Feds' OK of Arkansas Medicaid plan gives hope to Corbett's Pennsylvania proposal
HARRISBURG — The government's approval for Arkansas to use Medicaid funding to buy private insurance for the poor gives Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett's aides hope that the Department of Health and Human Services will approve his similar plan.
“We're encouraged by HHS' approval of Arkansas' plan and hope it's an indication that the federal government is willing to work more closely with states to develop solutions that work at the local level, versus a one-size-fits-all approach,” said Christine Cronkright, a spokeswoman for Corbett.
The agency last week approved Arkansas' request to implement the “private option” plan instead of expanding Medicaid enrollment. Corbett made his request two weeks ago.
Supporters of the 2010 Affordable Care Act point to Arkansas as a Republican-trending state implementing a key part of the law.
But Elizabeth Stelle, a policy analyst with the Commonwealth Foundation in Harrisburg, said Pennsylvania's proposal tries to promote accountability with “a work search requirement and co-payments on a sliding scale.”
Those factors could lead to hurdles for the plan, said Sharon Ward, director of the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center.
The work requirement is one piece of the plan that aides continue to discuss with HHS, Cronkright said.
The Associated Press contributed. Brad Bumsted is Trib Total Media's state Capitol reporter.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.