fbpx
Connect with us

Mississippi Today

Medicaid expansion bill inches forward in Senate with few details

Published

on

Senate Republican continue to keep any particulars of their Medicaid expansion plans close to the vest, with a committee passing only a shell of a bill Tuesday to meet a deadline and keep it alive.

Meanwhile, a Medicaid expansion bill the House passed last sits untouched in the Senate, and the two Republican-led chambers do not appear to be in sync on the issue.

Senate leaders have said they are dead set on any expansion of Medicaid coverage a work requirement for recipients. This would require federal approval, which many say is unlikely. The House version includes a work requirement, but says the program would still be expanded even if the feds don't approve a work requirement.

“If no work requirements, no expansion,” Senate Medicaid Chairman Kevin Blackwell, R-Southaven, said about the bill he calls “expansion light.”

Senate Bill 2735, authored by Blackwell, remains only a skeleton bill bringing forth the code sections necessary to expand Medicaid, with details to be hashed out later.

Advertisement

On Tuesday, Blackwell spent 25 seconds explaining the bill to committee members and 15 seconds counting a committee vote. Rita Potts Parks, R-Corinth, was the only No vote.

No questions were asked in committee.

Blackwell said the Senate measure, like the House plan, likely would raise the income eligibility for Medicaid coverage to 138% of the federal poverty level, up to about $20,000 annually for an individual. He said the plan would likely require Medicaid expansion recipients to pay premiums on a sliding scale based on income. 

READ MORE: ‘Moral imperative': House overwhelmingly passes Mississippi Medicaid expansion

Advertisement

Mississippi is one of 10 states that has not expanded Medicaid to cover the working poor with the federal picking up at least 90% of the cost. For the last decade, most Republican leaders, including now Gov. Tate Reeves, have decried expansion as “Obamacare” and “welfare” and the issue has not even garnered serious discussion or hearings in recent years.

But polls have shown growing support for expansion — even among Republicans — as Mississippi's hospitals founder from providing free care to the uninsured and the continues to have statistics and outcomes that rival Third World areas.

New Republican House Speaker Jason White supports expansion, and second-term Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann has said he's open to it and wants to help create a healthier workforce in Mississippi.

A prerequisite that Mississippi's plan have a work requirement could kill its expansion. During the Biden administration, federal Centers for Medicaid Services has rescinded work requirements previously approved for other states during the Trump administration and has not approved new ones. Georgia remains in litigation with federal government over the work requirement issue.

Advertisement

Blackwell and other Senate Republicans realize the realpolitik of getting a work requirement approved, and say implementing expansion could perhaps be pushed back until after this year's presidential election, so a new administration might approve a work requirement.

While both House and Senate leaders say they support a work requirement, the one in House Bill 1725 – which overwhelmingly passed the House – is only a “best-case scenario.” The bill has a provision that if federal authorities do not approve the waiver necessary to allow a Mississippi work requirement is not granted by Sept. 30, 2024, Medicaid would still be fully expanded to people up to 138% of the federal poverty level, starting in January 2025.

Blackwell said he doesn't believe an expansion bill could garner the votes it needs from the Senate without the work requirement.

“Their [House] bill has a component, the first section, for the working people,” Blackwell said. “But if CMS back and says they're not going to accept that, it's traditional expansion. And we're not going to get that passed over on this side.”

Advertisement

Senator Chad McMahan, R-Guntown, a member of the Medicaid committee, said he is in favor of expansion — both because he knows his constituents support it, and also because of his personal experiences growing up in a low-income, working-class family.

“I came from a family that didn't have health insurance for a number of years,” McMahan said, “and I saw the fear in my mom and dad's face when I got and they had to decide about paying a car note, paying a house note or paying medical bills. And that's why I'm sympathetic to the legislation. Working people in this state need a safety net, they need a way to access some basic medical care.”

But he said he would have a hard time supporting an expansion bill that had no work requirement.

“There's a difference between just giving handouts and giving people a hand up to help them,” McMahan said. “I want to provide the working people of this state an to have some type of if their employer doesn't provide that.”

Advertisement

Blackwell said the Senate bill could perhaps contain language and dates to allow a new presidential administration to take office — and approve a work waiver — before expansion would start.

“I'd love for there to be a change and I think the rest of the country would love for there to be a change,” he said. “We'll just have to see whatever timeframes we put in are going to try to accommodate that potential change.”

McMahan said, “I think the work requirement is a big piece of it for Republicans. It's got to be a helping hand. We have the lowest work participation rate in the United States. And if we can figure out a way to help people go to work and provide some health care, I'm for that.”

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Advertisement

Mississippi Today

2024 Mississippi legislative session not good for private school voucher supporters

Published

on

mississippitoday.org – Bobby Harrison – 2024-05-19 14:11:52

Despite a recent Mississippi Supreme Court ruling allowing $10 million in public money to be spent on private schools, 2024 has not been a good year for those supporting school vouchers.

