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

results in Colorado.
  • Amicus: State of N.Y., et al. v. U.S. Dep’t Health & Human Servs., Southern District of New York

    Litigation Team

    National Health Law Program (NHeLP), Justice in Aging, and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) submitted an amicus brief in the Southern District of New York on behalf of themselves and 47 partners. The brief supports the State of New York and 22 other states’ motion for partial summary judgment against implementation of the Trump administration’s recently finalized rule to restrict the reach of Section 1557, the Affordable Care Act’s ground-breaking anti-discrimination provision. Our amicus argues that this Trump administration rule ignores the plain language of the ACA and is an arbitrary and capricious action by the administration. The 2020 changes to the 2016 Section 1557 rule include sharply limiting what entities must comply with Section 1557; eliminating notice, tagline, and effective communication requirements; and incorporating harmful exemptions from statutes not listed in the ACA, including religious exemptions. The Trump administration’s changes to the Section 1557 rule harm the very people that the ACA was intended to protect and removes critical protections that will impact millions of women, LGBTQ+ individuals, older adults, Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), and individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP). The case in SDNY is one of several cases challenging the rule.

  • Colorado: Petition for Review (10SA100, April 14, 2010)

    External Source

    This petition challenged a ballot initiative to amend Colorado's constitution to prohibit state law from requiring individuals to participate in any health insurance plan.

  • Petitioners’ Brief to the Colorado Supreme Court in Health Care Choice

    External Source

    ISSUES PRESENTED Whether Initiative 2009-2010 #45 addresses multiple subjects, as it deals with:  (a) the applicability of state or federal mandates to participate in any public or private health care plan or benefit; (b) the preservation an individual's ability to personally pay health care providers; and (c) a new constitutional "right" of "health care choice" thatsurfaced for the first time at the rehearing and applies to every aspect of health care. Whether the Title Board lost jurisdiction when the Proponents made a substantial change in the asserted meaning of the measure by expanding it from choice in health care payment systems to the guaranteed constitutional right ofchoice in all aspects of health care. Whether the ballot title is prejudicial because it contains a political catch phrase ? "the right to health care choice" ? that is intended to and will unfairly characterize the matter in voters' minds. Whether the title is inaccurate, as the measure does not actually "prohibit? the state from adopting any statutes, regulations, resolutions, or policies?" but merely limits the implementation of federal and state laws regarding insurance mandates and private payments for health care services. …

Load More