Maura Corrigan Is A Brilliant And Refined Liar

Maura Corrigan Is A Brilliant And Refined Liar


This is my comment on the recent audit of Michigan's federal child welfare services Title IV-E reviews.  I thought it best to post it here just in case the moderator takes it down.

Corrigan proud of false claims

The judicial branch has not supported DHS in the appeal, it actually participated in filing of federal false claims and has been doing so for years. The attorney general contemporaneously advise and advocates in theserevenue-maximization fraud schemes.

The Medicaid Fraud Control Unit in the Office of Attorney General does absolutely nothing except expend great amounts of defending its pattern of covering up Medicaid and other forms of health care fraud and antitrust representing the Superintendent of Michigan Children’s Institute, Bill Johnson,who represents the State of Michigan without appointment or election, with no oath of office on file with the Secretary of State, and possesses the power to overrule a decision of another state by denying ICPC interstate adoptions.

It is quite difficult for the Attorney General to prosecute itself for filing false claims.

The following string of excerpts from federal and Michigan audits and evaluations is a working example of Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare:

“Michigan staff, both at the Central Office and county level, did an excellent job of preparing for the review. Records were extremely well organized with necessary documentation of eligibility requirement readily located. The State provided a “reviewer friendly” environment for the review to take place. Of note was the willingness and untiring efforts made by the Program Office in leading this effort. DHS licensing and field staff, in partnership with personnel from the SCAO and the Wayne County Department of Children and Family Services, were most efficient in obtaining additional information or acting as resources during the onsite review. Additionally, DHS’ fiscal unit is recognized for the thorough and updated payment histories.

Michigan staff actively and enthusiastically participated in reviewing the cases.
(That’s because they successfully covered up the Medicaid Fraud.)

Exemplary is the collaborative relationship between DHS and the State Court. This was evident not only in the presence of either the current or former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court at the entrance or exit conference, but also in the excellent quality of court orders observed during the review. In particular, the involvement of SCAO is noted for conveying title IV-E requirements to the court, instituting revisions to court orders and garnering greater consistency in the use of those revisions among the county courts. The ongoing collaboration between DHS and SCAO is a strong mechanism to foster an understanding of the need for and timely occurrence of appropriate and meaningful judicial determinations for children within both the child welfare and legal communities.”

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Michigan Title IV-E Foster Care, Secondary Eligibility Review, April 1, 2006 through September 30, 2006, Conducted the week of March 26 through 29, 2007

“The state averted the loss of nearly $40 million in child welfare funding, thanks in part to the work of judicial branch staff.”

Clifford W. Taylor, Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice, Annual Report 2007

“If DHS did not improve, it faced a possible penalty of $22 million”…. “The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services conducted the second eligibility review of DHS’s case files for foster care maintenance payments issued between April 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006. Prior to the review, DHS conducted an extensive case file review to identify cases that did not meet Foster care: Title IV-E Program eligibility requirements. For cases that DHS determined did not meet the Foster Care: Title IV-E Program eligibility requirements, DHS changed the funding source on the cases to a funding source other than Foster Care: Title IV-E Program before April 1, 2006… As a result, those cases were not in the population reviewed during the federal review…The federal review concluded that DHS was in substantial compliance with federal eligibility requirements for the period April 1, 2006 through September 30, 2006.

We issued a qualified opinion on the Foster Care: Title IV-E Program. Our conclusion is different from the federal review because our sample included cases from the entire audit period.

Michigan Auditor General, 2007

During the (Michigan) onsite review, (federal) reviewers determined that criminal background checks were in evidence for all foster home files that were examined. In instances where children were placed in child caring institutions, reviewers determined that law enforcement checks had been done on administrators. Particularly noteworthy is Michigan’s practice of screening all licensed foster homes against its child abuse register on a weekly basis.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Michigan Title IV-E Foster Care, Secondary Eligibility Review, April 1, 2006 through September 30, 2006, Conducted the week of March 26 through 29, 2007

DHS had not developed a formal policy that defined when and for what service types criminal background checks and educational qualifications should be required as a part of a human service contract (includes foster care).

Michigan Office of the Auditor General, Performance Audit of Human Service Contracting, Department of Human Services, April 2008, Report No.: 431-0110-05

Health care fraud is health care fraud. Pettibone got punked by Corrigan, the same way Madoff pulled the wool over the eyes of the FCC for decades, but you have to give Maura credit, when it comes to cover ups of federal false claims and racketeering in the child welfare system, the gal is damn good.

"Qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur!"

Beverly Tran
An Original Source

DHS prevails in federal audit appeal

News about former Justice Maura Corrigan, getting busy in her new role as Department of Human Services director:

Michigan Department of Human Services Director Maura Corrigan today announced that the DHS prevailed in a federal appeal and, as a result, passed a 2010 audit of its performance of the
federal IV-E program in Michigan. Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act covers federal
funding for Michigan’s foster care and adoption assistance programs.
In June 2010, the DHS underwent a federal review of the state’s program operation. The
weeklong review of 80 foster care cases determined whether DHS had correctly determined
eligibility for children under its care and custody. The state was allowed to have a 5 percent error
rate, or four cases.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families
notified Michigan last August that the state did not pass the review because it identified six error
cases. Two of the error cases resulted in a total disallowance of $67,264 in federal funds.
The Michigan attorney general, on behalf of DHS, appealed this finding to the federal Department
Appeals Board in November 2010. The federal board issued a decision Jan. 14 finding for the
DHS. It reversed the disallowance and ruled Michigan is operating the Title IV-E program in
accordance with federal regulations.
“The Department of the Attorney General provided DHS with excellent legal representation in our
appeal of the federal review findings,” Corrigan said. “Moreover, the entire team for DHS and the
State Court Administrators Office deserves our praise for their fine work in conducting the
preparation for the review.”
The federal IV-E program provided about $224.2 million in funds for the Michigan foster care and
adoption programs during fiscal year 2009, the most recent year for which records are available.
Because of the decision, Michigan will not be required to conduct a subsequent federal onsite
review until 2013. The 2010 review was Michigan’s third of the IV-E program since 2004.
Chief Justice Robert P. Young, Jr. of the Michigan Supreme Court commended both Corrigan
and the attorney general for their advocacy on behalf of Michigan’s children and on the proper
operation of the Title IV-E federal program.
“Former Justice Corrigan made the commitment to DHS several years ago that she would work to
assure courts operated in compliance with federal Title IV-E program regulations,” said Young.
“Her tireless commitment and advocacy resulted in outstanding news for Michigan with this
review. The Supreme Court will continue to work with former Justice Corrigan in her new role as
DHS director to continue the same high level of collaboration.”
Young also praised SCAO’s Child Welfare Services Division for its work on the audit and appeal:
“In particular, we should acknowledge CWS Management Analyst Jenifer Pettibone, who played
a leading role on this successful appeal,” Young said. “Pettibone’s work is a fine example of how
the judicial branch has supported DHS, not only in this appeal process, but also in child welfare
work in general.”

Conyers: Patients' Rights Repeal Act Would Add 54 Million People to the Rolls of the Uninsured

JAN 20, 2011 Issues: Health Care

Contact: Nicole Triplett (202) 226-5543

(Washington) – Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) spoke on the House floor staunchly opposing the Patients’ Rights Repeal Act that would eliminate the essential provisions of health care reform, the Affordable Care Act. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, if enacted, the repeal would increase the country’s deficit by $230 billion in the coming decade. Today, the Patient’s Rights Repeal Act was considered on the House floor for debate and will be considered for a vote tomorrow.

Ranking Member Conyers submitted the following statement in opposition of the Patients’ Rights Repeal Act. You can watch Mr. Conyers speak on the House floor here.

The issues here are simple. The health care bill that that Republicans attack today ensures that millions of Americans have access to essential medical care. It enables businesses to provide health care to their employees – which protects and creates the jobs we so desperately need. It protects Americans from notorious insurance company practices like denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions and children with birth defects. It stops insurance companies from dropping your coverage when you get sick.

And it takes critical first steps towards getting health care costs under control, cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the deficit. Everyone in America who gets health insurance through their work has seen premiums and co-pays skyrocket year after year. Those increases afflict our entire health care economy. Before we passed the Affordable Care Act, they threatened to engulf the entire federal budget. Those who would repeal this law are simply not serious about our debt.

