Secretary Xavier Becerra hosted a roundtable with representatives of large manufacturers and distributors of corn masa flour products.

Work requirements in Medicaid expansion programs are back on the agenda in many statehouses — despite their lackluster track record.

In Mississippi, the idea has momentum from GOP lawmakers advancing legislation to expand Medicaid. In Kansas, the Democratic governor proposed work requirements to try to soften Republican opposition to expansion. (She’s had little luck, so far.)

The controversial policy even has fresh traction in states that expanded Medicaid years ago, including Idaho and Louisiana.

Just two states have implemented a special program to require low-income adults to prove they’re working in exchange for health coverage under Medicaid. In 2019, a court ended Arkansas’s initiative, but not before 18,000 people lost coverage.

Since then, only the signature Medicaid experiment of Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R), called Pathways to Coverage, has survived legal challenges and gotten off the ground.

Yet it’s off to a rocky start, with low enrollment and mounting administrative costs already exceeding $20 million. “It doesn’t work, and it’s perfectly clear in Georgia,” said Joan Alker, executive director and co-founder of the Georgetown Center for Children and Families.

Only about 3,500 people have enrolled so far. That’s a small fraction of the Georgians who would be eligible if the state adopted the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion without work requirements.

Some Georgia Republicans blocked a bill in March that would have authorized a full Medicaid expansion, arguing that Pathways needs more time. The program is just one part of an overall plan to move people into private insurance, Kemp spokesperson Garrison Douglas told us.

Work requirements can come with big administrative price tags, according to a 2019 report from the Government Accountability Office, which recommended that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services consider administrative costs in waiver applications.

States have to set up technology to check compliance, plus hire staff to keep all the paperwork straight. Under Georgia’s plan, people earning up to the federal poverty level — $15,060 for an individual adult — must document that they’re working, in school, doing community service or performing other qualifying activities. Taking care of a child or parent doesn’t count.

Documents obtained by KFF Health News show that administrative costs along with consulting fees have absorbed more than 90 percent of the Georgia program’s spending. As of Dec. 31, about $2 million went to Medicaid managed-care companies; $24 million was spent on administration and consultants. The administrative costs are expected to balloon to $122 million over four years.

Critics argue that the red tape keeps people from getting health care. And while work requirements don’t significantly boost employment, simply providing health coverage can, according to a 2023 KFF brief.

But don’t expect the idea to disappear — especially if former president Donald Trump returns to the White House. The first Trump administration approved Medicaid work-requirement programs in 13 states.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Patients hurl verbal abuse at Michelle Ravera every day in the emergency room. Physical violence is less common, she said, but has become a growing threat.

Ravera, an ER nurse at Sutter Medical Center in Sacramento, recalled an incident in which an agitated patient wanted to leave. “Without any warning he just reached up, grabbed my glasses, and punched me in the face,” said Ravera, 54. “And then he was getting ready to attack another patient in the room.” Ravera and hospital security guards subdued the patient so he couldn’t hurt anyone else.

Violence against health care workers is on the rise, including in the ER, where tensions can run high as staff juggle multiple urgent tasks. Covid-19 only made things worse: With routine care harder to come by, many patients ended up in the ER with serious diseases — and brimming with frustrations.

In California, simple assault against workers inside an ER is considered the same as simple assault against almost anyone else, and carries a maximum punishment of a $1,000 fine and six months in jail. In contrast, simple assault against emergency medical workers in the field, such as an EMT responding to a 911 call, carries maximum penalties of a $2,000 fine and a year in jail. Simple assault does not involve the use of a deadly weapon or the intention to inflict serious bodily injury.

State Assembly member Freddie Rodriguez, who worked as an EMT, has authored a bill to make the punishments consistent: a $2,000 fine and one year in jail for simple assault on any on-the-job emergency health care worker, whether in the field or an ER. The measure would also eliminate the discrepancy for simple battery.

Patients and family members are assaulting staff and “doing things they shouldn’t be doing to the people that are there to take care of your loved ones,” said Rodriguez, a Democrat from Pomona. The bill passed the state Assembly unanimously in January and awaits consideration in the Senate.

