Insights

Medicaid covers nearly 80 million people nationally, with an estimated 20 million covered through the Medicaid expansion. As state legislatures pass work requirement laws, governors consider executive actions, and Congress contemplates a nationwide mandate, vetting key implementation issues can significantly impact the direction of related policies.

It is difficult to generate accurate projections given the lack of specificity in the current legislation and state implementation variables. According to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, approximately 5 million people with coverage because of the Medicaid expansion would lose their coverage as a result of not meeting community engagement requirements. The legislation passed by the House on May 22^nd establishes a deadline of December 31, 2026 for implementation, but individual states could move earlier.  Even before implementation, states must test operations, enable systems, and establish connections to beneficiaries to reduce potential implementation missteps, inappropriate disenrollments, and litigation risks.

If the goal of Medicaid work requirement policies is to stimulate connections between health benefits and employment/workforce, building state and federal capacities to support these approaches is critical to effectuating that change. This blog focuses on introducing operational dynamics that need to be discussed, tested, and built.

Legislative and Other Context

In the language that House advanced, all states would be obliged to implement work and community engagement requirements for adults without dependents for at least 80 hours per month.[1] Employment, work programs, education, or community service (or a combination of those activities) would satisfy the requirement. There were also provisions which enabled states to implement more frequent eligibility checks and compliance requirements as well as co-pays for certain services. Though the federal authorization has received a great deal of attention, at least 14 states have moved forward (see Table 1) in advance of the current federal debate by passing laws and submitting work requirement demonstration requests to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

Table 1. A Review of 2025 States’ Approaches to Work Requirements in Medicaid

Status	State	Population Criteria	Requirements	Exemptions/ Notes	Public Comment
Work Requirement Request Submitted	Arizona	Ages 19−55	80 hours/month	Multiple exemptions; 5-year lifetime limit	Closed
Work Requirement Request Submitted	Arkansas	Ages 19−64; covered by a qualified health plan (QHP)	Data matching to assess whether on track/not on track	No exemptions	Closed
Work Requirement Amendment Request Submitted	Georgia	Ages 19−64; 0-100% FPL	80 hours/month	Already has approval but is requesting reporting be changed from monthly to annually and adding more qualifying activities	Federal comment period open through June 1, 2025
Work Requirement Request Submitted	Ohio	Ages 19−54; expansion adults	Unspecified hours	Limited list of exemptions	Closed
Legislation Passed	Idaho	Ages 19−64	20 hours/week required	Limited list of exemptions	—
Legislation Passed	Indiana	Ages 19−64; expansion adults	20 hours/week required	Limited list of exemptions	—
Legislation Passed	Montana	Ages 19−55	80 hours/month required	Multiple exemptions	—
Ballot Initiative Passed	South Dakota	Expansion adults	—	2024 ballot initiative asking voters for approval for state to impose work requirements for expansion adults passed	—
Legislation Pending	North Carolina	—	—	Pursue requirements that are CMS approvable	—
Work Requirement Request Draft	Iowa	Ages 19−64; expansion adults	100 hours/month required	Limited list of exemptions Separate bill would end expansion if work requirements are withdrawn/ prohibited (80 hr./mo.)	Closed
Work Requirement Request Draft	Kentucky	Ages 19−60; no dependents; enrolled more than 12 months	Connected to employment resources	Multiple exemptions	State comment period open through June 12, 2025
Work Requirement Request Draft	South Carolina	Ages 19−64; 67%−100% FPL	Specified activities (work specific is 80 hours/month)	Limiting participation to 11,400 individuals based upon available state funding	State comment period open through May 31, 2025
Work Requirement Request Draft	Utah	Expansion adults ages 19−59	Register for work, complete an employment training assessment and assigned job training, and apply to jobs with at least 48 employers within 3 months of enrollment	Several exemptions, largely aligned with federal SNAP exemptions	State comment period open through May 22, 2025
Anticipated Waiver Request	Alabama	Non-expansion population	—	Potential to resubmit previous work requirement demonstration request	—

Key Questions Regarding State Policy Options

Considerable research and findings put policymakers in a better position to be prepared to act on a new law since previous attempts and implementing similar policies exposed fundamental problems. Some previous findings include the high cost of administration relative to potential savings, the importance of systems that support foundational items like logging an enrollee’s compliance activities and exemptions, as well as developing an efficient appeals process. The Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, General Accounting Office, National Institutes for Health, and multiple researchers have published assessments regarding previous experiences that could improve policymaking.