Repealing this bill would undo all these profound public policy achievements. And towards what end? Repeal would add 54 million people to the rolls of the uninsured. Is that what the new majority wants as their first legislative act? Repeal would permit health insurers to resume discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions. Does the new majority want to tell women who have survived breast cancer or children with birth defects that they are not allowed to buy health care? Repeal would lead to millions of young people being dropped from their parents’ insurance coverage. In this economy, with work and the health insurance that comes with it so hard to find, does the new majority really want to kick these children off the insurance rolls? And finally, repeal would add more than $230 billion to the near term federal deficit. Is that what the new majority has in store for the American taxpayer?

The majority apparently feels that all these costs are acceptable, because they will “replace” the health care bill with something else. But that is simply not credible.

After all we went through to pass this bill, it obviously would be no simple thing to draft a replacement. So if the majority is serious about wanting to improve our health care system, at the least they should hold off on repealing the current law until their replacement actually exists. Voting now suggests the true motive here is the politics of health care, not the policy.

During the health care debate last year, we saw the Republican approach – and it simply does not improve our health care system. Indeed, in November of 2009, the Republicans put forward their own plan which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found would cover only 3 million people. That meant that for the 54 million people left without the ability to afford insurance, the Republican’s “No Care” plan provided exactly that – no care; no hope; no security. 

There may be no issue that comes before the Congress that more clearly demonstrates the different priorities of the parties. Based on today’s proceedings, it is clear that the new Republican majority stands for protecting insurance companies, exploding the national debt, and playing to the extremes of their base.

The Democratic minority, on the other hand, stands for affordable health care for all, holding insurance companies accountable, and responsibly addressing our long term financial challenges. I urge all members to vote against repeal of the landmark health care reform law.

The American Health Care System

Congressman John Conyers, Jr. explains the National Health Care Act, HR 676, providing health care for all.

The people who will really decide whether health-care reform succeeds or fails

By Ezra Klein

The New Yorker isn't allowing Atul Gawande's latest article out from behind the paywall, but you can read the abstract here. The basic point is well worth keeping in mind amid all the arguments over the Affordable Care Act: Health-care costs -- and thus our paychecks, and the federal budget -- won't be decided by how we deliver and structure health-care insurance. They'll be decided by how we deliver and structure health care. And though national policy has a role in that, it's not always a huge role, and it's not usually a controversial one.

Gawande relates a series of stories showing innovation in the toughest corners of the care-delivery system. The most inspiring is about Jeffrey Brenner, a Camden-based physician who began playing with his city's hospital claims data and making maps of where the money was being spent. It turned out that there were two city blocks, containing two particular buildings, where 900 people were responsible for "more than four thousand hospital visits and about two hundred million dollars in health-care bills" over the past seven years. So that's where he focused.

Insurers try to run from the costliest patients. They try to kick them out for having preexisting conditions, or they rescind their coverage, or they price coverage beyond their reach. That just makes them costlier, of course. Inconsistent access to medical care means more medical emergencies, and more medical emergencies mean higher medical costs. Brenner, by contrast, is lavishing them with attention. He's calling them daily. He's checking up on their medications, their lifestyles, their habits. He wants to open a doctor's office in their building. His patients averaged "sixty-two hospital and E.R. visits per month before joining the program and thirty-seven visits after — a forty-per-cent reduction. Their hospital bills averaged $1.2 million per month before and just over half a million after — a fifty-six-percent reduction."

We don't really know if his success can be replicated. But somebody'scan be. And that'll be where policy -- in particular, where Medicare -- comes in. The administration's vision sees things running something like this: A promising experiment or pilot program will come to the attention of the newly established Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. The center will fund it on a larger scale and study it more intensely if. If it proves promising, the Independent Payment Advisory Board will force Medicare to implement it fairly quickly. And history shows that if something works in Medicare -- and, quite often, even if it doesn't -- it's soon adopted by private insurers.

That's if all goes well, of course. And all may not go well. But it's important to keep in mind that we know who costs the system money: Sick people. And we know what costs the system money: Their health care, particularly when it involves catastrophic or chronic conditions. So from a cost and quality perspective, this is where health-care reform will live and die: In doctor's offices, in community health centers, in operating rooms and in people's homes.

Insurers can play a role here, as can Medicare. But for the next few years, cost control is going to be less about setting national policy than about setting up the experiments that allow us to test what national policy should be. The Affordable Care Act's contribution to this is money, a center dedicated to bringing these experiments up to scale and a reform process that makes it easier to seed them in Medicare. But for all that to work, the component pieces need to remain in place, and some of the experiments actually need to pan out.