Rodriguez has introduced similar measures twice before. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed one in 2015, saying he doubted a longer jail sentence would deter violence. “We need to find more creative ways to protect the safety of these critical workers,” he wrote in his veto message. The 2019 bill died in the state Senate.

Rodriguez said ERs have become more dangerous for health care workers since then and that “there has to be accountability” for violent behavior. Opponents fear stiffer penalties would be levied disproportionately on patients of color or those with developmental disabilities. They also point out that violent patients can already face penalties under existing assault and battery laws.

Data from the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health shows that reported attacks on ER workers by patients, visitors, and strangers jumped about 25% from 2018 to 2023, from 2,587 to 3,238. The rate of attacks per 100,000 ER visits also increased.

Punching, kicking, pushing, and similar aggression accounted for most of the attacks. Only a small number included weapons.

These numbers are likely an undercount, said Al’ai Alvarez, an ER doctor and clinical associate professor at Stanford University’s Department of Emergency Medicine. Many hospital staffers don’t fill out workplace violence reports because they don’t have time or feel nothing will come of it, he said.

Ravera remembers when her community rallied around health care workers at the start of the pandemic, acting respectfully and bringing food and extra N95 masks to workers.

“Then something just switched,” she said. “The patients became angrier and more aggressive.”

Violence can contribute to burnout and drive workers to quit — or worse, said Alvarez, who has lost colleagues to suicide, and thinks burnout was a key factor. “The cost of burnout is more than just loss of productivity,” he said. “It's loss of human beings that also had the potential to take care of many more people.”

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects California will experience an 18% shortage of all types of nurses in 2035, the third worst in the country.

Federal legislation called the Safety From Violence for Healthcare Employees Act would set sentences of up to 10 years for assault against a health care worker, not limited to emergency workers, and up to 20 years in cases involving dangerous weapons or bodily injury. Though it was introduced in 2023, it has not yet had a committee hearing.

Opponents of the California bill, which include ACLU California Action, the California Public Defenders Association, and advocates for people with autism, argue it wouldn’t deter attacks — and would unfairly target certain patients.

“There's no evidence to suggest that increased penalties are going to meaningfully address this conduct,” said Eric Henderson, a legislative advocate for ACLU California Action. “Most importantly, there are already laws on the books to address assaultive conduct.”

Beth Burt, executive director of the Autism Society Inland Empire, said the measure doesn’t take into account the special needs of people with autism and other developmental disorders.

The smells, lights, textures, and crowds in the ER can overstimulate a person with autism, she said. When that happens, they can struggle to articulate their feelings, which can result in a violent outburst, “whether it’s a 9-year-old or a 29-year-old,” Burt said.

She worries that hospital staff may misunderstand these reactions, and involve law enforcement when it’s not necessary. As “a parent, it is still my worst fear” that she’ll get a phone call to inform her that her adult son with autism has been arrested, she said.

Burt would rather the state prioritize de-escalation programs over penalties, such as the training programs for first responders she helped create through the Autism Society Inland Empire. After implementing the training, hospital administrators asked Burt to share some strategies with them, she said. Hospital security staffers who do not want to use physical restraints on autistic patients have also sought her advice, she said.

Supporters of the bill, including health care and law enforcement groups, counter that people with mental health conditions or autism who are charged with assault in an ER may be eligible for existing programs that provide mental health treatment in lieu of a criminal sentence.

Stephanie Jensen, an ER nurse and head of governmental affairs for the Emergency Nurses Association, California State Council, said her organization is simply arguing for equity. “If you punch me in the hospital, it’s the same as if you punch me on the street,” she said.

If lawmakers don’t act, she warned, there won’t be enough workers for the patients who need them.

“It’s hard to keep those human resources accessible when it just seems like you’re showing up to get beat up every day,” Jensen said. “The emergency department is taking it on the chin, literally and figuratively.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration has abandoned proposed protections for millions of California workers toiling in sweltering warehouses, steamy kitchens, and other dangerously hot workplaces — upending a regulatory process that had been years in the making.

