Back to Bills

Medicaid Coverage for Pretrial Detainees

Full Title:
Due Process Continuity of Care Act

Summary#

This bill lets states choose to give Medicaid benefits to people who are in custody while awaiting the outcome of criminal charges (pretrial detainees). It changes current Medicaid rules that exclude people in custody from receiving Medicaid-covered services. The bill also gives states planning grants to prepare to offer that coverage.

  • Main change: States may cover people in custody pending disposition of charges under their Medicaid programs. This is optional for each state.
  • Planning grants: $50 million is authorized to help states assess needs, build provider networks, set up billing and electronic health records, and train providers.
  • Goal: The bill appears intended to improve continuity of medical and behavioral health care for people held before trial.
  • Timing: The change starts on the first day of the first calendar quarter that begins at least 60 days after the bill becomes law.
  • Technical fix: The bill adjusts an earlier law’s effective date rules so they align with this change.

What it means for you#

  • People in jail awaiting trial (pretrial detainees): Could receive Medicaid-covered medical, behavioral health, and substance use services while in custody if the state opts in. This could include outpatient care, detox, and peer recovery services named in the bill.
  • State governments / Medicaid agencies: Can choose to expand coverage to this group. They will need to plan for provider networks, billing systems, and oversight if they opt in.
  • Local jails and detention centers: May need to work with state Medicaid programs, enroll as providers or contract with Medicaid providers, and change how they document and bill care.
  • Health care providers and managed care plans: May be asked to treat more patients in custody and to set up billing and electronic records that meet Medicaid rules. The bill encourages recruiting more Medicaid providers for this population.
  • Taxpayers: The federal government authorizes planning grant money. The longer-term effect on federal and state Medicaid spending is not estimated in the bill materials provided.
  • People released from custody: If states opt in, there may be fewer gaps in coverage when someone leaves custody, because Medicaid could be active during detention.

Expenses#

Estimated public cost: $50,000,000 authorized for planning grants; no estimate is provided for ongoing Medicaid spending changes.

  • The bill authorizes $50 million to be appropriated for state planning grants to implement the change.
  • The bill does not include a fiscal note estimating how much Medicaid spending would rise or fall if states cover this population long term.
  • States that opt in could face administrative costs for enrolling providers, upgrading electronic records and billing systems, and monitoring quality.
  • Local jails may incur costs or administrative work to coordinate care and billing with Medicaid providers.
  • No publicly available information in the provided material about long-term federal or state Medicaid cost changes.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to solve gaps in health care for people held before trial. Possible arguments in favor, based on the bill text, include:

  • It could improve continuity of care by allowing Medicaid to pay for needed medical and behavioral health services while people are in custody.
  • It could expand access to substance use disorder treatment and recovery services, which the bill explicitly names.
  • Planning grants are meant to help states recruit providers and build systems so Medicaid-covered care can be delivered and billed correctly.
  • Allowing states the option respects state control and lets states choose whether and how to implement the change.

Opponents' View#

The bill’s design raises several practical questions and trade-offs:

  • One concern is that the bill does not include a fiscal estimate for the ongoing Medicaid cost of covering people in custody, so the budget impact is unclear.
  • The change is optional for states, which could produce a patchwork of rules across the country and uneven access to care.
  • The bill requires substantial administrative work: states, jails, and providers may need new billing systems, electronic health records, and training. The scale and cost of that work are not detailed.
  • It is not fully clear which custody settings are covered (for example, local jails versus federal detention) beyond the definition of “State” in Medicaid law.
  • The bill does not specify how privacy and health-record sharing between correctional facilities and Medicaid providers will be handled; implementation could raise coordination or confidentiality challenges.