Photo credit: By Pat Sullivan/Associated Press

Health Care: End the 'Perverse Incentives'

In most of the U.S., health care can be confusing, uncoordinated, and expensive. What if we were to emphasize cooperation, communication, and prevention?

Imagine you were a diabetic whose doctor developed a customized plan to help keep the condition in check. Imagine a team that monitored blood sugars remotely and called you periodically to see how you felt. Imagine your doctor knowing when you experience a diabetic episode, with an appointment automatically scheduled to address it that day. Imagine seeking more intense treatment at a hospital whose staff already knew your history and could discuss follow-up care with your doctor. Here's the best part: Imagine getting all this for less than you pay today.

Sound unbelievable? With health-care costs rising every day, consumers—and even providers—have reason to be skeptical that a utopian world of good care at a good price could ever exist. But this is the future promised in Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), a new model designed to reduce spending by improving health, eliminating inefficiencies, and preventing costly complications.

There are two premises underlying ACOs that make them unique and unlike past efforts to contain costs, including Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). First is the need to change the way we pay for health care. Today's health-care providers are paid by the number of office visits, tests ordered, and procedures performed, regardless of whether these services yield a better outcome. The system rewards volume: the more services consumed, the higher the payments. This approach has had disastrous effects, including runaway spending and insurance premium increases that reached an estimated 17.3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product in 2009, the largest one-year increase in history.

ACOs propose to fix this system of perverse incentives. Rather than paying for treatments when people get sick, caregivers in an ACO would be held accountable for keeping patients well. Their reward is a portion of the funds that are saved when people improve their health and require less care.

CHEAPER TO PREVENT THAN TO AMPUTATE

Diabetic care today costs insurers an average of about $30,000 a year, most of which goes toward treating expensive complications. An oft-cited example of today's absurdist approach to health care is that many insurers will not reimburse $150 for someone to get a routine foot checkup, but nearly all will pay $30,000 for a foot amputation, an all-too-common remedy in advanced cases of diabetes. In the ACO model, there would be a significant investment in the preventive care needed to avoid the expensive amputation, obviating the hospital visit. In such a scenario, average diabetic care costs could be reduced to $20,000. The ACO could keep a chunk of the $10,000 savings as a new form of reimbursement. Moreover, doctors who achieve such quality enhancements would be able to earn bonus pay for better care and reduced costs. The reward is no longer based on consumption, which HMOs tried to restrict. Instead the incentive is for doctors to make decisions to improve a condition, which benefits patients, insurers, employers, and doctors alike.

A second break with the past is the onset of the notion that we must overcome fragmentation in health care. In our current system, people are passed among doctors, specialists, clinics, hospitals, and others, often without coordination of care or discussion by providers. This frequently means that vital information is unavailable when a clinical decision needs to be made, leading to duplicate or conflicting treatments, waste, and unnecessary expense. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that up to 30 percent of all health-care dollars are wasted in unnecessary or duplicate care, with no corresponding benefits in outcome.

In contrast, when working as part of an integrated ACO, doctors, specialists, nurses, long-term care providers, and others are all part of a united team that provides seamless access to care, any time, anywhere. That sort of teamwork will ensure that clinicians have the information they need to provide effective treatments to improve health.

The Top Five Branches Of Health Law GOP Wants To Prune

by LEXIE VERDON, BARA VAIDA AND JORDAN RAU

text size A A A

January 24, 2011

The Republican effort to repeal the health care law is going nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate, but that doesn't mean that the GOP is backing down. House Republicans are already beginning work in committees to lop off and possibly replace some of the law's individual provisions.

Party leaders have released few specifics, but some of the changes that have been urged by Republicans and a few Democrats could affect Americans' health care spending and coverage under the law.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan was blunt about the strategy when addressing reporters last week: "If the tree is rotten, you cut it down." If that doesn't work, "we'll prune it branch by branch."

Here is a quick look at five "branches" of the health law "tree" Republicans are eyeing.

1. Reporting Business Payments on 1099 Forms

What the law says: Businesses that make payments of $600 in a year for goods or services to a single provider must file a 1099 form to the Internal Revenue Service identifying the company or person receiving the payment.

Purpose: The reporting requirement is expected to raise $19 billion over 10 years to help pay for the cost of expanded insurance coverage under the health law. It is intended to help increase taxpayers' compliance with income reporting rules.

