All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

CHIP and Medicaid: The Impact of Difficult Economic Times and State Budgetary Concerns
Unformatted Document Text:  program administrators, but were more annoying to providers of care who had to collect the fees. While families are supposed to be able to receive reimbursement for these fees if they exceed five percent of annual incomes, this requirement presents a major difficulty in maintenance of records for families in states with such a program. Many states initially had difficulty reaching enrollment targets. Thirty-six states did not reach their enrollment targets and had to return portions of their federal dollars received for the CHIP program in its initial year of operation. As one example, Arizona had to return about $77 million in CHIP funding, or about 66 percent of what had been received. (Groppe and Chavez, 2000). Arizona is an example of a state with special issues linked to large numbers of Latinos in the state. Although recent rulings by the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) have concluded that receipt of CHIP funds will not count as a “public charge” and therefore will not hurt the chances of a family becoming eligible for citizenship, this concern has created an important barrier to enrollment in border states and others with large Latino populations. The stigma of a “welfare” program and complexity of the application process or the cost-sharing features are other barriers to enrolment in many states. As the program became more familiar, however, state policy makers generally responded favorably, and after the initial enrollment difficulties now attributed to the effect of welfare reform, there began a steady increase in enrollment through 2001 (Mann et al, 2001). In general, between 1998 and 2001, Medicaid and Chip enrollment grew by an average 30 percent across states, with enrollment declining in only three states (Grogan and Patasnik, 2003). States that used CHIP funds for Medicaid expansion tended to have higher enrollment increases than those that created a new separate program (Grogan and Patasnik, 2003). In states than devoted resources to changing Medicaid’s public image, improving ease of entry or creating outreach

Authors: Kronenfeld, Jennie.
first   previous   Page 14 of 21   next   last



background image
program administrators, but were more annoying to providers of care who had to collect the fees.
While families are supposed to be able to receive reimbursement for these fees if they exceed
five percent of annual incomes, this requirement presents a major difficulty in maintenance of
records for families in states with such a program.
Many states initially had difficulty reaching enrollment targets. Thirty-six states did not
reach their enrollment targets and had to return portions of their federal dollars received for the
CHIP program in its initial year of operation. As one example, Arizona had to return about $77
million in CHIP funding, or about 66 percent of what had been received. (Groppe and Chavez,
2000). Arizona is an example of a state with special issues linked to large numbers of Latinos in
the state. Although recent rulings by the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) have
concluded that receipt of CHIP funds will not count as a “public charge” and therefore will not
hurt the chances of a family becoming eligible for citizenship, this concern has created an
important barrier to enrollment in border states and others with large Latino populations. The
stigma of a “welfare” program and complexity of the application process or the cost-sharing
features are other barriers to enrolment in many states.
As the program became more familiar, however, state policy makers generally responded
favorably, and after the initial enrollment difficulties now attributed to the effect of welfare
reform, there began a steady increase in enrollment through 2001 (Mann et al, 2001). In general,
between 1998 and 2001, Medicaid and Chip enrollment grew by an average 30 percent across
states, with enrollment declining in only three states (Grogan and Patasnik, 2003). States that
used CHIP funds for Medicaid expansion tended to have higher enrollment increases than those
that created a new separate program (Grogan and Patasnik, 2003). In states than devoted
resources to changing Medicaid’s public image, improving ease of entry or creating outreach


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 14 of 21   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.