Below we discuss critical issues and considerations including:

1. Exemptions, particularly medical frailty definitions and assessments
2. Developing and streamlining systems and process to promote continued coverage for eligible individuals
3. Clinical and utilization data that promotes eligibility assessment
4. Managed Care engagement in Work Requirements/Community Engagement initiatives
5. Measuring impact and adapting policies where needed

1. Which populations are exempt from work requirements?

The requirements in the current legislation would apply only to individuals between the ages of 19 and 64 without dependents, and the following groups are exempted: women who are pregnant or entitled to postpartum medical assistance, members of Tribes, individuals who are medically frail (i.e., people who are blind, disabled, with chronic substance use disorder, serious or complex medical conditions, or others as approved by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), parents or caregivers to a dependent child or individuals with a disability, veterans, people who are participating in a drug or alcoholic treatment and rehabilitation program, or individuals who are incarcerated or have been released from incarceration in the past 90 days. Additionally, individuals who already meet work requirements through other programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), would be exempt. However, according to the House-passed version, the eligibility verification and work requirements for SNAP have been made more stringent and program costs are being shifted to states, which affects cross-functional eligibility. Lastly, the legislation includes temporary hardship waivers for natural disasters and areas with an unemployment rate greater than 8 percent or 150 percent of the national average.

The federal government and/or states will identify individuals classified as “medically frail” and make them exempt them from the mandates. This includes those with chronic, serious, or complex medical conditions. Various methods may be employed to identify these individuals, such as analyzing historical medical and pharmacy data to categorize complex conditions, using proprietary algorithms to stratify individuals with multiple comorbidities, and enabling physicians to evaluate enrollees without relying on a claims history.

2. Which systems best align to build from and support coverage?

The Medicaid unwinding from the COVID Public Health Emergency taught lessons about the complexities of Medicaid systems (e.g., assessing cases to ensure eligible children retain coverage if a parent is removed), patient engagement, and reliable methods of member outreach (e.g., email, text, and member portals rather than paper communication). Call abandonment rates, call center wait times, and application processing times surfaced as practical measures of performance (or lack thereof) during the Medicaid unwinding. Multiple informal sources point to poor mailing address or “return to sender” as being anywhere between 15 and 50 percent, bringing tangibility to an implementation baseline. TANF and SNAP programs have work requirement provisions. While those programs are regulated and administered by multiple federal and state agencies, the platforms that support those provisions and the potential for integration are critical vehicles to explore. 

State Workforce Commissions and Departments of Labor are clear partners, as they manage integrated eligibility systems and data-sharing agreements across programs like SNAP and TANF, which also serve many Medicaid participants. These and other partnerships will need to be explored to address engagement challenges for many populations, including individuals facing housing instability, which disrupts communication, engagement, and compliance tracking.[2] It is essential that states develop targeted outreach and education strategies to support awareness of participation requirements and ways for individuals to meaningfully engage.

3. Do we have a sense of the healthcare needs/chronic conditions among the Medicaid enrollees that will be affected by work requirements?

Many individuals with chronic diseases may be exempt from the requirements, but not all of them. To that end, insights regarding pharmacy claims may be a useful lens through which we can ascertain an understanding of the potential impact on utilization trends. Notably, the Medicaid expansion population still has significant healthcare utilization rates for services related to behavioral health and for chronic health conditions like hypertension and diabetes. In fact, a recent Health Management Associates (HMA), analysis of CMS data indicated that the top pharmaceuticals spending classes for the Medicaid expansion population were hypoglycemics ($7.6 billion), antivirals ($5.5 billion), and anti-inflammatories ($3.3 billion). The drugs are used to treat autoimmune conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis. Knowing the health status and chronic conditions of the populations affected and which conditions qualify for exemption are variables as implementation issues like the definition of medically frail are addressed.

4. What does this mean for managed care organizations?

Approximately 80 percent of Medicaid expansion beneficiaries are enrolled in comprehensive managed care organizations (MCOs). States will need to review the scope of existing vendor contracts as well as determine the need for new services, roles, third-party reporting, oversight, and potential exemptions for emergencies. Work requirements can disrupt MCO risk pool stability and care coordination because of administrative burdens and disruptive, less predictable enrollment cycles. That said, MCOs not only have a financial incentive to drive down inappropriate disenrollments, but are also uniquely positioned to support state responsibilities, including maintenance of up-to-date contact information. The delineation of roles and clarification of contracts and responsibilities  among states, MCOs, TPAs, and other specialty organizations supporting work requirements will be a critical early-stage framing point for a functional infrastructure.

