Help Preserve Food Stamp Benefits for Working Poor-Write before 5/1 Sat, 29 Apr 2000 03:06:39 -0400 Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit source - Ted Steege STILL TIME TO FAX OR E-MAIL YOUR COMMENTS: DON'T LET WORKING FAMILIES GO HUNGRY; PRESERVE THE RULES THAT IMPROVE ACCESS TO FOOD STAMPS, HEALTH CARE If working families struggling to sustain themselves are to get the help they need and deserve under the law, we need to do what we can to stop some rule changes proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Comments are invited by the close of business Monday, May 1, 2000. UUSC has joined with many other organizations (list not fully known as of Friday, April 28) in signing a letter (see text below) commenting on the proposed regulations. Years of effort to remove barriers to people in need of food stamps, Medicaid and other benefits may be jeopardized if states (in the name of greater "flexibility") are allowed to put new barriers in the way of applicants for the benefits people need to support their families through work. The new rules could in fact reverse many of the gains made by UUSC advocates and others to overcome the unintended consequences of "welfare reform" for children and their families, including many citizen children of legal immigrants. The time is short and the issues are complex, but your voice will count if you simply let it be known that you favor improving access to food stamps and Medicaid by families in need, as part of the effort to help low-income families struggling to support themselves through work. Please feel free to adopt whatever is useful in the accompanying letter, but personalize it if you can by sharing insights from your work with low-income people in your church or coalition. Food stamp usage has dropped by 1/3 in recent years, far faster than poverty has, so more children and families are going hungry even though they are eligible for help. And more children lack health insurance than before the CHIP program was approved, largely because states have not done what they could to assure continuity of coverage. We need more accountability for good outreach at the state level, not less. Please contact the USDA's Program Analyst, Mr. Patrick Waldron, and lend your voice in favor of preserving the rules that require states to reduce barriers to food stamps and Medicaid, not increase them. -0- Mr. Patrick Waldron, Program Analyst Certification Policy Branch Program Development Division Food and Nutrition Service USDA 3101 Park Center Drive Alexandria, VA 22302 internet: Patrick.Waldron@FNS.USDA.GOV fax: (703) 305-2486 RE: 7 C.F.R. Parts 272, 273, 274, and 277 - Food Stamp Program: Noncitizen Eligibility, and Certification Provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 Dear Mr. Waldron: We are writing to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposed regulations published on February 29, 2000. As organizations concerned about access to health coverage for low- and moderate- income families, we are troubled by the negative impact these regulations would likely have on access to public benefits, including Medicaid and the new Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). We also are dismayed at the degree to which the proposed regulations for food stamps are out of step with the commendable actions the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has taken over the past several years to eliminate barriers to access in Medicaid and CHIP. The proposed rules would make extensive revisions to scores of important, longstanding policies and result in an increase in the barriers to participation that eligible households - and especially working poor families - encounter. In area after area, they weaken or eliminate some of the important food stamp regulatory protections that have served for years to improve access to food stamps and other programs that serve the neediest families, such as Medicaid and AFDC/TANF. In recent years, many Medicaid enrollment processes have become separate from cash benefits and food stamps. Nonetheless, in almost every state a significant share of the poorest families still access health benefits through administrative processes that link Medicaid with TANF benefits and food stamps. Since low-income families often cannot distinguish among the myriad federal and state programs and processes they must navigate to access benefits, changes that erect barriers to food stamps, or create hassles for the working poor, will likely spillover to health programs. Moreover, the families affected will be those with the lowest incomes. In our work with states and HHS to ease the barriers families face when applying for and participating in Medicaid and CHIP, we repeatedly hear that food stamp rules are negatively affecting their enrollment efforts. For example Maryland has developed a simplified Medicaid application process for children. If the state discovers that a family that has applied for Medicaid already has an open food stamp case, it requires the family to appear for an interview at the welfare office in order to coordinate the food stamp and Medicaid cases. This is a burden for families and also causes confusion about what the family's responsibilities are. Studies by the Urban Institute and other researchers have shown that disturbingly large proportion of families that have left welfare for work but remain poor have lost their food stamp and Medicaid benefits. Over the last year, HHS has moved to address this matter in Medicaid. It has imposed new requirements governing state procedures when families leave cash assistance and has initiated a review of the practices of all 50 states. Most recently, on April 7, Secretary Shalala announced that HHS is requiring all states to review computer and other files for the past few years to identify children and families improperly terminated from Medicaid when they left welfare and to reinstate their Medicaid benefits. The proposed rules, unfortunately, are out of step with these efforts. While HHS is encouraging states to reduce markedly the burdens imposed on eligible families in applying for and participating in Medicaid (even where that means states must assume more of the burdens themselves), the proposed food stamp rules would cause the burdens imposed on needy households that seek food stamps to increase significantly. We therefore recommend that the final rules not incorporate any of the discretionary changes proposed in sections 273.2, 273.10(f)(4) and (5), 273.12(f), or 273.14. SPECIFIC COMMENTS Application process. In 7 C.F.R. § 273.2 USDA proposes to revise the food stamp regulations on welfare office operations and application processing. The proposed changes would make it less likely that potential applicants would know to file an application when they first contact the welfare office, and would potentially increase the welfare office's ability to extend any TANF diversion practices to food stamps. For families filing joint applications for food stamps and Medicaid, anything that delays application for food stamps likely will also delay application for health benefits. The final regulations should retain the local welfare office duty to encourage applications and include a prohibition on any statements suggesting disadvantages of applying for food stamps. Applications should also clearly inform families of their right to apply. Cooperation. Also in 7 C.F.R. § 273.2 USDA weakens the regulatory provisions that deal with denials for non-cooperation. Under current rules, applicant households that "refuse to cooperate" are denied. Those