School-choice supporters were hopeful during the 2024 legislative , with new House Speaker Jason White at times indicating for vouchers.

But the Legislature, which recently completed its session, did not pass any new voucher bills. In fact, it placed tighter restrictions on some of the limited laws the has in place allowing public money to be spent on private schools.

Advertisement

Notably, the Legislature passed a bill that provides significantly more oversight of a program that provides a limited number of scholarships or vouchers for special-needs children to attend private schools.

Going forward, thanks to the new law, to receive the vouchers a parent must certify that their child will be attending a private school that offers the special needs educational services that will help the child. And the school must report information on the academic progress of the child receiving the funds.

Also, efforts to expand another state program that provides tax credits for the benefit of private schools was defeated. Legislation that would have expanded the tax credits offered by the Children's Promise Act from $8 million a year to $24 million to benefit private schools was defeated. Private schools are supposed to educate low income students and students with special needs to receive the benefit of the tax credits. The legislation expanding the Children's Promise Act was defeated after it was reported that no state agency knew how many students who fit into the categories of poverty and other specific needs were being educated in the schools receiving funds through the tax credits.

Interestingly, the Legislature did not expand the Children's Promise Act but also did not place more oversight on the private schools receiving the tax credit funds.

Advertisement

The bright spot for those supporting vouchers was the early May state Supreme Court ruling. But, in reality, the Supreme Court ruling was not as good for supporters of vouchers as it might appear on the surface.

The Supreme Court did not say in the ruling whether school vouchers are constitutional. Instead, the state's highest court ruled that the group that brought the for Public Schools – did not have standing to pursue the legal action.

The Supreme Court justices did not give any indication that they were ready to say they were going to ignore the Mississippi Constitution's plain language that prohibits public funds from being provided “to any school that at the time of receiving such appropriation is not conducted as a free school.”

In addition to finding Parents for Public Schools did not have standing to bring the lawsuit, the court said another key reason for its ruling was the fact that the funds the private schools were receiving were federal, not state funds.  The public funds at the center of the lawsuit were federal COVID-19 relief dollars.

Advertisement

Right or wrong, The court appeared to make a distinction between federal money and state general funds. And in reality, the circumstances are unique in that seldom does the state receive federal money with so few strings attached that it can be awarded to private schools.

The majority opinion written by Northern District Supreme Justice Robert Chamberlin and joined by six justices states, “These specific federal funds were never earmarked by either the federal or the state for educational purposes, have not been commingled with state education funds, are not for educational purposes and therefore cannot be said to have harmed PPS (Parents for Public Schools) by taking finite government educational away from public schools.”

And Southern District Supreme Court Justice Dawn Beam, who joined the majority opinion, wrote separately “ to reiterate that we are not ruling on state funds but American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds … The ARPA funds were given to the state to be used in four possible ways, three of which were directly related to the COVID -19 emergency and one of which was to make necessary investments in , sewer or broadband infrastructure.”

Granted, many public school advocates lamented the , pointing out that federal funds are indeed public or taxpayer money and those federal funds could have been used to help struggling public schools.

Advertisement

Two justices – James Kitchens and Leslie King, both of the Central District, agreed with that argument.

But, importantly, a decidedly conservative-leaning Mississippi Supreme Court stopped far short – at least for the time being – of circumventing state constitutional language that plainly states that public funds are not to go to private schools.

And a decidedly conservative Mississippi Legislature chose not to expand voucher programs during the 2024 session.

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Mississippi Today

On this day in 1925

Published

on

MAY 19, 1925

In this 1963 , leader Malcolm X speaks to reporters in Washington. Credit: Associated Press

Malcolm X was born Malcolm Little in Omaha, Nebraska. When he was 14, a teacher asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up and he answered that he wanted to be a lawyer. The teacher chided him, urging him to be realistic. “Why don't you plan on carpentry?”

In prison, he became a follower of Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad. In his speeches, Malcolm X warned Black Americans against self-loathing: “Who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin? Who taught you to hate the shape of your nose and the shape of your lips? Who taught you to hate yourself from the top of your head to the soles of your feet? Who taught you to hate your own kind?”

Prior to a 1964 pilgrimage to Mecca, he split with Elijah Muhammad. As a result of that , Malcolm X began to accept followers of all races. In 1965, he was assassinated. Denzel Washington was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of the civil rights leader in Spike Lee's 1992 award-winning film.

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/?p=359877

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Mississippi Today

On this day in 1896

Published

on

MAY 18, 1896

The ruled 7-1 in Plessy v. Ferguson that racial segregation on railroads or similar public places was constitutional, forging the “separate but equal” doctrine that remained in place until 1954.

In his dissent that would foreshadow the ruling six decades later in Brown v. Board of Education, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote that “separate but equal” rail cars were aimed at discriminating against Black Americans.

“In the view of the Constitution, in the eye of the , there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens,” he wrote. “Our Constitution in color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of , all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law … takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the are involved.”

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/?p=359301

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News from the South

Trending