Many states have sought to support more seamlessness among insurers, with a goal of having the same insurers provide coverage to people as they transition through Medicaid, Marketplace, and employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) as their employment status changes over time. States like Nevada, Rhode Island, and New Mexico require Medicaid MCOs to participate in the Marketplace. Additionally, states like North Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia not only require MCO participation in the Marketplace, but also enable MCOs to co-market Medicaid and Marketplace products for individuals who lose their Medicaid eligibility.

As Figure 1 indicates, Marketplace enrollment in non-expansion states has received considerable traction in recent years and has outpaced expansion states with respect to member growth in the past five years. Marketplaces have undeniably carved out large roles in the health coverage infrastructure in non-expansion states—a point that was less clear just a few years ago. Though, multiple factors affect those Marketplace growth rates, including congressional decisions regarding the continuation and funding of the enhanced premium tax credit program. In the current legislation, these credits expire, which the CBO estimates will lead to an additional coverage loss of nearly 5 million by 2034.

5. Can states measure and be nimble with policies as the impacts are determined?

Federal and state regulations that identify contextualized and dynamic metrics that provide actionable information to federal and state policy makers will support effective oversight and monitoring. States starting with listening sessions in the near term can help identify goals and metrics. The focus of such efforts could include actively monitoring potential changes and cost shifts for the uninsured population to non-public payers and providers.

The Medicaid unwinding also demonstrated that the story was far less of a red/blue story than a series of complex tasks that required many administrative resources, provider and community partnerships, and enrollee outreach to create a path that would limit unnecessary disruptions and expenses. CMS guidance for goals and evaluations as well as state inputs will need to emerge prior to implementation so policymakers can be well-equipped to be nimble and dynamic with policy changes as well as understanding the short-term and longitudinal effects of this fundamental shift.

---

[1] U.S. Congress. House. One Big Beautiful Bill Act. H.R.1. 119th Cong., 1st sess. Introduced May 20, 2025.

[2] Soni A, Blackburn J. Health Characteristics of Adults Unable to Complete Medicaid Renewal During the Unwinding Period. JAMA Health Forum. 2025;6(3):e250092. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.0092

This week, our In Focus section examines new federal policy developments affecting Medicaid Section 1115 demonstrations. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), on March 4, 2025, rescinded two guidance letters issued by the prior Presidential Administration that defined and provided the framework for state Medicaid programs to cover health-related social needs (HRSNs) using Section 1115 authority.

Though specific Medicaid priorities under the Trump Administration are nascent, Health Management Associates’ federal and state experts are monitoring these developments. This article describes the withdrawn policy, known implications for states with approved and pending proposals, and the imperative to plan for a variety of scenarios and future opportunities.

Background on HRSN Initiative in Section 1115 Demonstrations

CMS-approved Section 1115 demonstrations allow states to pilot alternative methods to improve the accessibility, coverage, financing, and delivery of healthcare services under joint federal-state funded programs, specifically Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Addressing health disparities and promoting integrated care in Medicaid became a key focus of the Biden Administration. In November 2023, CMS introduced a Medicaid and CHIP Health-Related Social Needs Framework, giving state Medicaid agencies the opportunity to address the broader social determinants of health (SDOH) that affect their enrollees, leading to better health outcomes. The agency published an update to the guidance in December 2024. The new initiatives were not intended to replace other federal, state, and local social service programs, but rather to coordinate with those efforts.

Key Takeaways for States

The following critical components of the March 2025 announcement and the present policy landscape should inform state Medicaid agency and stakeholder response and future planning work.

First, this guidance does not affect states with a current, active Section 1115 demonstration, state plan, or 1915 waiver programs that include HRSN. States with HRSN demonstrations will maintain their approved programs; however, states and their partners should prepare for shifts in federal reporting, oversight, and evaluation expectations. Separately, states may wish to re-evaluate their resource allocation and consider adjustments that may be needed to better align with a new federal policy environment.

States seeking any amendment or extension of their demonstration program—even if unrelated to HRSN—should expect this activity to trigger a CMS review of the HRSN component of the 1115. States will need to consider the strategic advantages and necessity of such requests relative to the implications to their HRSN initiative. They also should consider planning for nonrenewal of their HRSN programs in advance of the demonstration’s current expiration date.

Pending state HRSN Section 1115 demonstration proposals are not expected to be approved. The Section 1115 option for federal matching funds to provide up to six months of housing supports, nutrition supports, and associated infrastructure capacity funding no longer aligns with the Trump Administration’s objectives for Medicaid and CHIP. Stakeholders interested in these concepts should consider alternative strategies and investment options.

