HHS Report Claims Medicaid Work Requirements Reduce Poverty, Scholars Dispute Findings

A Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report issued by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation asserts that recent Medicaid policy changes “could reduce poverty by as much as 1.6 to 2.9 million people.” The report links the administration’s work-requirement reforms to a projected decline in poverty, despite simultaneous projections of substantial coverage losses.

The Bulwark

In 2022 the Trump administration, together with the Republican-controlled Congress, imposed a work-requirement condition on certain Medicaid beneficiaries. The policy formed part of a broader effort to cut federal spending on the program, which provides health coverage to more than 70 million low-income Americans and legal residents. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the combined reforms could leave up to 10 million people uninsured by 2034, with roughly half of those losses attributable to the work-requirement provision.

The Bulwark

• Medicaid enrollment: >70 million individuals.

The Bulwark

• Spending reduction target: Approximately $1 trillion over ten years.

The Bulwark

• Potential uninsured: Up to 10 million by 2034 (CBO).

The Bulwark

• Work-requirement contribution: Slightly more than 50 % of projected losses.

The Bulwark

• Reported poverty reduction: 1.6–2.9 million people (HHS claim).

The Bulwark

The juxtaposition of projected coverage losses with a claimed poverty decline forms the central point of contention.

The Bulwark

The HHS report frames the work-requirement reforms as a “positive effect” on poverty levels, suggesting that the policy encourages labor market participation and thereby lifts individuals out of poverty. The analysis presented by the Office of Planning and Evaluation does not provide detailed methodological exposition within the public summary, relying instead on the headline estimate cited above.

The Bulwark

Policy scholars Chloe East (University of Colorado Boulder) and Adrianna McIntyre (Harvard University) published a detailed rebuttal that challenges the plausibility of simultaneous coverage loss and poverty reduction. Health economists Richard G. Frank (Harvard) and Sherry Glied (New York University) prepared a critique, shared privately with the article’s author, emphasizing methodological flaws. University of Michigan economist Tom Buchmueller, also consulted, described the report’s logic as “basic” and comparable to errors typically penalized in undergraduate coursework.

The Bulwark

According to STAT News, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation lost roughly two-thirds of its staff during the 2023 “DOGE” purges, shrinking from about 150 analysts to fewer than 50. The reduction raises questions about the office’s capacity to conduct rigorous, independent analysis under the current administration.

The Bulwark

• “could reduce poverty by as much as 1.6 to 2.9 million people.” — Department of Health and Human Services report, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

The Bulwark

• “The logical flaws are basic, the kind of stuff that would get you marked down in an undergraduate class.” — The Bulwark (article author)

The Bulwark

The dispute over the Medicaid report illustrates broader concerns about the reliability of federal analyses when staffing cuts and partisan priorities intersect. Critics argue that diminished analytical resources may produce “shoddy work,” potentially skewing public policy debates and undermining confidence in governmental data.

The Bulwark

The unpublished critiques by Frank, Glied, and others are expected to circulate among policymakers and may inform forthcoming congressional oversight of HHS analytical practices. Continued scrutiny of the report’s assumptions is likely as the 2024 election cycle approaches.

The Bulwark