The Safeguarding Medicaid Act mandates universal asset testing for all Medicaid applicants and recipients, requires states to incorporate resource checks into income eligibility determinations, and establishes federal tracking of state asset verification efforts.
John Barrasso
Senator
WY
The Safeguarding Medicaid Act mandates that all applicants and recipients of Medicaid across all states and territories must undergo asset testing, removing existing exemptions for age, blindness, or disability. This legislation requires states to incorporate resource eligibility checks alongside income verification for most applicants, with limited exceptions for continuous coverage groups. Furthermore, the bill establishes federal tracking of savings resulting from these new asset verification requirements and mandates regular public reporting from states on their eligibility review processes.
Medicaid Bill Mandates Asset Tests for All, Including Disabled: New Rules Kick In Within 1-2 Years
The “Safeguarding Medicaid Act” is a major overhaul of how Medicaid eligibility is determined, and it’s going to hit some of the most vulnerable people the hardest. Essentially, this bill forces every state and territory to start checking the assets (or resources) of nearly every person applying for or receiving Medicaid, and it removes existing exemptions that protected certain groups.
The End of Exemptions: What It Means for the Disabled and Elderly
Right now, many people who qualify for Medicaid because they are aged, blind, or disabled are exempt from having their assets tested. This bill, specifically in Section 2, scraps that exemption. Going forward, if this passes, all applicants and recipients will have their assets checked, regardless of their age or disability status. This means that if you’re a person with a disability who relies on Medicaid for critical care and you’ve managed to save up a modest amount for emergencies—maybe an inheritance or a small savings account—you could be disqualified.
States have one year after the law is signed to get an electronic system up and running to verify these assets. If a state claims "serious economic hardship," the Secretary of Health and Human Services can grant them an extra year, but the clock is ticking for everyone else.
Income Isn’t Enough Anymore: The New Resource Test
Section 3 introduces a second major hurdle: a mandatory resource test for anyone whose eligibility is based on income. Previously, many standard Medicaid pathways only checked income. Now, states must also check your resources. If your total assets are above a limit set by the state (which cannot exceed the maximum allowed for that program), you won't qualify, even if your income is low enough.
Think about it this way: You might be working a low-wage job and qualify for Medicaid based on your paycheck, but if you have $5,000 saved up for a down payment on a reliable used car, that could suddenly become a disqualifying asset. This provision doesn’t affect continuous coverage rules for pregnant women and young children, but for everyone else, it means the rules just got a lot tighter. States have two years to implement this specific resources test.
New Federal Oversight and State Burden
Section 4 puts the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in charge of tracking the federal savings generated by these new, stricter asset verification rules. This signals that the primary goal here is cost containment through reduced enrollment. States now have a massive new reporting burden, required to submit detailed reports every three years that track how many asset checks they performed and how many people were found eligible afterward.
If a state fails to comply with these new rules, the Secretary can force them into a corrective action plan. While the goal is administrative compliance, this level of federal enforcement tied to eligibility checks could create pressure on states to prioritize disqualifying applicants rather than helping them navigate the system. For state agencies, this means a huge increase in administrative work and the risk of penalties if they can’t handle the new workload.