A friend from Minnesota asks if I have heard of the "old" Medicaid rules on child support assignment being applied to "new" Medicaid ACA-expanded beneficiaties. I
This, of course, is another dimension of the previous post. New Medicaid beneficiaries may have had no reason before to be attentive to the fact that Minnesota's Medicaid program has long dovetailed with Minnesota child support/medical support law to require a parent or caretaker applying for coverage to "cooperate" in establishing paternity and obtaining medical support (children are not punished for the non-cooperation of the parent under these circumstances or if a "good cause" waiver is granted establishing cooperation would be against the best interests of the child). Now they do. And they seem to be demanding clarification of what "cooperation" means exactly under these circumstances.
Does this mean Medicaid's more draconian aspects will finally see the light of day in public debate? Will the inclusion of working poor people create a constituency for a Medicaid program that does not dovetail with child support/medical support frameworks -- like that found in Minnesota -- apparently premised on the idea that Medicaid beneficiaries are getting something for nothing and payback is our mission? What is it that we want Medicaid to be now that we have made it the insurer of last resort in expansion states?