Under Section 1931, states have the option to modify their July 16, 1996 AFDC state plan requirements by using the flexibilities outlined below1. To exercise any of these flexibilities under Section 1931, a state must submit a Medicaid state plan amendment.
- Use less restrictive financial methodologies. States can use less restrictive income and/or resource methodologies to determine Medicaid eligibility than those in effect under the July 16, 1996 AFDC state plan. By doing so, states can expand coverage to more low-income families with children without obtaining a Federal waiver. For example, a number of states have chosen to disregard a car of any value, as well as interest income, under their TANF programs. Some of these states have adopted the same disregards for their Section 1931 group under Medicaid as they have in their TANF programs. (These types of disregards must be applied equally to all applicants and recipients under the Section 1931 group.)
In addition, some states have chosen to apply more generous earned income disregards under TANF and have adopted the same disregards for the Medicaid Section 1931 group. States can apply these disregards to applicants and recipients or, without violating comparability requirements, they can apply such disregards to Medicaid recipients but not applicants, by replacing the "$30 and 1/3" disregards, which applied only to recipients under the AFDC program.
- Ease deprivation requirements (repeal of the "100-hour" rule). Under regulations published August 7, 1998, states have increased flexibility to define the deprivation requirements for Medicaid eligibility. Prior regulations prohibited states from providing Medicaid eligibility to two-parent families if the principal wage-earner worked more than 100 hours per month. The new regulation removes the 100-hour definition of deprivation and instead allows states to set a reasonable standard based on hours of work and/or dollar amounts that may take into account family size and/or time elements. This new flexibility allows states to treat one-parent and two-parent families the same under Medicaid even if a distinction existed under the states' 1996 AFDC and Medicaid state plans.
- Use less restrictive financial standards. States can raise their income and resource standards by as much as the rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) since July 16, 1996. (Section 1931 also allows states to use income standards that are lower than the July 16, 1996 AFDC standard, but no lower than those in place on May 1, 1988.) Exercising this flexibility, a state may, for example, pass legislation indexing the income and asset standards for its Section 1931 families2 — without obtaining a Federal waiver and without regard to its policies under TANF.
- Continue certain AFDC waivers. Finally, states are allowed to continue AFDC waivers that were in effect as of July 16, 1996 that relate to income and resource methodologies, deprivation, and the requirement that a child live with a specified relative. Section 1931 provides that these waivers may be continued permanently for Medicaid purposes even after the date the AFDC waiver expires. However, any AFDC provisions that were more restrictive than those in place for Medicaid cannot be continued for Medicaid purposes beyond their expiration.
1Note that, consistent with the requirement for comparable standards described above, the policies states adopt under the Section 1931 group must apply equally to families receiving and applying for Medicaid. Earned income disregards (see under Use less restrictive financial methodologies) constitute the sole exception to the comparable standards rule; that is, states can apply earned income disregards differently for Medicaid applicants and recipients under Section 1931, because the AFDC rules that underlie Section 1931 eligibility allowed AFDC applicants and recipients to be treated differently in this respect.
2 Because of the CPI constraint, a state that has chosen to apply income standards under TANF that are significantly higher than those under its AFDC state plan in effect on July 16, 1996 may not be able to raise the standards for its Section 1931 group to the same level. However, such a state could effectively raise the income standard for its Section 1931 group by using the authority to liberalize its financial methodologies as explained above. For example, if a state raised the income standard under TANF from $250 per month to $500 per month and wanted to do the same under its Section 1931 group, the state could get the desired result by disregarding an additional $250 of income (or disregarding "the difference between the AFDC standard and the TANF standard by family size") for purposes of Medicaid eligibility.