Medicaid Work Requirements: An End to the Litigation?

Medicaid Work Requirements: An End to the Litigation?

Legal Sidebari
Medicaid Work Requirements:
An End to the Litigation?
Updated March 12, 2021
UPDATE: After this Sidebar was published on March 4, 2021, the Supreme Court removed the Medicaid
work requirement litigation from its oral argument calendar. The Court has not yet ruled on the Biden
Administration’s motion to vacate the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s decisions. The original
post is below.
As part of Medicaid program reform efforts, a debate continues over “community engagement”
activities—so-cal ed “work requirements”—which require certain nondisabled adults to work, volunteer,
attend school, or participate in other qualifying activities as a condition of program eligibility or coverage.
While proponents of these requirements assert such policies may improve the health of Medicaid
beneficiaries and help shift these individuals to private-sector health coverage (thereby promoting “fiscal
sustainability” in the program), critics claim they do not increase employment levels and trigger
substantial health coverage losses for vulnerable populations. During the Trump Administration, at least
19 states sought approval to implement work requirements through Medicaid program demonstration
projects (i.e., so-cal ed “waivers”), and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) approved
several states’ waiver applications. Approved state work requirement waivers have been the subject of
high-profile litigation, and legal chal enges to waivers are currently pending before the Supreme Court.
Following the recent presidential transition, the future of work requirement waivers and related litigation
is uncertain. In mid-February 2021, fol owing issuance of a health care-related executive order, Biden
Administration HHS officials notified states with approved work requirement waivers that the agency was
beginning a process of determining whether to withdraw the waivers (or parts of waivers relating to work
requirements). The Biden Administration has also taken recent action to end the pending litigation. This
Legal Sidebar provides background on Medicaid work requirement waivers and the litigation over these
policies. It then discusses the HHS Secretary’s recent administrative actions and the possible impact on
Supreme Court review. The Sidebar concludes with selected legal considerations for Congress.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10577
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
Background
Medicaid Program and Section 1115 Waivers
The Medicaid program is a collaborative effort between the federal government and states to provide
medical assistance for a diverse group of low-income and medical y needy individuals. To participate in
the Medicaid program and receive federal funding, a state must have a plan for medical assistance
approved by the HHS Secretary; this plan must comply with a wide array of federal standards. Among
these standards, states must cover specified groups of individuals (known as “mandatory eligibility
groups”) and provide particular types of health benefits to these groups. The program also al ows states to
opt to cover certain additional populations and/or benefits, subject to federal conditions. Failure to meet
federal requirements places federal Medicaid funds received by the state in jeopardy of being withheld.
HHS has delegated authority to administer the Medicaid program to the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS).
The Medicaid statute itself does not expressly al ow states to impose work requirements on beneficiaries.
Accordingly, the vehicle for implementing work requirements has been waivers granted to states under
Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. According to legislative history accompanying Section 1115,
statutory requirements “often stand in the way of experimental projects designed to test out new ideas and
ways of dealing with the problems of public welfare recipients.” To this end, Section 1115 authorizes the
HHS Secretary to waive compliance with otherwise applicable Medicaid state plan requirements for an
“experimental, pilot, or demonstration project which, in the judgment of the Secretary, is likely to assist in
promoting the objectives” of Medicaid. Over the past few decades, the Secretary has approved a broad
range of Section 1115 demonstrations that permit states to test potential innovations in the provision of
Medicaid coverage.
In previous years, some states proposed mandatory work incentives as part of Section 1115 waivers, but
the Obama Administration rejected these proposals as beyond the scope of the HHS Secretary’s Section
1115 authority. However, the Trump Administration adopted a different stance. In March 2017, HHS
officials sent a letter to state governors that announced the Trump Administration’s intent to use Section
1115 demonstration authority to “approve meritorious innovations that build on the human dignity that
comes with training, employment and independence.” Subsequently, Trump Administration HHS officials
issued guidance that restated support for work requirements and articulated factors for states’
consideration in crafting these policies. In June 2018, Kentucky became the first state to receive CMS
approval to implement work requirements as part of an approved Medicaid Section 1115 waiver. Other
states followed, and legal chal enges were filed.
Work Requirements Litigation
Starting in 2018, Medicaid beneficiaries in states with approved work requirement waivers filed suit
against the HHS Secretary, claiming the waivers were unlawfully approved and “fundamentally alter the
design and purpose of Medicaid.” The beneficiaries’ home states intervened in the litigation and became
additional defendants in the cases. Lower courts uniformly sided with the residents and struck down work
requirements and related provisions in waivers granted to Kentucky (twice), New Hampshire, and
Arkansas. In these cases, the courts concluded that the HHS Secretary’s approval of the waivers violated
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Under the APA, reviewing courts must set aside agency actions
that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
In examining the work requirement waivers, lower courts applied similar reasoning in al of the decided
cases. To il ustrate, in the Arkansas litigation, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia first
recognized that, pursuant to Section 1115 and the Medicaid Act’s statutory language, the Secretary can
only approve waivers that are “likely to assist in promoting the objectives” of the Medicaid program. The

