Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the HB913 Lookback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers split on one- vs. three-month look-back for Medicaid work rules
Summary
Senators debated whether to require a one- or three-month look-back to verify community-engagement for Medicaid enrollees; advocates and hospitals favored one month to limit administrative burden, while the sponsor favored three months to encourage sustained employment.
A central point of contention during the Senate Health and Welfare hearing on House Bill 913 was whether the initial eligibility verification should examine one month or three months of activity. Sponsor Representative John Van der Rader argued a three-month look-back better ensures sustained engagement and allows people time to fix short gaps. "I would rather that I have 3 months, that they are actually in functioning on the 3 months, than the 1 month," he said.
Healthcare providers and child advocates pushed back, arguing the department lacks capacity and key CMS guidance may arrive too late to implement a three-month review by July. Brian Whitlock of the Idaho Hospital Association proposed replacing three months with a single-month look-back to reduce the department's load and the risk of unintended coverage loss and increased uncompensated care. "That gets to the same goal... and gives the department the opportunity to get this right," Whitlock said.
Hilary Matlock of Idaho Voices for Children highlighted practical problems experienced during prior renewals—long call-center waits and the complexity of paperwork—and asked the committee to move HB 913 to amending order so members could change the look-back. A substitute motion to refer the bill for amendment failed, and the committee sent the bill to the floor with its original three-month language intact.
