Deconstructing the Medicaid Deductible: A Comprehensive Analysis of Cost-Sharing in America’s Health Safety Net

Introduction: Beyond a Simple “Yes” or “No”

The question of whether the U.S. Medicaid program has a deductible, while seemingly straightforward, opens the door to a complex and highly variable landscape of healthcare financing for the nation’s most vulnerable populations.

A simple “yes” or “no” answer would be both inaccurate and misleading.

While most state Medicaid programs do not feature a deductible in the way it is understood in commercial health insurance, the underlying concept of a beneficiary meeting a financial threshold before coverage fully applies does exist in specific, significant circumstances.¹

The critical distinction lies in the mechanics: a commercial insurance deductible typically requires the insured individual to

pay a specified amount out-of-pocket for medical services before the plan begins to pay.

In contrast, the most common form of a Medicaid “deductible” requires an individual to incur a certain amount of medical expenses, which effectively demonstrates a level of medical need that justifies eligibility for the program.²

This report deconstructs the multifaceted nature of beneficiary financial responsibility within Medicaid.

It will move beyond the initial query to provide a comprehensive analysis of all potential out-of-pocket costs that states can, within federal limits, impose on beneficiaries.

These cost-sharing mechanisms include not only the unique form of deductible known as a “spend-down” or “share of cost” but also more familiar concepts such as copayments, coinsurance, and, in some cases, monthly premiums.⁴

To establish a clear framework for this analysis, the following glossary defines the key terms that will be used throughout the report.

Table 1: Glossary of Medicaid Cost-Sharing Terms

Term	Definition
Deductible	In the context of private insurance, the amount an individual must pay for covered health care services before their insurance plan starts to pay.6 In Medicaid, this term is most analogous to a “spend-down,” where an individual must	incur (but not necessarily pay) a certain amount of medical expenses to become eligible for coverage.2
Copayment (Copay)	A fixed, predetermined amount (e.g., $3) that a beneficiary pays for a specific covered health care service, such as a doctor’s visit or a prescription drug, at the time of service.5
Coinsurance	A percentage of the cost of a covered health care service that a beneficiary is required to pay after their deductible (if any) has been met. For example, if the coinsurance is 20%, the beneficiary pays 20% of the bill and the plan pays 80%.5
Premium	A fixed amount paid on a recurring basis, typically monthly, to keep a health insurance plan active. In Medicaid, premiums are generally prohibited for the lowest-income beneficiaries but may be allowed for certain groups, often through federal waivers.6
Spend-Down / Share of Cost	The process by which individuals with incomes too high to qualify for regular Medicaid can become eligible by demonstrating that their medical expenses reduce their available income to a state-specified level. This is the primary mechanism that functions like a deductible in Medicaid.10
Federal Poverty Level (FPL)	A measure of income issued annually by the Department of Health and Human Services. Federal poverty levels are used to determine eligibility for certain programs and benefits, including Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).12
Out-of-Pocket Maximum/Cap	The total aggregate amount a family can be required to pay in premiums and cost-sharing during a specific period (usually a month or quarter). Federal law limits this to 5% of family income.4

The immense variation in cost-sharing rules across the United States is a direct result of Medicaid’s foundational structure as a joint federal-state partnership.

The federal government sets broad parameters and minimum standards, but each state designs and administers its own program.¹⁰

This latitude allows states to tailor their programs to local needs and political philosophies, resulting in a patchwork of different eligibility rules, benefit packages, and cost-sharing requirements.

This report will navigate that complex patchwork by providing a detailed examination of the Medicaid cost-sharing landscape.

It begins by outlining the federal legal framework that governs all state programs.

It then provides a deep dive into the “spend-down” mechanism, the functional equivalent of a Medicaid deductible.

Following this, a comparative analysis of several state models will illustrate the practical diversity of these policies.

The report will then identify the specific populations and services that federal law shields from cost-sharing, explore how costs may differ under fee-for-service versus managed care delivery systems, and conclude with an analysis of the policy implications of these financial requirements on beneficiaries and the healthcare system.

