Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to align noncitizen eligibility with recent federal changes; opponents say it risks cutting care
Summary
Senate Bill 194 would align Louisiana’s Medicaid and SNAP eligibility for certain noncitizen categories with recent federal law, limit 'reasonable opportunity' verification periods to a single period (about 90 days) and require counting ineligible household members’ income for SNAP. Supporters said it closes gaps and protects taxpayer dollars; advocates warned it could exceed federal rules and cause coverage losses and administrative burden.
Senate Bill 194, presented to the committee as a package of changes to noncitizen eligibility rules, would update state law to mirror recent federal changes, standardize timelines for citizenship and immigration verification for Medicaid (limiting a reasonable opportunity verification period generally to a single interval, commonly about 90 days), and require that the income of household members who are ineligible due to immigration status be counted in full when determining SNAP eligibility for the household.
Sponsor testimony said the bill has three main components: (1) align state definitions of qualified aliens with the federal changes, (2) standardize and limit the reasonable opportunity period to a single period (directing LDH to seek any necessary CMS waivers/state plan amendments), and (3) require a different counting method for ineligible household members’ income in SNAP to prevent households from receiving disproportionate benefits.
Caitlin Finley (FGA Action) supported the legislation, arguing it closes loopholes and limits repeated verification windows that can leave ineligible individuals on rolls for long periods. Supporters argued those changes preserve resources for eligible citizens and reduce audit penalties tied to federal rules.
Invest in Louisiana, the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Civil Liberties Union and other witnesses opposed aspects of the measure. Opponents focused on the reasonable‑opportunity limits, arguing federal rules do not permit states to limit the number of such periods and that the bill could require LDH to seek waivers from CMS for exceptions. Community groups warned about potential effects on children and rural hospitals and urged caution and better data before enacting sweeping changes.
The committee considered and adopted several sponsor and committee amendments that added narrow exemptions and clarified that LDH should seek state plan amendments or waivers from CMS where necessary; members debated emergency‑care exceptions and whether the secretary would have appropriate discretion. Representative Mandy Landry objected to reporting the bill favorable; Representative Echols' motion to report the bill favorably passed on a roll‑call. The secretary and witnesses said the department would need to work through state plan amendment and waiver processes to address rare emergency exceptions and implementation details.
Recorded roll call in committee showed the bill reported in favor with 8 yeas and 3 nays; committee members and public witnesses urged the department to work closely on implementation details and to preserve emergency‑care discretion where needed.