that "fail to cooperate" - such as working poor households that miss an appointment due to a work conflict, a child care problem, or a sick child - cannot simply be denied. Again, where joint applications are common, an inappropriate procedural denial for food stamps might jeopardize the Medicaid application. Increasing the risk of improper terminations of households leaving cash assistance. In both food stamps and Medicaid the evidence is mounting from state and national studies that disturbingly large numbers of eligible families lose benefits when they leave cash assistance. Medicaid and food stamps are important work support programs. Unfortunately, the proposed regulations would make it more likely that states would erect barriers at this critical juncture, by expanding the opportunities for states to require more information from households for the purpose of food stamps. The proposed rules should clarify that the food stamp procedure of sending a household a notice that its case is expiring and shortening its certification period when it leaves cash assistance can be used only when specific issues related to eligibility, such as the household's earnings level, are in doubt - and that this procedure may not be used in blanket form for all or most families leaving cash assistance. USDA may also want to explore options for a transitional food stamp benefit that would give the household and welfare office more time to adjust to changing circumstances. In general, we urge USDA to collaborate with HHS in ensuring that eligible working poor families continue to receive important benefits and to revise the regulations to better achieve this goal. Length of certification periods. Sections 273.10 and 273.12 of the regulations give states broad new authority to shorten certification periods, but prohibit states from lengthening a household's certification period even where circumstances indicate this can safely be done. This is at odds with the Administration's efforts to encourage longer intervals between reviews of eligibility in Medicaid. In fact, the proposed rules delete an option in the current rules that allows states to conform food stamp certification periods to Medicaid redeterminations. The final rules should instead encourage states to assign the longest certification periods possible and to require a face-to-face interview as rarely as possible. Enabling working families to apply and be redetermined for both programs at the same time, and relatively infrequently, should improve participation in both programs. Burdens of participation in food stamps. In most states, food stamp verification requirements are already much more rigorous and burdensome on households, than Medicaid or CHIP verification. In the interest of expanding enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP many states have relaxed both the amount and the frequency of verification of income and other circumstances. In food stamps, on the other hand, because of pressures to achieve and maintain low Quality Control error rates, most states are moving in the opposite direction - they require more verification more often. These regulations would increase the likelihood of procedural denials for food stamps because of problems that households might experience in providing verification. For example, Section 273.2(d)(1) deletes a statement that prohibits states from denying households when a third party, such as an employer or landlord, fails to cooperate with verification. Section 273.2(f)(8)(A)(i) requires states to verify any reported change in income or utility costs that would affect benefits. This would mean that states would have to verify changes as small as $3. Also of concern are the weakening of rules concerning "collateral contacts" (third-parties outside of the household that a welfare office contacts to check on a household's circumstances), as well as rules relating to home visits and home interviews. For example, the proposed rules appear to allow states to establish verification procedures that require all applicant households with earnings to have their employer complete a wage-statement form, even where another form of verification is available. Such procedures inevitably inform the employer that the employee is seeking public benefits and are likely to discourage working poor families from applying for food stamps or Medicaid, since applicants cannot easily distinguish what requirements originate from one program over another. We already hear from states and advocates that burdensome food stamp verification requirements are exerting pressures in local offices that are contrary to the goals of expanding access to Medicaid and CHIP benefits to eligible children and families. USDA should be seeking ways to limit the burden of food stamp verification, rather than exacerbating this problem. Model Forms. In the preamble to the proposed food stamp rules, USDA announces it will no longer produce optional model food stamp applications and other forms for states to consider as they design their own forms. The Health Care Financing Administration at HHS has expanded its production of model Medicaid and Medicaid/CHIP forms in the past few years to encourage states to streamline and shorten their application forms and make the forms more understandable, thereby improving access by eligible families. We have found this to be a helpful tool to states interested in improving their applications. USDA and HHS should work together to produce model joint food stamp/Medicaid application forms. They should seek to facilitate access by working poor families to both Medicaid and food stamps. Immigrants. The proposed regulations contain a number of troubling provisions regarding immigrants. Researchers at the Urban Institute and elsewhere have found that since the mid-1990s participation of eligible immigrants (and children of immigrants) has declined dramatically in both Medicaid and food stamps. HHS and FNS should take steps to clarify immigrant eligibility for these programs, rather than creating new barriers to their participation. Many of the procedural burdens would disproportionately affect immigrant families. In addition, we have already discussed with you our concerns about the impact on immigrant participation of application questions on social security numbers. Proposed section 273.2(c)(1) requires that, in order to file an application, an adult house-hold member must sign a statement under penalty of perjury that all members of the household are U.S. citizens or eligible immigrants. This should not be a requirement for acceptance of the application form. In addition, the final regulations should require that the application form make clear that this attesta-tion applies only to those members of the household that are applying for food stamps, not to members the household identifies as ineligible immigrants or to other non-applicants. Where food stamps and Medicaid share an application form, this provision could have the effect of deterring large numbers of immigrants from applying for health benefits for themselves or for their citizen children. CONCLUSION In sum, we are deeply troubled by some of the proposed changes to food stamp regulations and the effect they are likely to have on Medicaid and CHIP enrollment. We urge you to revise the final rules as discussed above. Thank you very much for consideration of our views. Sincerely, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Unitarian Universalist Service Committee and others ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= nytrc-04.29.00-03:06:39-4174