---

Section 1: The Federal Legal Framework for Medicaid Cost-Sharing

The ability of states to require Medicaid beneficiaries to share in the cost of their care is not absolute.

It is a power granted and simultaneously constrained by federal law, primarily under Sections 1916 and 1916A of the Social Security Act and further detailed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 42 CFR Part 447.¹⁴

This legal architecture reflects a core policy tension: allowing states flexibility to manage program costs while ensuring that out-of-pocket expenses do not become a barrier to necessary medical care for a low-income and often medically vulnerable population.⁹

The framework establishes clear limits on what states can charge, creating a tiered system of financial responsibility based on beneficiary income.

Nominal vs. Alternative Cost-Sharing

The federal rules create a two-tiered system for allowable out-of-pocket charges.

The beneficiary’s income, measured against the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), is the determining factor.

For beneficiaries with family incomes at or below 100% of the FPL, states may only impose nominal cost-sharing.⁴

These amounts are intended to be minimal.

Federal regulations provide specific maximums, which are updated periodically to account for inflation.

For example, benchmark figures from Fiscal Year 2013, which are often cited in guidance, set the maximum nominal deductible at $2.65 and the maximum copayment for non-institutional services (like a physician visit) at $4.00.⁴

The maximum copayment for an inpatient hospital stay for this group was set at $75.⁴

For beneficiaries with family incomes above 100% FPL, states have the option to establish alternative or higher cost-sharing amounts.⁴

These charges are typically set as a percentage of what the state Medicaid agency pays for the service.

For instance, for individuals with incomes between 101% and 150% FPL, a state could charge up to 10% of the cost of a service.

For those with incomes above 150% FPL, this could rise to 20% of the cost.¹⁴

This structure creates a “sliding scale” of financial responsibility, where a beneficiary’s potential out-of-pocket cost increases in proportion to their ability to pay.

This is not merely a collection of arbitrary rules, but a deliberate federal policy design.

By linking cost-sharing limits directly to income levels, the framework attempts to balance state cost-containment objectives with the fundamental principle that financial burdens should not prevent access to care, especially for the most impoverished.

The Aggregate 5% Out-of-Pocket Cap

Perhaps the most critical federal protection for beneficiaries is the aggregate limit on out-of-pocket spending.

Federal law mandates that the total of all premiums and cost-sharing charges (deductibles, copayments, coinsurance) incurred by all individuals in a Medicaid household cannot exceed 5% of the family’s income for a given monthly or quarterly period.⁴

This provision acts as a crucial safety net, preventing the accumulation of even modest copayments from becoming a catastrophic financial burden for a family, particularly one with chronic health needs requiring frequent medical services.

The responsibility for enforcing this cap lies with the state.

The regulations explicitly require that if a state implements cost-sharing rules that could put beneficiaries at risk of reaching this limit, it must establish an effective process to track each family’s incurred costs.

Critically, this tracking mechanism cannot rely on the beneficiary to collect and submit receipts or documentation.¹³

The state must have its own system to monitor when a family has met its cap and must then inform both the beneficiaries and their medical providers that no further cost-sharing can be charged for the remainder of the period.¹³

Enforceability and Provider Refusal of Services

The federal framework draws a sharp line regarding a provider’s ability to deny care based on a beneficiary’s failure to pay.

For any individual with a family income at or below 100% of the FPL, providers cannot refuse to furnish a service due to the person’s inability to pay a required copayment or other cost-sharing amount.¹⁴

The unpaid copayment remains a legal debt that the provider can attempt to collect from the beneficiary, but the service itself cannot be withheld.⁴

However, for beneficiaries with family incomes above 100% of the FPL, the rules change significantly.

States may permit providers to require the payment of cost-sharing as a condition of receiving an item or service.¹⁴

This creates a bright-line distinction in access to care that hinges on the 100% FPL threshold.

