CHIP Program: Abolish, Reform, or Absorb into Medicaid?
This paper examines the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the policy controversies surrounding its future in the wake of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It traces CHIP's origins in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, outlines how ACA-driven expansions created both a funding gap and overlapping coverage redundancies, and evaluates three proposed solutions: abolishing CHIP and replacing it with employer-sponsored or Exchange plans, integrating CHIP into state Medicaid programs, and restructuring and reauthorizing the program to restore its original purpose. Drawing primarily on testimony by Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Congressional Budget Office projections, the paper concludes that restructuring and reauthorization represents the most sustainable long-term path forward.
- Introduction: CHIP overview, ACA conflicts, and paper scope
- Background of the CHIP Program: CHIP origins, structure, eligibility, and enrollment
- Funding Challenges and the ACA's Impact: Funding gap, eligibility expansion, and budget risk
- The Overlapping Coverage Problem: ACA Exchange overlap creating CHIP redundancy
- Policy Options: Abolish, Integrate, or Restructure: Three solutions evaluated with pros and cons
- Conclusion: Restructuring recommended as most sustainable path
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Clearly frames a live policy debate by presenting both sides — proponents and opponents of CHIP reauthorization — before offering a supported recommendation.
- Uses a structured three-option format (abolish, integrate, restructure) that makes the comparative analysis easy to follow and evaluate.
- Grounds its argument in concrete figures (e.g., 2.28 million children at risk, $21 billion CBO cost estimate) that give the policy discussion empirical weight.
- Acknowledges the drawbacks of the preferred solution (potential gubernatorial misuse of autonomy), demonstrating balanced reasoning rather than one-sided advocacy.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates policy analysis through comparative option evaluation. Rather than simply arguing for one position, it systematically examines each proposed solution's strengths and limitations before arriving at a recommendation. This technique — identifying trade-offs, weighing costs and benefits, and grounding conclusions in expert testimony and government data — is a hallmark of undergraduate public policy writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction that defines CHIP and previews the debate, followed by a background section covering CHIP's legislative history. Two problem sections address funding gaps and overlapping coverage redundancies. The central section evaluates three policy options in order of increasing authorial preference, and a conclusion synthesizes the argument. This funnel-and-recommend structure is well-suited to policy briefs and persuasive academic essays.
Introduction
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), commonly referred to as CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program), is an insurance program run by the Department of Health and Human Services that administers funds to states to enable them to provide quality insurance coverage to eligible children within their jurisdictions. To be eligible for CHIP, a child must come from a family whose income is too low to qualify for private insurance coverage but too high to qualify for Medicaid (Holtz-Eakin, 2014).
With the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as ObamaCare, which expanded the list of persons eligible for both Medicaid and CHIP, there came many overlaps between CHIP and other secondary insurance options that threatened budgetary allocations and funding to the former. Owing to this, considerable controversy arose over whether funding for CHIP ought to be reauthorized through FY 2019. One faction argues that reauthorization is warranted because failing to do so could result in health insurance losses for over 2 million CHIP-eligible children. The other faction, however, believes that CHIP participants should simply transition to Medicaid, making expanded funding for CHIP unnecessary.
This paper presents the background of the ACA and examines its effect on the CHIP program. The future for CHIP, it is argued here, lies in restructuring the program and restoring it to its original intent.
Background of the CHIP Program
Studies have shown that a lack of health insurance causes delays in the delivery of care to children and makes it difficult for them to have their medical needs met (Holtz-Eakin, 2014). The CHIP program is a joint state-federal partnership established with the aim of providing insurance coverage to children in families that cannot afford private coverage. It came into being in 1997 following the passage of the Balanced Budget Act through a bipartisan legislative process (Holtz-Eakin, 2014). It was structured as a block grant, calculating the amount of federal funding to states based on the size of their CHIP-eligible populations. Like Medicaid, CHIP provides states with federal matching funds (the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage), with the federal government meeting approximately 70% of the total cost (Holtz-Eakin, 2014).
Importantly, CHIP is an allotment to states, and states therefore retain the discretion to choose benefit requirements and the administrative structure within which the program is run in their jurisdictions (Holtz-Eakin, 2014). Eligibility rules vary from state to state, ranging between 138 and 405% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). A majority of states cover incomes above 200% of the FPL. Benefits and cost-sharing requirements also vary by state. Some states require participating families to pay co-pays and monthly premiums depending on their financial status (Holtz-Eakin, 2014). Generally, however, CHIP is considered a robust program offering extensive provider networks and rich benefits to participants. The Wisconsin CHIP program (formally referred to as BadgerCare Plus), for instance, offers an attractive benefits package that includes services for language, hearing, and speech disorders; occupational and physical therapy; hearing exams and aids; vision exams; and outpatient and inpatient behavioral services, among others (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2014).
As of 2013, CHIP had over 6 million participants nationwide, at an average cost of $1,419 per child. Since its enactment in 2007, CHIP helped reduce the number of uninsured children from 15% to 9%, and it continues to enjoy massive support from both Republicans and Democrats at the state and federal levels (Vestal, 2015). In a recent address to the Chamber of Commerce, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah referred to the CHIP program as "a marvelous program that has worked very, very well" (Vestal, 2015, n.p.).
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.