Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) was formed by congress in 1996 to curb the growth of needy families. However, not all families, and children were eligible to access the funding of TANF due to restrictions on different levels governing the funds. One such level is the distribution of the fund, or block grant to each state basing in its need. However, each state is entitled to set its own restrictions, there are several rules regarding TANF from the federal government.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), is determined by the time limit for families and children receiving support. Moreover, the federal rule states, less than 60 months to a family that includes as adult recipient. For instance, this formulation defines how an adult must not be reliant on the government for a longer period instead; they are encouraged to train for employment, and job opportunities to support themselves. On the other hand, the time limit does not apply to needy “child-only families”. In such a case, the absence of an adult in a family creates a condition to support the children indefinitely, maybe, until they are 18 years and above to cater for their own needs. However, there are cases of exemption regarding TANF. Families that meet certain criteria are exempted and are set to receive the benefit beyond the 60 months set by the states.
Immigrant Eligibility, by Federal law bars state benefits for legal immigrants until they have a minimum of five years living in the United States, extending to other parts of the TANF program goals and objective. For instance, work preparation and employment readiness, cash receivership and other support and services such as child support.
Changes in spending and caseloads since TANF was enacted in 1996 have been extensive. Caseloads are a unique feature created specifically during the slowdown of the economic growth. In this case, increased caseloads in different states lead to a “temporary Emergency Fund”. However, since its enactment in 1996, TANF program has been in decline and has undergone many changes because of increased caseloads that exponentially grew in 2007. For instance, the caseloads rose by just 16%, peaking in 2010 after the recession.
Implementation of TANF varies with each state because of the different composure in terms of its population and demographic sphere, which result in different implementation of TANF programs. The following paragraph explains the different implementations.
The first case includes, time limit. In this case, states can differ by setting up time limits on how assistance is provided to poor working families and non-working families. States run different program using the TANF block funds. In an unequal state, states differ in several manners. For instance, one state can exhibit a higher poverty ratio to its population, and in such a case, its TANF program approach is different regardless of the Federal laws. Such cases include income assistance, educational and job readiness and training, transportation to work for an employed single mothers and adults, and aid to children among other services. Finally, how each state assists poor immigrant within the federal law. For example, some states provide funding assistance to recent immigrants subjected to the federal five-year bar, but they have to meet certain qualifications. Additionally and an equally important point is the arrival of post-1996 immigrants prior to the TANF ACT that each state handle differently.
MEDICAID
Medicaid was established to promote improved health status among poor families and uninsured children across each state.
Federal rules regarding Medicaid how the programs receive funds are supplemented to each state basing on the following state aspects. First, the funds are distributed while considering the different state medical plans that are offered. This is considered important as it directly determines the amount of Medicaid fund the state receives. The second rule is the satisfaction of the funding sources that meet statutory and regulatory requirements to authorize FFP. Under the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), the federal governments disburse funds to states for a specific quota of program expenditure. Additionally, the federal government is involved to make sure that each state payment methodology is in check with the basic minimum that defines an eligible person. For instance, each state can have a different payment paradigm that needs to be approved by the federal government before implementation. The federal state law requires each state to cover specific individuals and groups also cover the optional eligibility groups. In such cases, the states are free to set up their own eligibility requirements that have the minimum structure of the federal rule. Furthermore, if a state can offer a more attractive package or need to expand to another set of groups, they need an approval from the CMS for a waiver to the federal law.
The third difference is the eligible groups that are offered insurance coverage, service package, and other specialized services. From the previous sections, a state, under the waiver from the federal government can expand their eligible groups to include more needy individuals from a wider area. Such case differs from state to state, which also affects the underlying budget.
Most Medicaid dollars spent includes Alabama, Arizona and Florida with most concentrating on wide specialized packages with a minimum federal standard package.
Rising Medicaid caseloads and rising medical costs affect each state with a different approach within the federal rule of Medicaid to counter them. For example, encouraging able-bodied persons to get employment and be self-reliant. The second point is, due to an improved economic performance that reduces the reliance on assisted medical programs.
One of the main determinants of increased caseloads and medical costs that affect Medicaid in each state is the ability for the local state government to expand its Medicaid program. This has indicated that most states that embrace expansion generally experience an increase in program enrollment, which signifies a wider range of eligible groups being offered the medical services. Contrary, it can signify a higher percentage of persons not able to sustain their medical bills. In other cases, the governors in several states have rejected funding for Medicaid to expand the program posing a challenge to tackle the higher medical bills.
In summary, the implementation of an ACT requires that the whole system is in tandem with the federal government, acting as a minimum standard but allowing flexibility in the base structure within a state. As such, each state program extension, and eligibility are completely different from another on different aspects such as funding quota, demographic composure and service charter and even political alignment.
References
Medicaid. Medicaid. 2015. 25 MAR 2016 <https://www.medicaid.gov/chip/eligibility-standards/chip-eligibility-standards.html>.