For the poorest beneficiaries, a copayment is a debt to be managed after care is received.

For the near-poor—those just above the poverty line—an unaffordable copayment can become an immediate and absolute barrier to seeing a doctor or filling a prescription.

This policy has profound implications for health equity, potentially leading to delayed or forgone care and worse management of chronic conditions for this specific sub-population of Medicaid enrollees.

Premiums

The rules governing monthly premiums are even stricter.

Federal law generally prohibits states from charging premiums to any Medicaid beneficiary with a family income below 150% of the FPL.⁹

This is a foundational protection designed to ensure that maintaining basic eligibility is not a financial hardship.

However, this prohibition on premiums has become one of the most common areas where states seek to innovate or deviate from federal statute.

As will be explored in Section 3, states can request permission from the federal government through a Section 1115 demonstration waiver to impose premiums on populations that would otherwise be exempt, a practice that has become a key feature of some states’ Medicaid programs.⁹

Table 2: Federal Maximum Allowable Medicaid Cost-Sharing (Benchmark Figures)

Service Type	Family Income ≤100% FPL	Family Income 101-150% FPL	Family Income >150% FPL
Outpatient Services (Physician visits, etc.)	$4.00	10% of agency cost	20% of agency cost
Inpatient Hospital Stay (per stay)	$75.00	10% of agency cost	20% of agency cost
Non-Emergency Use of the ER	$8.00	$8.00	No Limit*
Prescription Drugs (Preferred)	$4.00	$4.00	$4.00
Prescription Drugs (Non-Preferred)	$8.00	$8.00	20% of agency cost
Premiums	Not Permitted	Not Permitted	Permitted
Aggregate Out-of-Pocket Cap	5% of Family Income	5% of Family Income	5% of Family Income
Source Data: Synthesized from.4 Figures are based on federal regulations and guidance from around FY 2013-2014 and are periodically updated for inflation. The 5% cap applies to the total of all premiums and cost-sharing.
*Within the 5% aggregate limit.

---

Section 2: The Medicaid “Deductible” in Practice: The Medically Needy Spend-Down Program

While the term “deductible” is rarely used in official Medicaid documents, its functional equivalent exists within a specific, optional pathway to eligibility known as the Medically Needy program.¹

This program is not a universal feature of Medicaid; rather, it is an option that states can choose to implement to provide a crucial safety net for individuals who are “categorically” related to Medicaid (e.g., aged, blind, disabled, or in a family with children) but whose income or assets are too high to qualify for regular Medicaid coverage.¹⁰

The mechanism these programs use, commonly called a “spend-down” or “share of cost,” is the primary context in which a Medicaid beneficiary encounters a deductible-like requirement.

This mechanism, however, should not be viewed primarily as a cost-sharing tool in the traditional sense.

It is, first and foremost, an eligibility tool.

Its fundamental purpose is to allow individuals facing catastrophic or chronic high medical costs to qualify for a program from which their income would otherwise exclude them.

The “deductible” in this context is not a barrier designed to reduce utilization; it is a complex and often burdensome gateway to coverage, a measure of the overwhelming medical need that makes an individual “medically needy”.¹⁹

The “Spend-Down” or “Share of Cost” Mechanism

The core of the Medically Needy program is the spend-down process.

A spend-down amount is the value of medical expenses an individual must incur during a set period—known as the certification or budget period, typically lasting from one to six months—before Medicaid will begin to pay their medical bills.²

Two points are absolutely critical to understanding this mechanism.

First, the beneficiary does not have to have paid the medical bills for them to count toward the spend-down amount.

The mere act of receiving the service and incurring the financial obligation is sufficient.³

This is the single most important distinction from a commercial insurance deductible, which requires out-of-pocket payment before the plan’s benefits are activated.²

Second, once the total of incurred medical expenses equals the spend-down amount, the individual is certified for Medicaid coverage for the remainder of that budget period.

Medicaid will pay for additional, approved medical services from that point forward.

