A Personal ArchiveThe Ishmael Record

Back to the Record
Health Care Policy

In Arkansas, 80,000 Ineligible Medicaid Recipients Removed from Rolls

By Patrick Ishmael Filed December 22, 2017 Source Show-Me Institute

Since as far back as 2015, we have talked about the idea of performing regular audits of the state's Medicaid rolls. The purpose of such audits is several-fold: not only to ensure that taxpayer money is going to qualified beneficiaries and to detect malfeasance, but above all else to ensure that the state's limited resources are making it to the most vulnerable members of our society.

Arkansas has an auditing program similar to the one we've talked about, and it appears the state just turned up a lot of ineligible beneficiaries.

Nearly one-third of those cases involved people who did not report changes of address as required by the state. More than 25,000 people were removed from the program because they were receiving public benefits from more than one state. [Emphasis mine]

DHS says more than 16,000 people were removed because of unreported employment. Others were removed from the program because they were eligible for Medicare, while another 4,100 cases involved inmates who still had Medicaid coverage.

In all, about 80,000 Arkansans ineligible for Medicaid were removed from the program's rolls.

As we've noted before, there are lots of non-nefarious reasons that someone may be on Medicaid but ineligible for it, including unfamiliarity with its rules and regular fluctuations in their own income. But whatever the reason for that ineligibility, the more efficiently the state can steward funds and direct them to needy beneficiaries who actually qualify for the program, the better the results will be for the program, its beneficiaries, and the taxpayers who fund those benefits.

View the original at Show-Me Institute →

Source & Reproduction Notice

As confirmed against the Show-Me Institute's website on August 15, 2026, the Institute's stated policy permits reprinting of its published articles and commentary provided the original author receives credit. Letting the Institute know about a reprint is appreciated but is not a condition of use.

This entry was archived under that permission as it stood on the date above. If the Institute's policy changes after that date, it does not apply retroactively to entries already reproduced here under the terms in effect at the time — this is a record of the grant as confirmed, not a live status check.

The original remains hosted at the Institute's own site — use the link below for the canonical version, current formatting, and any images.