What other Reps are saying about HB 109:
REP. COLEMAN URGES CONGRESS TO MAINTAIN FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CHIP
"Even with HB 109, Texas would still be enrolling 200,000 to 300,000 fewer children in CHIP than are eligible for the program," Rep. Coleman said. "My concern is that Congress will look at Texas' inaction and disinterest over the past four years and not allocate enough dollars to Texas to ensure we can fully restore CHIP in the coming years."
Over the past years, Texas has lost $913.4 million in federal matching funds for CHIP to other states because of the Texas Legislature's inability to enroll every eligible child in CHIP. Over 500,000 children were enrolled in CHIP in 2003, and despite recent efforts made by the Texas Legislature, over 100,000 fewer children would be enrolled in CHIP in 2009 than were enrolled in 2003.
"Many Texas lawmakers thought passing HB 109 was enough -- that we could go home to our districts and tell everyone, 'we fixed CHIP,' " Rep. Coleman said. "But the fight to fully restore CHIP didn't end at the end of our session. It requires constant vigilance, and I will continue to do everything in my power to support the children of Texas year-round. I believe our work isn't over until our state laws match federal guidelines to ensure every eligible child is enrolled in CHIP."
Democrats had hoped to restore coverage to 250,000 children they say were dropped from the CHIP rolls after the 2003 cuts. House Bill 109 restores coverage to 102,000children. Republicans favored the more restrictive guidelines for the program, in part, as a cost-saving measure. Much of Democrats' argument centered on cost savings by restoring coverage. Texas has 1.4 million uninsured children - more than any other state. Many of them end up in emergency rooms for treatment which costs taxpayers more money in indigent care than it does to pay for insurance policies.
What is the difference between the CHIPS of 1999 compared to the CHIPS of 2003?
• Change eligibility requirements to allow families to qualify after deductions for childcare, work-related and other expenses; current law doesn't allow any of those "offsets" against gross income when qualifying. Eligibility, in other words, would be based on net family income instead of gross family income.
• Start an education program and promote enrollment in CHIP, including outreach through school-based health clinics and private sector community organizations.
• It would amend a provision that allows state agencies to consider what assets a family has while determining eligibility, allowing them at least $10,000 in assets in addition to up to two cars.
• CHIP recipients would have to demonstrate their eligibility to stay in the program every year instead of every six months.
• The waiting period for new insureds would change. Now, they have to wait 90 days after they sign up for CHIP. The new law would keep the 90-day number, but it would toll from the end of their last insurance coverage instead of their enrollment date in CHIP. Someone who'd gone without insurance for three months wouldn't have to wait as they do now.
The changes would cost around $180 million annually, including $59.1 million in state funds; the balance would come from federal matching funds.
When legislators put current law in place, they touted money savings and downplayed the number of kids who would be knocked out of eligibility by the changes. Now, with a budget surplus and heightened anxieties about the numbers of uninsured Texans, they're moving to make more people eligible for CHIP.
The moves aren't all smooth, though: Some conservative groups want the current law — particularly the six-month eligibility check and the asset test — left in place. And some liberals, like Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, say the assets test remains too strict and that the legislation puts into statute some restrictions that currently exist only in rules, which are easier to change.
Criticism of the bill also came from the Democratic side, with Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, saying the assets test should be eliminated and that lawmakers should address red tape that has cost eligible children coverage.
"This bill looks good on the surface, but in operation, it still denies our children access to health coverage," Coleman said. "This is not a policy compromise, it's political cover."
Advocates for lower-income Texans have said counting the value of people's cars against them makes it difficult for people who need drive to work.
CHIP is intended to cover those who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but can't afford private insurance.
Barbara Best, Texas executive director of Children's Defense Fund, said she would like to see the assets test eliminated, but she's pleased overall.