What to Watch

Notably, CMS did not rescind the 2021 State Health Official Letter RE: Opportunities in Medicaid and CHIP to Address Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) (SHO# 21-001) published during the first Trump Administration. States and their partners should monitor CMS’s actions and signals for the agency’s posture toward SDOH proposals.

A new group of states proposing alternative and revised demonstration concepts and innovations is likely to emerge. These states may provide early signals of the nature and breadth of the Section 1115 demonstrations CMS is willing to consider. With regard to SDOH, states and their partners should consider aligning proposals with the approaches outlined in the 2021 guidance for regular federal program authorities (e.g., 1915(i) state plan options, 1915(c) waiver options) as well as certain managed care authorities.

In addition, states and Medicaid stakeholders should watch for other Medicaid and CHIP policy priorities advanced through demonstration and other authorities, including efforts to address substance use disorders (SUD) and reentry initiatives that focus on supporting individuals who are transitioning from incarceration back into society. SUD and reentry initiatives can intersect with Section 1115 demonstrations and other authorities, such as managed care, in a variety of ways. The intersection of these issues can provide another area of common ground and opportunity to continue work on state reentry initiatives, though likely with new and modified federal parameters.

Connect With Us

HMA is monitoring other developments in Congress and from the White House and agencies affecting federal Medicaid and CHIP policy changes. The complexity and nuances associated with potential future statutory and regulatory changes necessitate thoughtful and immediate impact analysis, scenario planning, and preparations that will allow organizations to pivot if and when policy changes occur. HMA colleagues have expertise in all of the components critical to staying informed, engaged, and prepared for changes to Section 1115 programs—from the policy knowledge to actuarial/budgeting talent, to communications and project management skills, as well as the necessary IT infrastructure.

For questions about these developments and your organization’s plan to adapt to new federal Medicaid policy priorities, contact our featured experts below. 

This week, our In Focus section reviews priorities outlined in recent State of the State addresses, building on an earlier article: A Closer Look at Gubernatorial Healthcare Priorities: 2025 State of the State Address Overview. We examine specific proposals from the governors of Illinois, Indiana, New Mexico, and South Carolina, as detailed in the Health Management Associates Information Services (HMAIS) report, 2025 State of the States Overview. These states offer examples of the trending policy changes and investments governors intend to make, providing valuable insights into the evolving healthcare landscape.

Key Trends in Governors’ Budgets

State of the State addresses provide insights into governors’ priorities, reflecting state budgets, multiyear initiatives, and changes in federal policies and funding. These priorities signal strategic shifts healthcare stakeholders must navigate to remain aligned with the evolving state and federal policy landscapes. Common themes that Health Management Associates (HMA) is tracking this year include healthcare affordability, Medicaid work requirements, workforce shortages, and enhanced oversight of healthcare entities.

Highlights by State

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker delivered a 2025 State of the State Address on February 19, 2025, during which he presented his executive budget proposal for fiscal year (FY) 2026 and discussed strengthening oversight of healthcare entities like pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and health insurers. Governor Pritzker introduced the Prescription Drug Affordability Act, which seeks to further regulate PBMs, reduce drug costs, and protect independent pharmacists. More specifically, it would give the state Department of Insurance full statutory authority to examine PBM records and require these organizations to comply with annual auditing and reporting requirements. The governor also called for a ban on prior authorization for behavioral healthcare and proposed requiring insurance companies to reimburse patients for reasonable travel costs for medical appointments when the distance they must travel exceeds network adequacy requirements.

Pritzker’s budget allocations include:

• $191.8 million to support the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) Medicaid Demonstration Program
• $27.9 million to maintain the state’s maternal and child home health programs
• $27.7 million to support nonhospital facilities that provide psychiatric care to people younger than 21 years old
• $132 million for Medicaid-like coverage for undocumented adults ages 65 and older
• A shift in funding from the state’s Exchange to a State-Based Marketplace, which would end use of the federal platform

In addition, the budget plan eliminates funding for Medicaid-like coverage for undocumented adults ages 42−64, which cost approximately $420 million in one year.

