Wisconsin seeks to be first to drug test Medicaid applicants

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Gov. Scott Walker wants to make Wisconsin the first state in the country to require childless adults applying for Medicaid to undergo drug screening, a move that could serve as a national model.

Walker's plan, which needs federal approval, comes as he prepares to run for a third term next year. Wisconsin's Republican-controlled Legislature approved Walker's request for a waiver to do the drug tests two years ago, but is now digging into the details of how it would actually work.
Walker has talked for years about drug testing Medicaid and food stamp recipients, touting it as a way to make welfare programs a "trampoline, not a hammock" to get people back into the workforce. A requirement that childless adults receiving food stamps be screened for drugs was passed in the prior state budget, but it's yet to take effect pending federal approval. Former President Barack Obama's administration warned Wisconsin at the time the requirement was passed that it was barred under federal law.

But Walker's drug-testing and work-requirement plans to take effect in 2019 would be more likely to get approval from Republican President Donald Trump's administration. The drug test requirement was also widely expected to be challenged in court.

Fourteen other states have some type of drug screening or test as part of their public benefits programs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Wisconsin is seeking to become the first to require it as a condition of eligibility for the Medicaid program.
The new drug test requirement would affect about 148,000 of the 1.2 million people in BadgerCare, the state's main Medicaid program. It provides benefits to people who earn less than $12,060 a year as a single adult and $16,240 a year for a couple.

Those who refuse a drug test would be ineligible for coverage until the test is completed, while people who test positive would get treatment paid for by taxpayers through the Medicaid program. Details about the type of treatment and where it would be offered would be worked out with the federal government as the plan is implemented. Those who refuse treatment would lose benefits for six months.

Walker's federal waiver request was to include a host of other changes, including limiting childless adult eligibility for Medicaid to no more than four years if they aren't meeting work requirements, imposing new monthly premiums and charging more for those who smoke or engage in other unhealthy behavior.

sounds like a plan

then maybe drug test all taxpayers to determine if they will be taxed for the availability of these services,,,

what's next an obesity test ?

if you aren't height/weight proportional lose
your medicaid for heart conditions ?

no more food stamps if you are 50 lbs overweight ?

I don't have a problem with it. Most companies drug test employees. Government aid is basically an "employee"

It isn't working for income. It comes from taxes.

I have always been drug tested before being hired. I have always worked in place that do random drug tests. If I am actually working for it and get drug tested, why shouldn't those getting government aid (from tax payers) be drug tested too?

Those aren't illegal

It isn't healthy but not illegal.

I look at it like this. If your overweight, smoking, drinking and drugging, that's something that each individual will have to decide.
The help is there and you can get it but you have to make a choice, just like everyone else.

I see it like this, part of the 'price' of being in a country that provides the protections and opportunities of AMerica is paying into the American tax system in return for the benefits obtained by those protections and opportunities,,,(based in the amount of benefit one has seen themself)

If all that is necessary for such price to be paid is that one has benefitted, with no further prequalification

all that should be necessary for assistance from that pool of taxes is that one is in need, with no further prequalification,,,

its a community pool, if the peoples money is good enough to take based only in whether they have it, and use to help others

it should be good enough if those people become the 'others' who need help

I don't have a problem with it.. If you have the money for drugs then why should the taxpayers pay for other benefits that cost money.

So we pay for your medical coverage and meds while you do coke?

don't sound right to me.

Come work with me.. drug test just to get hired, then random testing.. unannounced.. get caught.. your out... regardless of your title.

Why

A) nobody wants to work with a drugged person
B) the company pays approx. 35% above your salary every year in benefits.

