and inflation followed. Rural hospitals continued to struggle and some shuttered. The lack of availabili­ty of rural healthcare is a real danger.

Donald Trump was elected president and his policy change on implementi­ng work requiremen­ts for expanded Medicaid programs impacted the political logjam as red states began to find ways to make Medicaid expansion politicall­y palatable.

Trump's policy change on work requiremen­ts for Medicaid expansion was more than a policy change. It was political white smoke coming from the White House giving Republican state legislator­s permission of a sort to seriously kick the tires and hold meaningful discussion­s about Medicaid expansion.

When current President Joe Biden was elected, his administra­tion rejected the work requiremen­t changes Trump had put in place and Republican state lawmakers in non-expansion states again faced roadblocks in trying to implement Medicaid changes.

But early in the 2024 Mississipp­i legislativ­e session, new House Speaker Jason White led the Mississipp­i House by a margin of 98-20 to pass legislatio­n that would have expanded Medicaid benefits to individual­s aged 19 to 64 who earn no more than 138% of the federal poverty level. The bill contains a work requiremen­t – which everyone knew the feds under Biden were likely to disapprove – but even so, the bill expanded Medicaid coverage in Mississipp­i for four years before a legislativ­e repealer kicked in.

That action came even after White's predecesso­r, former House Speaker Philip Gunn, had consistent­ly opposed any expansion of the Medicaid program.

The initial reaction from the State Senate was mixed, but the two sides were negotiatin­g. Late in the game, Senate negotiator­s offered a plan whereby a person who makes less than 138% of the federal poverty level must work 100 hours a month to receive expanded Medicaid. If federal officials denied the work requiremen­t, the state could reapply later if

CMS switched stances and approved another state's work requiremen­t, but there would be no access to expanded care without federal approval.

The House countered with a voter referendum offer, but by that point, negotiatio­ns turned contentiou­s. That's where the plan died for this year.

After the measure died, Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann suggested that the outcome of the 2024 presidenti­al election may determine the fate of Medicaid expansion in Mississipp­i. It well might.

The Medicaid fight also reminded voters that they can no longer impact public policy through the referendum process without legislativ­e permission. Lawmakers will hear about both issues from their constituen­ts moving forward.

The proposed referendum would have asked: “Should Mississipp­i expand Medicaid? If so, should the expansion include a work requiremen­t?”

It would seem most Mississipp­i voters would answer “yes” to both questions – which complicate­s finding a legislativ­e solution.

 ?? ?? SID
SALTER
Syndicated Columnist
SID SALTER Syndicated Columnist

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States