Indiana Gov. Mike Braun delivered his address on January 29, 2025, during which he discussed his support for state legislation that would address healthcare costs. Governor Braun urged the legislature to pass multiple bills, including:

• House Bill (HB) 1003: Specifies that the state’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MCFU) may investigate provider fraud, insurer fraud, and duplicate billing and would require more healthcare price transparency, stop anticompetitive practices that drive up prices, and put an end to surprise billing
• Senate Bill (SB) 3: Would mandate that third party administrators, PBMs, employee benefit consultants, and insurance providers acting on behalf of plan sponsors have a fiduciary duty to the plan sponsors
• HB 1004: Would bolster oversight of nonprofit hospital financials

The governor also encouraged the legislature to support efforts focused on PBM reforms.

Governor Braun’s proposed budget for the 2025−27 biennium recommends a general fund appropriation of more than $5 billion in FY 2025−26 and $5.3 billion in FY 2026−27 for the state Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning. Moreover, the state is still managing the effects of a nearly $1 billion shortfall it identified in the Medicaid budget in FY 2024. The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration predicts total Medicaid expenditures will reach nearly $21 billion in FY 2025, up 6.4 percent from $19 billion in 2024 and will likely increase by at least another $1 billion in both 2026 and 2027.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham delivered her 2025 State of the State Address on January 21, 2025, wherein she discussed the new state Health Care Authority (HCA), which launched in July 2024. According to Governor Grisham, the HCA has helped the state to increase Medicaid provider rates, create a Health Care Affordability Fund, and expand the Health Care Professional Loan Repayment Program. To continue with HCA’s work, the governor announced that in March 2025, the state will be sending more than $1 billion to New Mexico hospitals through the Medicaid provider tax. She also recommended that the state legislature approve $50 million in additional funding for the Rural Health Care Delivery Fund, which supports getting new and expanded primary, behavioral, maternal and child, and specialty healthcare services into rural areas.

In her proposed FY 2026 budget, the governor recommends:

• $13 million in recurring funds to increase reimbursement rates up to 150 percent of Medicare rates
• $5.3 million for the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE)
• $2.5 million for increased assisted living facility rates
• $2.9 million to increase behavioral health rates for non-Medicare equivalents
• $30 million annually over three years to expand Medicaid services, including medical respite for people who are homeless, food support for certain individuals who pregnant, infrastructure to provide medical services to people who are justice-involved, and infrastructure to provide housing and food supports.

In addition, the budget recommends a $100 million special appropriation to address behavioral health needs, which will fund the 988 program, an investment to secure a federal match for the CCBHC Initiative, more drug and alcohol treatment services at the New Mexico Behavioral Health Institute, and medical and behavioral health providers at the Corrections Department.

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster delivered his 2025 State of the State Address on January 29, 2025, in which he discussed the state’s siloed health and human services delivery system, which he said creates a difficult landscape to navigate for people with physical disabilities, special needs, and mental health issues. Governor McMaster said the state must make immediate changes to the Department of Mental Health and Department of Disabilities and Special Needs and proposed making the boards of commissioners that run the departments directly accountable to the governor.

The governor’s proposed FY 2025−26 budget highlighted his priority of reimplementing Medicaid work requirements through a Section 1115 demonstration waiver, which the state previously had in place during President Donald Trump’s first administration. Governor McMaster has already requested an expedited approval of the demonstration, which would expand Medicaid eligibility to 100 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) for parents who are working or going to school. Under South Carolina’s existing eligibility rules, parents no longer qualify for Medicaid if they earn more than 67 percent of the FPL. The work and school requirements would only apply to parents with incomes of between 67 percent and 100 percent of the FPL.

The budget also recommends approximately $79 million in recurring funds to support the state’s Medicaid program. Those funds would be allocated as follows:

• $5.7 million toward increasing behavioral health provider payment rates
• $5.4 million toward increasing opioid use disorder provider reimbursement rates
• $10 million toward reducing waiting lists for home and community-based services
• $2.4 million toward intensive partial hospitalization and outpatient behavioral health programs

In addition, the budget recommends funding for the Department of Public Health and $1.6 million in nonrecurring funds and $625,000 in recurring funds for the Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies program and its mobile maternity care vehicle.

Connect With Us

HMAIS has prepared a comprehensive report summarizing each State of the State address and governors’ proposed budgets, which is available to HMAIS subscribers. It also comprises a section highlighting trends in the issues covered in each speech, including maternal health, substance use disorder, Medicaid work requirements, prescription drug prices, and provider rates.

HMA supports healthcare stakeholders in responding to these developments, offering strategic guidance and expertise to help navigate the evolving policy landscape and align with the shifting priorities outlined in these addresses. Contact one of our experts below for more information about the report or to connect with one of HMA’s state policy and market experts.