Louisiana State Representative Tony Bacala on Timothy Babin

Louisiana State Representative Tony Bacala, Republican who represents Ascension Parish, was recently in the crosshairs of Twitter, particularly Jan Moller, executive director of the Louisiana Budget Project, and Louisiana Democrats. Möller recently tweeted, “A lawmaker in Louisiana wants the state government to seize child child support payments from poor children to pay for Medicaid.”

A Louisiana lawmaker wants the state government to seize child child support payments from poor children to pay for Medicaid. #lalege https://t.co/jgLpP3uLIw

– Jan Moller (@jmollerLBP), March 26, 2021

The Louisiana Democrats tweeted again, “He’s put in laws that would scare Mr. Burns. Bacala wants to confiscate child support payments from poor families to pay Medicaid costs for their children. ”

Tony Bacala represents the good people of Ascension Parish in the Louisiana House of Representatives.

He put laws in place that would scare Mr. Burns. Bacala wants to confiscate child support payments from poor families to pay Medicaid costs for their children. #Lalege https://t.co/xv77ikZrHi pic.twitter.com/ptGmBN9AtL

– Louisiana Democrats (@LaDemos) March 26, 2021

Legislation submitted by Bacala, House Bill No. 186, states that its goal is to “forge partnerships between government agencies to improve the management of Medicaid and program integrity”. What that means depends on who you ask.

Danny Mintz is Director of Safety Net Policy at the La Budget Project. “We are a political organization that oversees and advocates policies that affect low- to middle-income people in Louisiana.”

Mintz: “The bill basically seems to be doing two things. One of them is to make an annual report to lawmakers on a list of the number of children enrolled on Medicaid who are reported as dependent by someone other than their legal guardian … “He adds,” It’s kind of a Develop this list and break them down based on the income of the tax accountants who claim these children as dependents. The second part of the bill, which I believe is completely separate from the first half of the bill, seems to divert the child support money that normally goes to children on Medicaid. So, by definition, these are children who generally live in households that earn less than 138% of the federal poverty line. ”

Mintz continues, “The abstract states that child benefits are required, which would normally go to children receiving Medicaid, and instead passed on to the state of Louisiana to reimburse the state for Louisiana’s share of that child’s medical care. And functionally, it means taking money to be used on the direct care and support of children in low-income families and pulling it away to repay the state or pay the state for the legal obligation to provide medical care to those children Care.

“I don’t think this is a wise use of government funds, and I think children in Louisiana should get medical care when they need it, regardless of their family’s solvency. And when the state has a means to pay for their care, it is a cruel and misguided policy to take money away from these children in order to recoup the state’s expense. “He adds,” I think that in the clear text of the law it seems clear that it would result in some of the poorest children in the state taking money and giving it one of the largest government agencies. I find it difficult to come up with a convincing justification for this choice. ”

According to Bacala, the bill boils down to reallocation.

“Either the calculation isn’t clear enough in its direction, or people just misread it. it is one or the other. It may need to be cleaned up because someone told me that there is an interpretation of the bill that child support payments made by one parent to another should be passed on to the Ministry of Health.

“And that is not the intention of the bill, not the intention of the bill at all.” Bacala explains.

“It was created primarily for fraud, waste and abuse. In the original task force, information was gathered from the Treasury Department. It was reported that approximately one-third of Medicaid attendees file income tax returns. And it also found that just over half of the income tax returns filed by Medicaid participants reported a different number of dependents in income tax that passed on the application.

He continues, “In other words, someone can claim four dependents for applying for Medicaid and only one dependent or zero dependent on their income tax return.

“There is a suspicion that one parent may take children to receive Medicaid. And another parent claims children for income tax deduction, but the two don’t cross on the Medicaid application. And anecdotally, we hear stories that a mother and father of children who do not marry – that this can be used as a method to get Medicaid with one parent on a low income showing eligibility for Medicaid and another parent showing one has high income doing so would preclude eligibility.

“So the math is trying to identify what is technically called non-dependent parents and see if they should be charged a fee or if their salary is such that they should be reimbursed to the state should do.

“And I’m just giving you one example. You could have one parent, you could have two children. One parent makes 20 grand. The other makes 100,000. The parent who earns 20,000 applies and receives Medicaid. And the parent who makes a hundred thousand is not at all responsible for the well-being of the children.

“So you’d try to find out where those hundred thousand earners are and tell them, ‘Look, the state pays for your children’s health care. They make enough money to be responsible, ”and then try to get a refund from them. That’s it.

“I will speak very clearly. We’re not trying to take money or alimony from anyone. ”

And what about the belief that the bill is taking money from poor children to pay their Medicaid costs? “No, you are asking wealthy parents without custody to be responsible for their children.”

Bacala adds, “I say this: If the purpose of the bill is not clearly stated, I will support changes to the bill that will clarify the purpose and ensure that it is not misinterpreted in such a way that it negatively affects families.

“I think it benefits the people of the state, whose tax dollars are used to provide health care for those in need. And the idea is who is really in need? And it got us to the point that we can rid dollars of those who looped around the system, and then we can pass that money on to those who really need it. ”

So who is right?

Bacala, who wrote the bill, is certain that it is him. “I’m a little disappointed that it was misinterpreted and spread, frankly.”

However, if Bacala is wrong, Mintz’s accusation of cruelty cannot be ruled out.