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
- Show all
- All United States
- District of Columbia
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- West Virginia
- July 23, 2013
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.
- July 23, 2013
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. …
- July 23, 2013
This is the opening brief filed filed in the Supreme Court of Colorado by challengers of a a ballot initiative to amend Colorado's constitution to prohibit state law from requiring individuals to participate in any health insurance plan.