However, it will not go back and retroactively pay for the bills that were used to meet the spend-down.³

Those initial bills remain the responsibility of the beneficiary.

This “incurred vs. paid” distinction creates a system that is fundamentally reliant on provider tolerance and beneficiary debt.

For the spend-down to function, beneficiaries must find medical providers who are willing to render services knowing they will not be paid immediately.

The beneficiary must accumulate a level of medical debt that meets their spend-down threshold.

This places the beneficiary in a precarious position and makes their access to care contingent not just on their eligibility, but on their ability to find providers who understand and are willing to operate within this complex and financially risky system.

Calculation of the Spend-Down Amount

The spend-down amount is determined by a specific formula that compares a family’s income to a state-established income threshold for the Medically Needy program.

This threshold, often called the Medically Needy Income Limit (MNIL), is typically set at a very low level and varies by household size.³

The calculation is as follows:

(Family’s Countable Monthly Income−State’s Monthly MNIL)×Months in Budget Period=Spend-Down Amount

For example, using figures from a North Carolina guide, if the MNIL for one person is $242 per month and an individual’s countable monthly income is $1,000, their “excess” income is $758 per month.

For a standard six-month budget period, their spend-down would be $758 multiplied by six, resulting in a total of $4,548.³

This individual would need to incur $4,548 in medical bills before their Medicaid coverage would activate for the remainder of that six-month period.

Qualifying Expenses to Meet a Spend-Down

States allow a wide range of medical costs to be counted toward meeting a spend-down amount.

This list is comprehensive, reflecting the goal of capturing an individual’s true medical burden.

Qualifying expenses typically include ³:

• Bills for Medical Services: Paid or unpaid bills from hospitals, clinics, doctors, dentists, chiropractors, and laboratories.
• Prescription Drugs: The cost of prescribed medications.
• Over-the-Counter Items: The cost of non-prescription items like aspirin or bandages if they are prescribed by a doctor.
• Medical Supplies and Equipment: Costs for items such as dentures, eyeglasses, walkers, or diabetic supplies.
• Health Insurance Premiums: Payments for other health insurance policies, including Medicare Part B and Part D premiums.
• Transportation: The cost of transportation, such as by bus, taxi, or ambulance, to get to and from medical care.
• Home Care: Costs for home and community-based services or care from a home health nurse.
• Old Medical Bills: In many states, old, unpaid medical bills can be used to meet a current spend-down, provided they are not excessively old (e.g., incurred within the last two years) and the provider is still attempting to collect on them.³

The Administrative Process

The spend-down process is administratively intensive for the beneficiary.

Once an individual is determined to be eligible for the Medically Needy program, their local Medicaid agency (often the Department of Human Services or Social Services) will send a notice informing them of their spend-down amount.²¹

It is then the beneficiary’s responsibility to track their medical costs.

When their incurred expenses meet or exceed their spend-down amount, they must submit proof—such as copies of bills, paid receipts, or statements from providers—to their caseworker.²¹

The caseworker verifies the expenses and, once the threshold is met, certifies the individual’s Medicaid eligibility in the state’s system for the remainder of the budget period.²¹

---

Section 3: A Comparative Analysis of State-Level Cost-Sharing Architectures

The federal-state structure of Medicaid guarantees that no two state programs are identical.

This diversity is nowhere more apparent than in the design and implementation of cost-sharing policies.

States, operating within the federal guardrails, have made vastly different choices about whether and how to require beneficiaries to contribute to the cost of their care.

These choices often reflect deeper political and social philosophies about the purpose of the program itself.

An examination of specific state models reveals a spectrum ranging from comprehensive safety nets designed to catch those with catastrophic costs to market-oriented systems that emphasize personal financial responsibility.

The “Share of Cost” (SOC) Model – California & Florida

Some states have adopted a medically needy program that they formally refer to as a “Share of Cost” (SOC) program.

This is functionally identical to a spend-down but with its own state-specific branding and rules.

California and Florida provide strong examples of this model.

California (Medi-Cal)

California’s Medi-Cal program utilizes a robust SOC system for its medically needy population, which includes aged, blind, and disabled individuals, as well as some low-income families whose incomes are too high for other free Medi-Cal programs.¹⁹

The SOC is calculated as the difference between the beneficiary’s countable income and a state-set “maintenance need level” (MNL).

As of April 2025, this MNL was $600 for a single individual and $934 for a couple.²⁷

For example, a single person with $1,900 in countable monthly income would have a monthly SOC of $1,300 ($1,900 – $600).²⁷

A beneficiary only needs to meet their SOC in months where they require medical services.²⁷

They can meet it with a wide array of paid or unpaid medical bills, including services not normally covered by Medi-Cal, as long as they are medically necessary.²⁴

California has a sophisticated electronic “point of service” system that allows providers to swipe a beneficiary’s Medi-Cal card to see their current SOC status and to enter new expenses to help certify eligibility for the month.²⁴

A unique feature in California is the interaction with the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program; if an IHSS recipient has a remaining SOC, that amount is deducted from their IHSS provider’s paycheck, and the recipient is then responsible for paying the provider directly.²⁴

Florida

Florida’s Medically Needy Program also uses a “Share of Cost” model, which is administered by the Department of Children and Families (DCF).²³

A key feature of Florida’s program is its

monthly reset period.²⁶

This means a beneficiary must meet their entire share of cost each and every month before Medicaid coverage becomes active.

On the first day of the next month, the process starts over.

This structure works well for individuals with high, recurring monthly expenses (like an expensive prescription), but can be challenging for those with fluctuating or unpredictable medical needs.²⁶

Allowable expenses in Florida include unpaid medical bills, bills paid within the last three months, health insurance premiums, and transportation to medical care.²³

Beneficiaries must submit proof of these expenses to the DCF through an online portal, mail, or fax.

Once the SOC is met, Medicaid coverage begins for the rest of that month and will pay for the final bill that met the SOC, as well as subsequent bills, provided the providers accept Medicaid.²³

The Hybrid Model – New York

New York exemplifies a state that operates a hybrid system, combining a comprehensive medically needy spend-down program with a detailed schedule of nominal copayments for its fee-for-service population.

This creates a multi-layered cost-sharing environment.

New York’s spend-down program is available to aged, blind, and disabled individuals with income above the standard Medicaid limits (in 2025, $1,820/month for an individual) but below the asset limit ($32,396 for an individual).³⁰

A person can meet their spend-down by submitting paid or unpaid medical bills to their local Medicaid office or, uniquely, by paying their excess income directly to the Medicaid office as a monthly premium.³⁰

New York’s program also has a different spend-down requirement for inpatient hospital care, requiring a beneficiary to meet six times their monthly spend-down amount to gain six months of inpatient coverage.³⁰

Separate from the spend-down, New York’s traditional Medicaid beneficiaries face a schedule of fixed copayments for many services, such as $3.00 for an outpatient clinic visit, $1.00 for a generic prescription, and $0.50 for lab tests.³¹

However, these copayments are subject to an annual cap of $200 per recipient, and importantly, many are waived entirely for beneficiaries enrolled in Medicaid managed care plans.³¹

This highlights how the delivery system can significantly impact a beneficiary’s out-of-pocket costs.

The Limited Cost-Sharing Model – Texas

Texas illustrates a state that has made a policy choice to impose very little cost-sharing on its traditional Medicaid population, while implementing a more structured system for its separate Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

For its core Medicaid population, which includes low-income children, pregnant women, and adults with disabilities, Texas has a notable policy of no copayments for any prescription drugs.³²

This is a significant protection for beneficiaries, especially those managing chronic conditions.

While some adults may have a co-payment responsibility in long-term care settings (often referred to as a “patient liability” rather than a copay for acute services), the out-of-pocket requirements for most outpatient services for adults are minimal or nonexistent.³³

In stark contrast, Texas has a detailed cost-sharing system for its CHIP population, which serves children in families with incomes too high for Medicaid.

