The Leavitt Report is hardly alone when they mischaracterize the new Medicaid expansion as the “adult” expansion. In fact, new section 42 USC 1396a(a)(10)(i)(VIII) expands eligibility to all non-elderly (under 65) persons up to 133% FPL who are not otherwise eligible. Since children aged 6-18 are only categorically eligible up to 100% FPL, the Medicaid expansion also covers kids aged 6-18 between 100% and 133% FPL.
One source of the confusion is Justice Roberts, who consistently referred to the Medicaid expansion (42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(i)(VIII)) as the “adult” expansion in the NFIB decision.
Raises an interesting question: if a state exercises the Red State Option for adults, do they have to also cut off the kids?
For details, see Part II.D of my paper with Huberfeld & Weeks Leonard.
@koutterson
UPDATE: see the helpful comment by Joe & my response. These kids were covered by a different subsection of PPACA 2001 (a) [(a)(5) rather than (a)(1)]. Still leaves open the question about which precise parts of PPACA Title II are now optional.