Congressional Research Service
3
program’s “core” objective, the court declared, is the provision of health coverage to the needy. The court
determined that the HHS Secretary’s Section 1115 waiver approval was arbitrary and capricious, as the
Secretary failed to appropriately consider the effect of Arkansas’s waiver on this core objective. During
the waiver approval process, numerous commenters expressed concerns that the Arkansas waiver would
lead to substantial losses of Medicaid coverage, and the court determined that HHS had not adequately
addressed those concerns.
While the HHS Secretary stressed that the work requirements promoted other goals of the Medicaid
program, including improvements in the health of program-eligible individuals, the court concluded these
other goals are not “objectives of the program” per the text of the Medicaid statute. Therefore, HHS could
not justify the potential losses of coverage through advancement of these nonstatutory objectives.
Accordingly, the district court vacated the Secretary’s approval of the work requirement waiver and
remanded the matter back to HHS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit later affirmed the
district court’s decision on similar grounds, after which the federal government and the State of Arkansas
petitioned the Supreme Court for review. In December 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the
lawsuits concerning the Arkansas and New Hampshire waivers, and oral arguments in Cochran v.
Gresham and Arkansas v. Gresham are scheduled for March 29, 2021.
Possible Revocation of Work Requirement Waivers and Pending Supreme Court
Litigation
As noted, the Biden Administration may be preparing to overturn work requirement waivers approved
during the previous Administration. Presently, there are at least 10 states with approved (or conditional y
approved) waivers that include work requirements. In early February 2021, Biden Administration CMS
officials informed those states that, with respect to work requirements, the agency had “serious concerns
about testing policies that create a risk of a substantial loss of health care coverage in the near term,”
particularly in light of the detrimental health and economic effects of the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic. Given these circumstances, CMS stated its “preliminary” determination that
implementation of work requirements would not promote the Medicaid program’s objectives, and that the
agency had begun to examine whether to revoke the waiver approvals. Under current federal regulations,
the HHS Secretary may partial y or completely withdraw a Section 1115 waiver “based on a finding that
the demonstration project is not likely to achieve the statutory purposes.”
The Biden Administration has also asked the Supreme Court to end the work requirements litigation by
vacating the appel ate court judgments in the Medicaid work requirements cases, which would remove the
cases from the Supreme Court’s calendar and remand the matters back to HHS. The Administration
contends that, in light of its commencement of the waiver examination process, the cases “no longer
present a suitable context” to examine the relevant issues. The State of Arkansas filed a response in
opposition, pressing the Court to let the litigation continue. Among other things, the state argues that the
Biden Administration’s “preliminary determination[s]” regarding the waivers do not render the cases
inappropriate for review (New Hampshire took no position on these matters). The Supreme Court does
not have a deadline to respond to the litigants, but may do so soon given the looming oral argument date
in the cases.
As the Medicaid work requirement waivers issue plays out, any future administrative or judicial
developments may not have an immediate practical impact, as no approved work requirement waivers are
currently in effect. To provide additional financial support during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Families
First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) offers an increase in federal Medicaid funding to states,
general y contingent upon, among other things, states maintaining current Medicaid beneficiaries’
enrollment in the program. Al states opted to claim this enhanced funding, so no work requirement
waivers are currently operative. However, FFCRA’s Medicaid eligibility requirements are temporary and
are scheduled to terminate after the conclusion of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration.

Congressional Research Service
4

Legal Considerations for Congress
At the heart of the Medicaid work requirements litigation are fundamental questions about the scope of
the HHS Secretary’s Section 1115 authority to examine and approve Medicaid waivers that advance
certain policy goals. For example, how should the Secretary consider, and to what degree can the
Secretary approve, a Medicaid waiver that is primarily intended to promote better health, or is aimed at
reducing program spending? And to what extent might such waivers restrict Medicaid eligibility or
benefits in ways not otherwise permitted by statute? While the cases currently before the Court only
concern whether the HHS Secretary can approve work requirement waivers under Section 1115, it is
possible that the reasoning of a Supreme Court decision could potential y extend to other waivers that
restrict benefit eligibility or lead to fewer covered individuals under the Medicaid program. Should the
Court grant the Biden Administration’s motion and decide against review of the work requirements cases,
judicial resolution of some or al of these issues may be left for another day.
While Congress may choose to await further judicial or administrative developments regarding work
requirement waivers, lawmakers may also amend current law to further specify the legal parameters
surrounding Medicaid Section 1115 waivers. Legislation could address factors the Secretary must
consider in determining whether a Section 1115 demonstration “promotes the objectives” of the Medicaid
program, or delineate types of Medicaid waivers that the HHS Secretary may or may not approve under
this section. Such legislation could potential y affect existing approved waivers, as wel as waivers
granted by future Administrations.

Author Information

Jennifer A. Staman

Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10577 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED