Skip to main content

View Response

Response Details

Questionnaire NameMississippi Medicaid Workforce Training Initiative - Updated
DescriptionOn January 16, 2018, Mississippi submitted a request for a new demonstration to implement workforce training requirements for Medicaid-eligible non-disabled adults, including low-income parents/caretakers and individuals eligible for Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA). Mississippi's goal is to provide individuals with tools to improve certain areas of their lives that have a direct impact on their health status. The initial 30-day federal public comment period (January 23, 2018 - February 22, 2018) did not include the state's proposal to provide an additional 12 months of coverage for individuals who continue to participate in community engagement activities after their 12 months of TMA has ended, and would otherwise lose Medicaid eligibility. CMS is providing a second federal public comment period for the supplemental application materials submitted as part of the state's new proposal. The second federal public comment period will be open from July 19, 2018 - August 18, 2018.
Response FromID: #319221 on Jul 20th 2018 7:35 am
Mississippi Medicaid Workforce Training Initiative - Updated

Mississippi Medicaid Workforce Training Initiative - Updated

We encourage the public to submit their comments on Medicaid.gov as they relate to demonstrations open for public comments. In support of transparency and open government, all public comments received are immediately posted and are in the public domain. Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services staff will review all public comments posted and we reserve the discretion to delete comments that are generally understood as any of the following: obscene, profane, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate.

Refer to the Application

Open for Public Comment – 7/19/18 – 8/18/18

Please provide your comments here and/or attach below:

Finding #1: Increases in employment among recipients subject to work requirements were modest and faded over time.

Evaluations of programs that imposed work requirements on welfare recipients found modest, statistically significant increases in employment early on among recipients subject to the requirements, but those increases faded over time. Within five years, employment among recipients not subject to work requirements was the same as or higher than employment among recipients subject to work requirements in nearly all of the programs evaluated.

In the first two years, the share of recipients subject to work requirements who worked at any point over that period was significantly higher — in nine of the 13 programs included in the analysis — than the share of recipients not subject to the requirements who worked, with the increase in employment ranging from 4.1 to 15.1 percentage points.[5] (See Table 1.) The biggest impacts on employment were found in programs in Riverside, California and Portland, Oregon.

Over time, however, work steadily increased among recipients not subject to work requirements, substantially closing the employment gap between the two groups. By the fifth year (the last year any of the studies examined), the impacts of the early years had eroded in each of the programs for which longer-term data are available. In five of the eight programs that initially produced a significant increase in employment rates, by the fifth year the program recipients not subject to the work requirements were just as likely — or more likely— to work than the program recipients subject to work requirements. The net impact fell most in the Riverside LFA (labor force attachment) program,[6] from an increase of 15.1 percentage points in employment rates in the first two years to a gain of just 4.2 percentage points in the fifth year. Similarly, in Portland, the net impact on the employment rate declined from an 11.2 percentage-point increase in the first two years to a barely significant 3.8 percentage-point increase in the fifth year.[7]

The impacts of work requirements were modest in most programs even in the early years, in part because work was far more common among recipients than is generally perceived. Over the five-year period, the vast majority of recipients worked, even if they were not subject to work requirements. In Portland, which excluded recipients with substantial employment barriers
Upload File/Attachment

Upload File/Attachment

You can upload up to 10 files.