Host: Equip for Equality
Wednesday, March 22, 2017 –
Lisa Palumbo and Audra Passinault from LAF will be our featured speakers to discuss the intersection between immigration and disability. Specifically, they will address the recent Executive Orders and Implementation Memoranda of the current administration and how these policies may affect persons with disabilities. Given the heightened focus on immigration issues recently, this should be a very timely and useful presentation. The meeting will be at Equip for Equality (20 N. Michigan, Suite 300) from 9:30-11:00. The session will be eligible for 1.5 hours of Continuing Legal Education Credit. A captioner will be at the meeting. If you need an additional accommodation to participate, contact Barry Taylor at firstname.lastname@example.org by 3/17. If you can’t attend in person, you can participate via teleconference by calling 800-910-8278 and entering code: 1940990.
Legal Director Jane Perkins, and Policy Analyst Ian McDonald detail why adding a work requirement to Medicaid is “legally suspect.” They explain that currently the Medicaid Act has four requirements that an individual must meet that do not include a mandatory work requirement. “A number of courts,” Perkins and McDonald write, “have recognized that states may not ‘add additional requirements for Medicaid eligibility’ that are not set forth in the Medicaid Act.” They also note that the purpose of Medicaid is to “furnish medical assistance to low-income individuals who cannot afford the costs of medically necessary services and to furnish ‘rehabilitation and other services to help [such individuals] attain or retain capability for independence or self-care. A mandatory work requirement is not medical assistance; it is not a service provided to Medicaid beneficiaries.”
Executive SummaryIn an effort to win conservative members’ support for the Affordable Care Care Act repeal bill, House Republicans have added a work requirement for Medicaid to the measure. In this issue brief, NHeLP Managing Attorney of the DC office Mara Youdelman, Legal Director Jane Perkins, and Policy Analyst Ian McDonald detail why such work requirements “run counter to the purpose of Medicaid.” They conclude, “Work requirements would stand Medicaid’s purpose on its head by creating barriers to coverage and the pathway to health that the coverage represents.”DOWNLOAD PUBLICATION
|Funding Oppportunity Title:||Refugee Health Promotion|
|Funding Opportunity Number:||HHS-2017-ACF-ORR-RX-1222|
|Program Office:||Office of Refugee Resettlement|
|Funding Instrument Type:||Grant|
|Application Due Date:||05/15/2017|
|The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) invites States to submit applications for Refugee Health Promotion (RHP) discretionary grant funds. The purpose of the RHP grant is to support health and emotional wellness among refugees. The program is designed to coordinate and promote local health and mental health services and education. The funding should enhance access to health care services. The RHP grant is intended to encourage partnerships with community-based organizations and complement existing care coordination and medical assistance programs such as Medicaid and Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA), which includes Refugee Medical Screening (RMS), and other ORR-funded social service programs, including Preferred Communities.|
Following the CBO score that found the House Republicans’ so-called “American Health Care Act” would cause 24 million people to lose health care coverage, NHeLP managing attorneys examine the bill’s “draconian changes” planned for Medicaid. Managing Attorney of the DC Office Mara Youdelman and Managing Attorney of the LA office Kim Lewis conclude that cutting $880 billion in federal funding and 14 million individuals off Medicaid “creates significant financial hardship for states and is devastating for low-income people everywhere. No one can afford these changes.”
With all Eyes on AHCA, House Advances 3 Bills that Could Reduce Benefits, Raise Costs for People in Employer-Based Coverage – Center on Health Insurance Reforms
With all Eyes on AHCA, House Advances 3 Bills that Could Reduce Benefits, Raise Costs for People in Employer-Based Coverage
The week of March 6 was a busy one in the world of health care policy. On the Hill, legislation partially repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and restructuring Medicaid was passed by two key House committees (H.R. the “American Health Care Act” or AHCA). At the Department of Health & Human Services, officials began reviewing almost 4,000 comments on the proposed ACA market stabilization rule that were received by the March 7th deadline.
Receiving far less attention was action in the House Education & Workforce Committee to advance three bills that could, if enacted, have far-reaching repercussions for people with employer-based health insurance.
Three bills that could undermine the security of employer-based coverage
President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have committed to repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). How do their replacement proposals compare to the ACA? How do they compare to each other?Plans available for comparison:The American Health Care Act as introduced by the House Republican leadership, March 6, 2017 (PDF)The Affordable Care Act, 2010 (PDF)More plans for comparison:Rep. Tom Price’s Empowering Patients First Act, 2015 (PDF)House Speaker Paul Ryan’s A Better Way: Our Vision for a More Confident America, 2016 (PDF)Sen. Bill Cassidy’s Patient Freedom Act, 2017 (PDF)Sen. Rand Paul’s Obamacare Replacement Act, 2017 (PDF)House Discussion Draft, February 10, 2017 (PDF)Click the column header to view available plans to compare. You may compare up to 3 plans.
YOU MANY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN…
- MAP: Estimates of Enrollment in the ACA Marketplace and Medicaid Expansion
- OP-ED: Repeal of Obamacare Could Cause the ‘Death Spiral’ Critics Warned About
- BRIEF: Pre-existing Conditions and Medical Underwriting in the Individual Insurance Market Prior to the ACA
This SUNspot addresses the following question related to ownership of wireless devices by adults with disabilities: Do people with disabilities own wireless devices (regular phones, smartphones and tablets) at the same rates as the general population?
Comparison of the results from the SUN and the Pew Research Center show that people with disabilities own cellphones at a high rate (83%), but still substantially lower than the general population (92%). Drilling down to examine the rates of ownership of specific types of mobile wireless devices shows that people with disabilities own smart devices (smartphones and tablets) at slightly higher rates than the general population. People with disabilities own basic cellphones at much lower rates than the general population.