CHIP families may pay an annual enrollment fee of $50 or less, and face copayments for doctor visits and prescriptions that vary based on the family’s income level relative to the FPL.³⁴

For example, a family above 186% FPL might pay a $25 copay for a doctor visit and $35 for a brand-name drug.³⁴

However, all CHIP cost-sharing is subject to a cap of 5% of the family’s total net income for the year, a protection that aligns with federal requirements.³⁶

This bifurcation demonstrates a state tailoring its cost-sharing policies differently for distinct programs and populations.

The Waiver-Driven Model – Premiums and Personal Responsibility

The most significant departures from traditional Medicaid cost-sharing rules are found in states that have secured Section 1115 demonstration waivers from the federal government.

These waivers allow states to test experimental approaches that are not otherwise permitted by federal law, such as charging premiums to low-income adults.⁹

The increasing use of these waivers has shifted the locus of major policy innovation from broad federal regulation to direct, high-stakes negotiations between individual states and the current presidential administration’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

The outcome of these negotiations can dramatically alter the financial landscape for beneficiaries.

States like Indiana (Healthy Indiana Plan – HIP), Michigan (MIHealth), Arkansas (ARHOME), and Georgia (Pathways to Coverage) have used waivers to implement programs for the ACA expansion population that are designed to more closely mimic private insurance.⁹

These programs often require beneficiaries, including those with incomes below 150% FPL, to make monthly contributions in the form of premiums or payments into health savings-like accounts (sometimes called “POWER Accounts” in Indiana).⁹

The stated goals of these programs often include promoting “personal responsibility,” improving health literacy, and preparing enrollees to transition to commercial coverage.⁹

The consequences for failing to make these payments can be severe and vary by state and income level.

They can include disenrollment from the program, being locked out of coverage for a period of time, or being moved to a benefit package with fewer services and higher cost-sharing.⁹

These waiver-driven models represent a fundamentally different philosophy from the traditional Medicaid safety net, viewing the beneficiary more as a consumer in a market and less as a recipient of a social insurance benefit.

Table 3: Comparative Analysis of State “Deductible” Mechanisms

State	Program Name / Mechanism	How It Works	Calculation Basis	Key Beneficiary Experience
California	Share of Cost (SOC)	Incurred medical expenses	Countable Income minus state-set Maintenance Need Level (MNL)	Must meet SOC only in months services are needed. Electronic system helps track SOC. Old bills can be used. 27
Florida	Share of Cost (SOC)	Incurred medical expenses	Countable Income minus state-set income limit	Must meet the full SOC each month to activate coverage. Eligibility resets on the 1st of every month. 23
New York	Medically Needy Spend-Down	Incurred medical expenses OR direct payment of excess income to Medicaid	Countable Income minus state-set income limit	Can meet spend-down by paying a premium. Six-month budget period for inpatient care. Separate nominal copay schedule for other beneficiaries. 30
Indiana	Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP) / POWER Account	Monthly premium contribution	Percentage of Federal Poverty Level (FPL)	Required monthly payments to a health savings-like account. Non-payment can lead to disenrollment or higher cost-sharing. 9

---

Section 4: Federally Protected Populations and Services

While states have considerable flexibility in designing their Medicaid programs, federal law establishes a non-negotiable floor of protections for the most vulnerable beneficiaries and for services deemed most essential.

These protections, outlined in federal statute and codified at 42 CFR § 447.56, create categories of populations and services that are exempt from most, if not all, forms of cost-sharing.¹³

This list of exemptions is not arbitrary; it represents a clear and long-standing statement of federal health policy priorities, defining the core, uncompromisable mission of the Medicaid program.

The federal government has determined that for these specific groups and services, ensuring unhindered access outweighs any potential state interest in cost containment or beneficiary financial participation.

