Waiver 1115 Information

Section 1115 Medicaid waivers allow states to explore new options for providing health coverage to persons who would otherwise not be eligible and allow states to examine innovative ways to deliver care by waiving certain requirements of the Medicaid Act.

While waivers can be important tools that can help states respond to the needs of low-income individuals, they also present concerns for health advocates working to protect the rights of Medicaid enrollees and promote transparency in state waiver processes.

Sec. 1115 of the Social Security Act allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive some requirements of the Medicaid Act so that states can test novel approaches to improving medical assistance for low-income people.

Under the current administration, several states are seeking waivers to impose harmful cuts and restrictions. The first set of harmful waivers have been approved for Kentucky and Arkansas, with a number of states seeking to enact similar changes to Medicaid. Learn more about Medicaid waivers and how the National Health Law Program is combating the Trump administration’s illegal use of waivers to weaken Medicaid.

View 1115 Waiver Resources By State

  • Amicus: Bellin v. Zucker, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

    Litigation Team ,

    The National Health Law Program, along with the Center for Medicare Advocacy and Justice in Aging, filed this brief in the Second Circuit in support of the plaintiff. Rosalind Bellin receives Medicaid in New York and needs in-home long term care services to live in her home safely. She was denied the care she needed, but the state and managed care plan would not provide her the due process rights guaranteed by the Medicaid Act and Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The amicus brief explains the importance of due process rights in Medicaid managed care, describing the dominant role that managed care plays in Medicaid and the long history of Congress and the federal agency's intent to ensure due process for beneficiaries.

  • June Medical Services v. Russo and the Work that Remains for Underserved Populations

    On June 29th, the Supreme Court ruled in June Medical Services vs. Russo that Louisiana’s admitting privileges law is unconstitutional and blocked it from taking effect. This win for reproductive health advocates means that abortion clinics can remain open to serve patients who need abortion care in Louisiana and in several other states where similar laws have been enacted. Advocates for reproductive health, rights, and justice, including the National Health Law Program, are relieved by the decision, but we also know that we must do more work to expand abortion access for individuals who are low-income, BIPOC, as well as LGTBQ-GNC. Today and always, abortion is essential, time-sensitive health care that is constitutionally protected but not as accessible as it should be.

  • Amicus: June Medical Services v. Gee, U.S. Supreme Court

    , , and Abbi Coursolle

    The National Health Law Program and The National Network of Abortion Funds filed an amicus brief opposing Louisiana’s unconstitutional admitting-privileges requirement. Louisiana has constructed an imposing, and in some cases impossibly high, impediment to those seeking abortion care in the state. If it had been allowed to go into effect, the requirement will would have forced the closure of clinics that provide vital abortion care., which would have disproportionately impacted low-income people, people on Medicaid, BIPOC, LGTBQ-GNC people, and survivors of intimate partner violence.

Load More