Work Requirements Failed Once, and They’ll Fail Again

Work Requirements Failed Once, and They’ll Fail Again

Work Requirements Failed Once, and They’ll Fail Again

Requiring Medicaid recipients to find employment is a cruel solution to a nonexistent problem.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

There are plenty of rules that determine whether or not someone qualifies for Medicaid, the public health-insurance program available to low-income Americans, but having a job hasn’t been one of them. That’s about to change: The Trump administration has announced that it will grant state requests to add work requirements to their Medicaid programs, forcing recipients to look for or obtain employment in order to receive benefits.

Work requirements are a solution to a nonexistent problem. Nearly 80 percent of adults on Medicaid live in a family where someone is employed, and the majority work themselves. The Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid to more people didn’t make individuals any less likely to work.

Those without full-time jobs, meanwhile, have good reasons. One in five people who work part-time say they can’t find full-time work, while another 28 percent have school or family conflicts. Among those who don’t work at all, more than a third say it’s because they have a disability or illness that won’t let them. Another 30 percent are taking care of their families and homes, while 15 percent are in school and 9 percent are retired.

The supposed justification for forcing poor people to work in return for their health care is that, as Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator Seema Verma explained, it will “help people in achieving greater well-being and self-sufficiency.” In other words, it will push them into a job that they were previously too lazy to get.

But we’ve run this experiment before, and it drove hundreds of thousands into abject poverty.

In the 1990s, Congress overhauled the country’s cash-assistance welfare program, now known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, adding strict work requirements. Ever since, poor people can be thrown off the rolls if they fail to work or look for a job.

The idea then was similar to the one being peddled now: that this would prod people to enter the paid workforce, which would leave them better off. Instead, it has erected a cruel barrier. Those who stopped receiving assistance because of work requirements initially saw an increase in employment compared with those who weren’t subject to them. But five years later, they were employed at the same or even lower rates. In Maryland, for example, over a third had no job at all.

Having a job didn’t necessarily mean people’s prospects improved, either. Only about 22 to 40 percent of the people who were subject to work requirements had stable employment years later, and many of their incomes remained well below the poverty line.

This trend has continued. In 2011, Kansas began mandating that anyone who needs welfare either work or search for a job before receiving benefits, and started kicking entire families off the rolls for three months if anyone failed to meet the work requirements. A year out, less than half of those who were sanctioned for not meeting the new rules worked in any given quarter. Four years on, nearly all of these families were still living in poverty, with median incomes of just over $2,000 a year. A third had no earnings at all.

Overall, the share of people who don’t have a job and are unable to get cash assistance has grown. In 1996, the year welfare reform was signed into law, about one in eight poor single mothers fit into this category. By 2008, the share rose to one in five. These women subsist on a median family income of just $535 per year. Alongside this has been a sharp increase in extreme poverty, defined as families who survive on $2 or less per person a day, which rose 159 percent from 1996 to 2011, particularly among those impacted by welfare reform.

There’s scant evidence that work requirements have helped people find good, steady work. Instead, they threw people’s lives into chaos as they had to contend with low-wage jobs and a threadbare safety net to catch them if they couldn’t make ends meet.

Now we’ll get to see how work requirements function in Medicaid. If what’s past is prologue, millions of people are in danger of losing health insurance without gaining anything in return.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x