Where it stands: This provision quickly raised concerns from business groups, which argue that the $600 trigger is too low and will create an administrative nightmare, especially for small businesses. That prompted bipartisan support to change or repeal the provision; the White Houseagreed that it should be amended.

Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have offered proposals, but none passed last year. The new GOP majority in the House is determined to take up the issue again and have made a bill repealing the reporting requirement a priority. Three Democratic senators have written Speaker John Boehner to urge quick passage of the bill.

2. Individual Mandate

What the law says: U.S. citizens and legal residents are required to have health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. A number of people are exempted from the mandate, including those for whom the coverage would cost more than 8 percent of their income, American Indians and those who have religious objections.

Purpose: The mandate is designed to discourage consumers from waiting to apply for coverage until they are sick and need costly treatments. Backers say that's important because insurers will be required to provide coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if the provision were struck from the law, fewer healthy people would purchase insurance and the result would be a 15 to 20 percent increase in premiums in the individual insurance market. It also predicted that the number of uninsured Americans would rise to 39 million from 23 million by 2019 if the mandate is repealed or overturned by courts.

Where it stands: Republicans argue it is unconstitutional to force individuals to purchase a product and about two dozen states are challenging the provision in court.

The issue is expected to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Even some Democrats who supported the law, such as Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, have backed away. Various groups are promoting alternatives like limiting insurance plan enrollment to specific times or imposing penalties on those who do not enroll when they first become eligible; or replacing the mandate with an incentive to buy health insurance, such as a tax credit.

3. Independent Payment Advisory Board

What's in the law: This 15-member board is tasked with curbing the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending. The board's recommendations will be automatically implemented in the 2015 fiscal year unless Congress comes up with its own solution.

Congress may also vote, by a supermajority, to reject the recommendations and send the bill to the president, who can sign or veto the measure. Both Congress and the board face statutory deadlines for action.

Purpose: Efforts by Congress to rein in Medicare spending have been met by repeated resistance from special interests, making it politically difficult for lawmakers to slow health care spending. The board is supposed to make the hard decisions on spending that Congress has been unable to implement.

Where it stands: Republicans see the board as another expansion of government over health care, and many House Democrats oppose an independent board exercising control over Medicare. Many powerful interests, including doctors, drug companies, hospitals and patients-rights groups have begun lobbying Congress to get rid of the provision. They say they're worried the cuts will be draconian, disrupting the health care system.

4. Health Care Flexible Spending Accounts

What's in the law: Starting this year, people who put money into pre-tax flexible spending accounts (FSAs) can no longer use those funds to buy over-the-counter medications or health care products without a prescription. Starting in 2013, the maximum contributions to those accounts will be capped at $2,500 a year.

Purpose: The change is intended to help the government pay for the broader health overhaul. Many economists also argue that FSAs encourage consumers to make needless purchases because they fear forfeiting their account balances at the end of the year.

Where it stands: Companies that administer these accounts are pressing Congress to rescind the restriction on over-the-counter medications and products. They also hope that if Congress won't raise the $2,500 annual limit, lawmakers will at least allow people to roll unspent money into the next year's account or have it returned to them as taxable income.

5. The CLASS Act

What's in the law: This insurance program would allow people to volunteer for a payroll deduction to help them finance long-term care in their own homes if they become disabled.

Purpose: The payments of at least $50 a day can be used for a variety of expenses, including paying for a home health aide or family member who provides care, household modifications, respite care, special transportation or technology needs or to help pay for assisted living expenses. There is no lifetime limit on benefits.

Where it stands: Conservatives argue that the program will quickly outpace its funding and become an entitlement that the country cannot afford. Some of these experts, including theHeritage Foundation, have urged Congress to repeal the provision before CLASS begins operation.

Last year, Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., introduced a bill requiring Congress to reconsider whether the program was self-sustaining but lawmakers did not act on it.

This story was produced through collaboration between NPR and Kaiser Health News (KHN), an editorially independent news service and a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy organization that isn't affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Fraud Prevention Efforts Recover $4 Billion

Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP Final Rules 2011

Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP Final Rules 2011

Final rules with opportunity for public comment only on fingerprinting requirement.

These regulations are effective on March 25, 2011

Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP Additional Screening Requirements, Application Fees, Temporary Enrollment Moratori...

AstraZeneca, The Policy Pimps Of Medicaid Fraud

AstraZeneca, The Policy Pimps Of Medicaid Fraud

A precious gem I have discovered!