We don't like to waste our hard earned money... neither does the tax payers

But but...those that work for money should be put through that instead of those taking money (sarcasm

I see the light now.... those who work.. well that's their job.. those who take.. well that's their right.. and if you are going to take.. then why not take when you are stoned.?.. it makes for a merry experience... ;)...don't worry... be happy..Lol

certain legal products are already restricted from purchase
with food stamps... namely tobacco, alcohol, prepared foods
and paper products because they are not necessary for survival
i say restrict many more, such as cookies, candy, ice cream,
potato chips,soda pop and all processed foods...
as a matter of fact limit the items to the basics needed to
sustain a person...fresh fruit and veggies, whole grain breads
and water and thats it.

should the taxpayer subsidize those who harm themselves with
junk food because their drug of choice happens to be legal and
easily obtainable ??

addiction is a disease...regardless of how someone ends up that way
is of little meaning...there is a cost to society whether it be
for stents, bypasses or rehab...

either we want to help and educate those in need...or we don't

To be honest, I don't have a problem with that. But those still aren't illegal like drugs

maybe they should drug test all drivers license holders

and all bank account holders

heck just make everyone report for a monthly drug test

why not no one seems to mind if other peoples 4th & 5th amendment rights are
infringed upon lets make it mandatory for everyone

4th
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
-------------against unreasonable searches and seizures,--------
????????????shall not be violated???????????????
, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5th
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a ????????????????witness against himself???????????????
, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

so they search your bodily fluids

and force you to be a witness against yourself

------------------

it will come around to everyone eventually when you refuse to stand up
for the rights of others the lose your rights will soon follow

Its the people with children collecting benefits that really need to be checked up on,if they are collecting benefits for children they should have to prove they use it for the children, not themselves, and if they can't support their kids that would be child endangerment. Instead of food stamps (EBT) we should be giving them a bag of rice, bag of potatoes,some milk and bread, and a few other things, and if they don't like it they can find a different way to get what they need. They have tried term limits for welfare and its gone no where. The sad thing is all the people abusing the system make it much harder for those who really need it.

Receipts,
Every month recipients need to send in their receipts accounting for all money/credit spent.
That handout, its not their money, its our money.

I have had to account for a company's money I spent.
When I had to spend my money for company business I was compensated from the receipts I provided with justification.

As it is, we give people money and food credits but require no proof they use it as we intended. We provide assistance to them so they can survive and provide for their families.

If you pay taxes and are audited you need receipts. If Public Assistance office is audited they need to provide receipts. Why do the people that spend the money and use the credits get away with spending our money as they wish without justification?

Its easy to implement. Just provide a form with instructions when assistance is approved. Include it in the contract so when you sign for assistance you sign in agreement to provide receipts and the form.

You send your forms and receipts in a prepaid envelop to your case worker. Every reevaluation period your 'benefits' adjust to reflect your receipts.
No receipts, benefits stop.

I know I didn't get my money back from the company if I didn't fill out the forms and attach my receipts. I know that every month my spending had to be accountable with receipts. The company set the budget, gave me access to the money and I provided receipts for the things the money was intended to buy. If the receipts didn't match up I was accountable. If I required more funding I was required to appeal for a higher budget with reasons listed.

Drug testing is not the answer.

the difference between a company and taxpayers is that a company has a COMMON goal of PROFIT

taxpayers are not a profit business

they are citizens , putting their share into a pot to be available for citizens when they find themselves in need

a review of that number of receipts would cost more 'taxpayer' money in man power hours than it would save

there are already restrictions on a food stamp card regarding what can be purchased, As far as the cash benefit, it is low enough that having to budget it is enough of a restriction,, when its gone , its gone

All medical care in these united states should be free the cost should be a percentage taken from our tax dollars the first thing one needs to do is get the crooked insurance companies out of the equation. Has anyone ever asked themselves being free as we are why we need someone like the insurance companies to tell us what kind of test we can have and who we can see as our doctor.

The government never freed anyone they just found a way to enslave us all think not just look at minimum wage altho most could agree that it should have been raised many times due to the increase in cost of living it wasn't yet the government never missed a chance to give themselves one.What this means is that one is no longer making minimum wages but instead are making slave wages..

And as far as drug testing or sobriety test they are nothing more than the end around to self incrimination because when the laws were written on self incrimination these test weren't available so they only cover things like evidence that is oral or written ..it's all about control..

