- Supreme Court to decide on health care payments for poor people, By David G. Savage, January 18, 2011, Los Angeles Times: “The Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will decide whether to give California and other cash-strapped states more freedom to reduce how much they pay to doctors, hospitals and other providers under the Medicaid program for poor people. The case, which involves about $1 billion in Medicaid cutbacks adopted by the California legislature in 2008 but blocked by federal courts, could greatly complicate the national debate over the funding of health care, as the states try to cut back on their Medicaid spending, while the Obama administration tries to hold the line. Gov. Jerry Brown, in his initial budget plan this year, proposed to slash by 10% what the state pays to these health care providers, which would save the state nearly $719 million…”
- U.S. Supreme Court to take Medi-Cal lawsuit case, By Bob Egelko, January 19, 2011, San Francisco Chronicle: “The U.S. Supreme Court granted California’s request Tuesday to decide whether the state can be sued for cutting fees to doctors and hospitals that treat poor people, a case that will affect Gov. Jerry Brown’s ability to reduce spending for social services. Federal courts in the last two years have blocked attempts by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature to lower Medi-Cal payments and in-home care workers’ wages by hundreds of millions of dollars, saying federal laws require states to maintain poor people’s access to basic health care. On Tuesday, the high court agreed to decide whether the lower courts should have even considered those cases. The state denies it is violating the law and argues that only the federal government can enforce the laws governing Medicaid, the federal-state program known as Medi-Cal in California. Medi-Cal providers and their patients have no right to sue a state for allegedly violating federal Medicaid rules, lawyers for California told the Supreme Court…”
Day: January 20, 2011
Unemployment Benefit Debit Cards
States’ unemployment debit cards often carry hidden costs, fees, By Pamela M. Prah, January 20, 2011, Stateline.org: “Like many out-of-work Americans, Philip Tressler gets his unemployment benefits deposited directly into his checking account. He could have received the benefits via a debit card that the state also offers. But Tressler, who was laid off 14 months ago after 32 years working for a grocery distributor in western Pennsylvania, didn’t go for the card. ‘It’s just not convenient,’ he says, especially since he doesn’t use the same bank that issues the state’s debit card. But there’s more than inconvenience at issue when it comes to state debit cards for the unemployed. Had Tressler decided to take one, he might have been subjected to a whole array of extra charges, including $1.50 for each withdrawal of cash from an ATM that isn’t ‘in-network.’ Pennsylvania is among some 30 states that offer debit cards as vehicles for unemployment insurance payments. These cards have their advantages. Workers get their benefits quicker, and states save money. And people without bank accounts can avoid check-cashing fees and make purchases without carrying large amounts of cash…”
Tax Cut Legislation and the Working Poor
New tax law may hold a surprise for working poor, By Tim Lockette, January 20, 2011, Anniston Star: “When President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans cut a deal on the extension of Bush-era tax cuts last month, the move was billed as a tax reduction for all. But the working poor may find an unpleasant surprise in their paychecks this month, says one tax expert. ‘If you’re a low-wage earner, you’ll be worse off, as will about 50 million households,’ said Roberton Williams, a scholar at the nonprofit Tax Policy Center, which is run jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. ‘You’ll probably see the effects of the change in your next paycheck.’ The Star contacted Williams after a reader pointed out that her first January paycheck was actually smaller than her paycheck from last year – despite a recent compromise tax bill that was widely interpreted as a tax cut. Republicans and Democrats sparred throughout December over extension of Bush-era cuts to income taxes, which were set to expire Dec. 31 of last year…”