This is an excellent specimen of pathological propaganda. In 2004, AstraZeneca, LP, a pharmaceutical corporation, sponsors a symposium with a university to reshape Medicaid. The main focus was on mental health and children, not on quality of life but to increase funding to expand eligibility for drugs.

That's right, boys and girls, a drug company pays off a university to get Congress to pay more money for their drugs. This is tangent to the practice of  ghostwriting in medical literature.

These cats were so good at manipulating public policy to make more money that they even got former Michigan Governor John Engler, the king of privatization, to come and support their agenda. For those of you who may not know, Governor Engler was the individual who established the nation's first  privatized child welfare system. As a result, Medicaid fraud has been astronomical. Here is a sample of his work.

Without further adieu, I present to you, a hallmark in the history of Medicaid fraud child welfare!  The Future of Medicaid: What Will Medicaid Look Like in 2010?

What makes this so-called "Medicaid vision" so entertaining is that it is now 2010 and look at what the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General caught AstraZeneca, LP doing... "wrongfully and illegally marketing" their drugs

I am not sure as I have yet to investigate, but I believe the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was allowing Medicaid to pay for the experimental drug trials on foster kids for AstraZeneca, LP. Even so, Medicaid pays for using  foster kids as lab rats.

In the end, the only lesson I am trying to teach is that it is time for transparency and accountability. No more secrets. CORPORATE INTEGRITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN...

AstraZeneca's policy pimping only gets funnier. Utah's Attorney General Shurtleff wants his money back. I wish the other States would follow suit. Utah Seroquel Risperdal Complaint

Health-care law: Arizona tries new approach to get by federal Medicaid rules

PHOTOS

  Previous        Next    

Arizona legislators gathered on Jan. 19, 2011 at the Capitol in Phoenix to open a special session. The session was called to authorize Gov. Jan Brewer to ask the Obama administration for a waiver that would let Arizona suspend coverage for a fifth of its Medicaid enrollment to help close a budget shortfall. (Matt York - AP)

By N.C. Aizenman

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 23, 2011; 10:58 PM

Republican efforts to repeal or limit the reach of the new health-care law took a new direction last week when Arizona lawmakers approved a novel and controversial attempt to cut Medicaid for 280,000 of the state's poor.

THIS STORY

• Full coverage: Health care overhaul
• Jan. 20, 2011: House votes to repeal health-care law
• Debunking common myths about health-care reform

View All Items in This Story

The bill, requested and signed byGov. Jan Brewer (R), empowers her to make a formal request, most likely this week, for a federal waiver to avoid complying with provisions of the law that prohibit states from tightening their eligibility requirements for Medicaid.
Twenty-nine Republican governors, including Brewer, have signed a letter calling on President Obama and congressional leaders to remove the provision from the law.
But Arizona is the first state to, in effect, play chicken with the Obama administration by directly requesting a reprieve and daring Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to refuse.
The move is widely regarded as a long shot. While a spokesman said the White House had no comment on Arizona's request, administration officials have shown scant interest when asked about the idea in the past.
Still, Arizona's move reflects two pressing realities: Many states face large budget shortfalls because of continuing economic difficulties, and Republican governors point to Medicaid cuts as one of the most logical ways to balance those budgets.
"The effect of federal requirements [in the new law] is unconscionable," the Republican governors wrote in their letter earlier this month. "States are unable to afford the current Medicaid program, yet our hands are tied."
Advocates for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor and disabled that is jointly funded by states and the federal government, say the Republican argument amounts to political posturing at best and heartless, shortsighted policy at worst. Most of the men and women Arizona wants to cut from Medicaid have to earn less than $10,830 per year to qualify for the program.

"Similarly, Sinema said, Brewer should attempt to restore the substantial cuts Arizona has already made to its Medicaid coverage in recent years, not seek new ones."If you're a family and you hit tough times such that you can only afford to feed two out of your three children, you don't tell your third child, 'Sorry, Johnny, you're not going to eat.' You go out and find a way to get more food," said Arizona state Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Phoenix), who has made health care a focus.
And while Sinema said she was confident that this latest effort at a rollback would be blocked by the Obama administration, she charged Brewer with engaging in a cynical strategy to win political cover for "gutting" other state programs if the Medicaid request is denied.
"She's trying to take an opportunity to stick it to the feds and blame Obama for our state budget crisis," she said....more