As far as loss of out tax payer dollar maybe they shouldn't piss it away without oversight.

I see what you are doing. Stating an argument as a form of discussion, kudos.
What this argument fails to consider is the main complaint the taxpayers have about that assistance. Accountability.

If the funds we provide were going to the things they should be, the drug issue may not be as prevalent. Granted drugs may be one of the reasons for needing assistance. Plus, I'm sure there are some that don't use drugs but buy drugs with their money as an income source.
EBT is not foolproof as well. You buy my food and I'll give you such and such. You buy me $20 in food and I'll give you $10 in cash or whatever. I've seen it happen.


Really?
You already have a case worker that reviews your eligibility on a schedule. You don't think adding a drug test screening is going to cost more? Every drug test requires additional personnel to administer collection, transport it to a facility to do the test, perform the test, provide the results and review the results. In the end its back to the case worker for determining eligibility.


I've seen it first hand.
Most taxpayers don't have an issue with people that need assistance on occasion. The issue comes when the charity is abused. The issue is when children suffer without because the guardian uses the funds and allotments for something other than what is intended. The issue comes when someone uses the benefits to obtain drugs or alcohol and thus becomes unemployable.

As far as I know, Most children are not eligible to get assistance because they are not of legal age to sign a contract. The benefits go to the adults For the children. Adults are expected to be accountable. Part of accountability is justification. At present, recipients are not accountable for the funds they gain. Its "Free Money".

If one of my suppliers wants to take me to lunch to talk about sales it is not my 'Free Lunch'. I didn't have to pay for it but I was required top do something to get it so technically it was not a 'Free Lunch'. I was required to consider their sales pitch. It was a task that was required to get the food (or whatever).
If the taxpayers gives me an EBT account and an allotment of funds, I am 'Expected' to use those funds as they intended. Problem is, there is no way for the taxpayers to know that I did.
Now, If I was required to show a receipt of my purchases, not only will it show what I bought but when I bought it.
Right now, a case worker also works as a Councillor. If you go in for review and they are cutting down your benefit and you ask why, they tell you and offer you ideas on how to get by. They will direct you to other councilors for energy assistance, nutrition and so on.
If receipts are provided, advice on budgeting and nutrition are more accurate. "You bought this at this time. If you buy this at this time it will last longer, ect."
The goal of assistance should be to make someone self-sufficient so assistance is no longer needed. Everything that happens should be towards that goal.
Personally, I had no idea how much I was spending till I started saving and reviewing my receipts. It helped me curb my impulse spending and made budgeting easier.

According to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.


https://thinkprogress.org/what-7-states-discovered-after-spending-more-than-1-million-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-c346e0b4305d


abuse is going to be present in every taxpayer system


taxes pay for retired government officials and retired vets, but do we require them to submit receipts for the money they receive?

no,, money spent is money spent, whether it is perceived as 'free' or not

the answer is to be consistent when finding abuse, not to spend exhorbitant costs on a mindframe that EVERYONE is potentially going to abuse if not monitored at every step

Why not?

If it is tax money it should be completely accountable.
Right now the entire tax system is not fully accountable and those gaps is where the problem starts. I'm saying in general terms.
Personally I don't give a crap. People are insane anymore, not personally but collectively.

Some things just make sense. If I give Joe Shidt The Rag Man your money for new rags, You expect him to buy rags with it. If you are paying attention to your money, you are going to want to either see the rags he bought or the receipts for them. Since you can't inspect every rag for newness, the receipts are enough. It doesn't matter if Joe is abusing your money or not.
You allotted those funds for a purpose and you are entitled to know that they went to that purpose. After all, it is your money.
Since Joe knows you are looking, he will buy rags with that money.

Tax money is your money. Sure you are forced to put it in the pool so everyone can use it and we trust certain people to use it wisely but as for tracking those uses exact monies are being spent but not being exactly tracked. To me that is an accountability error.

There are solutions to many problems. Unwillingness to act on a solution does not mean it is impossible, it just means it is not imperative.