Why work requirements don't work

The recent proposal to increase work reporting requirements for people receiving SNAP food assistance under the Limit, Save, and Grow Act is redundant and harmful for several reasons:

*work requirements already exist for SNAP. According to the USDA, these “include registering for work, participating in SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) or workfare if assigned by your state SNAP agency, taking a suitable job if offered, and not voluntarily quitting a job or reducing your work hours below 30 a week without a good reason.” States also have the option to impose additional requirements on able-bodies adults without dependents aged 18-49, although evidence suggests that these have failed to increase workforce participation.

*the term “work requirements” in the context of changing eligibility programs such as SNAP and Medicaid is misleading. A more accurate term would be reporting requirements which involve more layers of paperwork, bureaucracy, and surveillance in exchange for often meager benefits. These reporting requirements impose burdens people receiving food assistance and the businesses, organizations, and/or agencies for which they work and simply result in few people receiving needed assistance.

*work reporting requirements don’t promote work. For example, the New York Times reported that when West Virginia piloted the program in counties with the most favorable labor market conditions, the state Department of Health and Human Resources found that “Our best data does not indicate that the program has had a significant impact on employment figures.” Rather, people lost food aid and local businesses lost out. Similarly, when Arkansas added similar reporting requirements for Medicaid, workforce participation didn’t increase—but the number of uninsured people did.

*work reporting requirements for food assistance hit the most vulnerable people hardest, including homeless people or those with unstable housing—a population that includes many veterans, domestic violence survivors, rural residents, people with disabilities, noncustodial adults supporting children, people in recovery from Substance Use Disorder, and others.

*the “Limit, Save, and Grow Act” would double down on vulnerable populations by imposing reporting requirements on older adults up to age 55. According to AARP, over 9.5 million Americans over age 50 rely on SNAP, a group that faces age discrimination in hiring and employment practices.

*SNAP benefits help local businesses and economies—and loss of benefits costs both. The Food Research and Action Council reports that each dollar in federal SNAP benefits generates $1.79 in economic activity.

*reducing SNAP benefits for millions of Americans would only place greater demands on already stretched food pantries, soup kitchens, and charities which are often staffed by volunteers and seniors.

All of which is to say this is not cool.

Some REALLY good news

 For those who are dreading what promises to be a metaphorical legislative bloodbath in West Virginia, here's some good news for the state and nation.

First a little background. A major provision of the 2010 Affordable Care Act was expanding Medicaid eligibility to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. Originally, that was supposed to be applied across the board, but the US Supreme Court made it a state option when it ruled the ACA to be constitutional in 2012.

By now, 39 states, including DC, have extended the coverage, which is life saving and game changing in so many ways, from supporting jobs to opening the door to recovery. You can probably guess many of the states that haven't expanded it if you think of the Civil War. Thank God West Virginia isn't on that evil list.

When Trump became president, a major goal was total repeal of the ACA. It was scary for a long while, but eventually that idea went the way of the whole Mexico-paying-for-the-wall thing. However, his administration did encourage states to apply for waivers that would require people in the expansion population to meet so-called "work requirements." 

These didn't promote work but rather paperwork, reporting and surveillance on a population that mostly consisted of people already working. These would have resulted a huge portion of people in the program being cut off for no good reason. Some states applied, but their waiver plans were blocked by the courts.

In West Virginia, we've worked with allies to fight off at least two serious efforts to seek Medicaid waivers and until today were expecting more, which brings us to the good news part of the program. According to an article in today's Washington Post, 

The Biden administration is planning Friday to wipe out one of the core health policies of the Trump era, taking actions that will immediately rescind permission for states to compel poor residents to work in exchange for receiving Medicaid benefits.

Federal health officials will withdraw their predecessors’ invitation to states to apply for approval to impose such work requirements and will notify 10 states granted permission that it is about to be retracted, according to a draft plan obtained by The Washington Post and confirmed by two individuals familiar with the decision, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

So it looks like that's one less thing to worry about. I'll take it.