Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Granite Trigger Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Division 3 reviews Granite Advantage trigger law, enrollment trends and funding options
Summary
Members pressed DHHS about the state's 'trigger' law for Medicaid expansion, current enrollment counts and the mix of funding sources that would cover Granite Advantage if the federal match changed.
House Finance Division 3 spent part of its March 5 work session examining the Granite Advantage healthcare program, the state 'trigger' law that could end expansion if the federal match dropped below statutory thresholds, and the funding sources that back the program.
Henry Littman, Medicaid director, told the committee that as of March 3 the Granite Advantage (Medicaid expansion) caseload was just under 59,000 active enrollees; over the course of the previous 12 months roughly 87,000 individuals had participated in the program, and over the life of the program more than a quarter‑million residents had had some period of enrollment. Littman said the average tenure in the expansion group was less than one year, and that some of the caseload fluctuation reflected transitional coverage for people awaiting disability determinations or taking advantage of 12‑month postpartum coverage.
Representative concerns focused on the state’s statutory “trigger” mechanism, enacted as chapter law, which currently says that if the federal match for the expansion falls below 90% the program requires notice to legislative leaders and a sunset after a fixed wind‑down period (Laws of 2018, chapter cited to Division). Committee members asked whether DHHS had modeled sensitivity scenarios for reduced federal match levels such as 88% or 85%. Littman said the department had looked at high‑level scenarios and that Granite Advantage funding is structured under current law to rely primarily on federal match — with a remaining state share funded by a mix of premium taxes on insurance policies, liquor commission transfers, and a contribution from the New Hampshire Health Plan (the state’s historic high‑risk pool). He noted that under current statutes some sources (liquor proceeds and premium tax revenues) are limited in size and that legislative action could be required to change the law or identify alternative state funding if the federal match declined.
DHHS provided a program cost example for FY25 showing total program costs of roughly $620 million with $582 million financed by the federal match; the remainder would have to come from the premium tax, liquor funds and other non‑general‑fund sources under existing statutes. Committee members requested further sensitivity analyses and timeline clarifications, and sought the precise statutory citations for the chapter law (DHHS referenced chapter law “section 342:12, laws of 2018” during the session).
The department also explained the administrative steps that would follow a trigger event: statutorily, the commissioner must notify executive and legislative leaders within a short period (DHHS cited 48 hours for gubernatorial/legislative notice and 10 business days for notice to program participants), and the program repeal would follow the statute’s wind‑down period (DHHS cited 180 days in the chapter law language the committee examined).
Members asked for written follow‑up with sensitivity scenarios showing fiscal impacts under different federal match percentages and for a clear list of the statutory citations and the expected timeline required by the trigger law.