The administration’s eleventh-hour move, which it attributed to the cost of the new regulations, angered workplace safety advocates and state regulators, setting off a mad scramble to implement emergency rules before summer.

But it’s unclear how, when, or if the emergency rules will come down, and whether they’ll be in place in time to protect workers from the intensifying heat.

“It’s the administration’s moral obligation to fix this,” said Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, a former state lawmaker and the chief officer of the California Labor Federation, which represents more than 1,300 unions. “There needs to be emergency regulations or legislation quickly, because we can’t stop summer.”

California has had heat standards on the books for outdoor workers since 2005, and indoor workplaces were supposed to be next. The proposed standards would have required work sites to be cooled below 87 degrees Fahrenheit when employees are present and below 82 degrees in places where workers wear protective clothing or are exposed to radiant heat, such as furnaces. Buildings could be cooled with air conditioning, fans, misters, and other methods.

The rules would have allowed workarounds for businesses that couldn’t cool their workplaces sufficiently, such as laundries or restaurant kitchens.

Despite concerns from the administration, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board approved the rules at its March 21 meeting, prompting a tense political standoff between workplace safety advocates and Newsom, the second-term Democratic governor who has sought to elevate his national profile and claim progressive leadership on climate change and worker rights — key platforms for the Democratic Party.

State Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer said the issue isn’t the state’s ballooning budget deficit — estimated between $38 billion and $73 billion — but a legal requirement to nail down the cost of the rules to the state government.

“It wasn’t, ‘We’re trying to sink these regulations,’” Palmer said.

Palmer said the administration received a murky cost estimate from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation indicating that implementing the standards in its prisons and other facilities could cost billions. The board’s economic analysis, on the other hand, pegged the cost at less than $1 million a year.

“Without our concurrence of the fiscal estimates, those regulations in their latest iteration will not go into effect,” he said.

According to Corrections spokesperson Albert Lundeen, the rules would entail major spending that could require the legislature to fund “extensive capital improvements.” He added that the agency is committed to discussing “how these regulations could be implemented cost-effectively at our institutions to further bolster worker safety.”

Board members argue the state has had years to analyze the cost of the proposed standards, and that it must quickly impose emergency regulations. But it’s not clear how that might happen, whether in days by the administration or months via the state budget process — or another way.

“This is a public health emergency,” said Laura Stock, a board member who is also an expert on workplace safety and health at the University of California-Berkeley.

Newsom spokesperson Erin Mellon defended the move to halt permanent regulations, saying approving them would be “imprudent” without a detailed cost estimate.

“The administration is committed to implementing the indoor heat regulations and ensuring workplace protections,” she said in a statement. “We are exploring all options to put these worker protections in place, including working with the legislature.”

Only Minnesota and Oregon have adopted heat rules for indoor workers. Legislation has stalled in Congress, and even though the Biden administration has initiated the long process of establishing national heat standards for outdoor and indoor work, they may take years to finalize.

Seven workers died in California from indoor heat between 2010 and 2017. Heat stress can lead to heat exhaustion, heatstroke, cardiac arrest, and kidney failure. In 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported, 1,600 heat-related deaths occurred nationally, which is likely an undercount because health care providers are not required to report them. It’s not clear how many of these deaths are related to work, either indoors or outdoors.

The process to adopt California’s indoor head standards started in 2016 and involved years of negotiations with businesses and labor advocates.

Several board members acknowledged that they were frustrated by the administration’s lack of support when they adopted the regulations in March — after their meeting was temporarily halted by angry, chanting warehouse workers — knowing they would not go into effect. Instead, they said, they wanted to amplify pressure on Newsom.

“Every summer is hotter than the last, and workers who aren’t protected are going to suffer heat illness or death,” said Dave Harrison, a board member and powerful union leader with Operating Engineers Local 3. “Our hope was that the vote would be symbolic in sending a message to the state government that, listen, this is important, so we decided to vote on it anyway and put it back into the state’s court.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).