MONTGOMERY — In a show of bipartisanship, the House of Representatives passed legislation by Democratic State Rep. Marilyn Lands (D-Huntsville) to accelerate pregnant women's coverage under Medicaid, ensuring swifter access to prenatal care.
House Bill 89 (HB89) provides presumptive eligibility to pregnant women for Medicaid before the Medicaid agency approves an application for coverage. This typically involves a somewhat lengthy process of proving income and waiting for approval.
The House Health Committee added an amendment to sunset the legislation, meaning it will require legislative reapproval or expire by 2028.
"Basically, this would expedite the process to get women and babies into prenatal care much earlier," Lands said, presenting her bill before the House body. "Right now, only 11% of pregnant women in this state receive prenatal care at all, and many don't get it until well into the second or even third trimester."
Lands, who has set herself apart as one of the most progressive and left-leaning lawmakers since taking office less than a year ago, found herself at the tail-end of a bevy of Republican support.
"Having had some personal experience in our family with a recent birth that caused a 92-day stay in the ICU with the baby," said State Rep. Arnold Mooney (R-Indian Hills). "It's really difficult in certain situations with maternity to detect some of the things that go on."
He continued, "It's a good bill, and I'm glad that you ladies have brought it."
State Rep. Susan DuBose (R-Hoover), who cosponsored the bill despite disagreeing with Lands over political disagreements more than once, was quick to applaud Lands for introducing it.
"I have enjoyed collaborating with you throughout the last several months," DuBose said. "You've worked very hard on this. You've done extensive research. Thank you. The babies and mothers of Alabama are going to be better off as a result of your work."
Under the bill, a pregnant woman will be eligible for prenatal care under Medicaid if a qualified provider determines that her household income does not exceed the modified adjusted gross income limit based on preliminary information. It also provides that presumptive coverage cannot be retroactively removed if the mother fails to submit a full Medicaid application in the allotted time, which is the end of the month after the month her presumptive care is granted.
Presumptive care can be granted after a mother provides proof of pregnancy and facial proof of current household income. Current Medicaid requirements for pregnant women put the maximum monthly income for a family of four at $3,912.
While several Democratic lawmakers also spoke in favor of the legislation, Republican support was not without a touch of sarcasm.
"This is a pro-life bill, and I just want to officially welcome you to the pro-life movement," said State Rep. Mack Butler (R-Rainbow City). "Because every life is precious and created by God. Thank you."
While seemingly playful in intent, Butler's comment dampened the bipartisan mood in the room, gaining a mention by State Rep. Mary Moore (D-Birmingham).
"The comment I got to make is, why [do] we have to have high school attitudes about things?" Moore asked. "Why you got to come interject pro-life? It's just a good bill trying to help some women that's trying to bring a baby into this world, that incur all kinds of medical conditions when you're pregnant."
She continued, "It's a good bill. I appreciate it. But I had to get that out."
The bill cleared the House unanimously, 102-0. It was then opened up for house cosponsors, earning 56. It now heads to the Senate for deliberation.
Afterward, House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter (R-Rainsville) said the bill needed to happen while once again quelling talks of Medicaid expansion.
I think it's one of those bills which is probably something that needs to happen," Ledbetter said. "We had a lot of support from both sides. It was bipartisan."
He continued, "This year, [the Medicaid agency] asked for an additional $250 million, and not counting the CHIP [Children's Health Insurance Program] program, which is another $30 million. So, you're talking about $280 million in one year, and that's not sustainable. The thing with the expansion, the federal government's going to pay so much of it now, but then it's going to go away. To be honest with you, I don't see how that state could afford it."
To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email craig.monger@1819news.com.
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