Exempt Populations

Federal law explicitly exempts several groups of individuals from being charged most premiums and cost-sharing.

All state Medicaid programs, regardless of their delivery system or waiver status, must adhere to these protections.

The exempt populations include:

• Children: Individuals under the age of 18 are broadly exempt from cost-sharing for most services. States have the option to extend this protection to individuals up to age 19, 20, or 21.¹³ Children in state foster care or receiving adoption assistance are also fully exempt.¹⁶
• Pregnant Women: Pregnant women are exempt from all cost-sharing for pregnancy-related services. This protection extends through the entire pregnancy and for the mandatory 60-day postpartum period that follows.⁴
• Terminally Ill Individuals: Any beneficiary who is receiving hospice care is exempt from cost-sharing.⁴
• Institutionalized Individuals: Beneficiaries residing in an institution, such as a nursing facility or an intermediate care facility for individuals with intellectual disabilities, are exempt. This is because these individuals are already required to contribute nearly all of their income toward the cost of their institutional care, leaving them with only a small personal needs allowance.⁴
• American Indians and Alaska Natives: An American Indian or Alaska Native who is eligible for or has ever received a service from an Indian Health Service (IHS) provider, a tribal health program, or through a referral under contract health services is exempt from all premiums and cost-sharing.¹³
• Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Program Beneficiaries: Individuals who are eligible for Medicaid through the specific pathway for those needing treatment for breast or cervical cancer are exempt from cost-sharing.¹³

Exempt Services

In addition to protecting specific populations, federal law also prohibits states from imposing cost-sharing for certain high-value or critical services, regardless of the beneficiary’s income or eligibility category.

These exempt services include:

• Emergency Services: No cost-sharing of any kind can be charged for services that are necessary to evaluate or stabilize an emergency medical condition.⁴
• Family Planning Services: All services and supplies related to family planning are exempt from cost-sharing.⁴
• Preventive Services for Children: All services defined as preventive for children under federal law are exempt from cost-sharing, reinforcing the strong policy focus on pediatric well-care.⁴
• Pregnancy-Related Services: As noted above, services related to a pregnancy are exempt for pregnant women.⁴
• Provider-Preventable Services: States cannot charge beneficiaries for services related to treating a “provider-preventable condition,” which are certain types of reasonably preventable adverse events that occur during care (e.g., certain hospital-acquired infections).¹³

Nuances and Exceptions: The Policy Battleground

While these protections are robust, there are important nuances.

For example, while children are broadly exempt, states can impose nominal copayments for non-preferred prescription drugs on children who would otherwise be exempt.¹⁶

The most significant exception exists around emergency room use.

While true emergency services are fully protected, federal law gives states the option to charge higher, non-nominal copayments for the non-emergency use of a hospital emergency department (ED).⁴

This specific carve-out highlights a central tension in Medicaid policy: the desire to manage utilization and steer patients toward more appropriate and lower-cost primary care settings versus the risk of deterring individuals from seeking necessary care.

A beneficiary may not be able to accurately self-diagnose the severity of their condition, and the fear of a large copay could cause them to delay or forgo a necessary ED visit.

In recognition of this risk, federal rules place strict conditions on this practice: a state can only permit a hospital to charge such a copay if an alternative, appropriate non-emergency provider is verifiably available and accessible to the beneficiary in a timely manner, and the hospital informs the patient of this alternative

before providing the service.¹⁵

The practical implementation of these conditions remains a significant challenge for states and hospitals.

Table 4: Federally Exempt Populations and Services from Medicaid Cost-Sharing

Exempt Populations	Exempt Services
• Children under age 18 (and up to 21 at state option)	• Emergency services
• Pregnant women (for pregnancy-related services)	• Family planning services and supplies
• Terminally ill individuals receiving hospice care	• Preventive services for children
• Individuals in institutions (e.g., nursing facilities)	• Pregnancy-related services
• American Indians/Alaska Natives (who have used IHS)	• Provider-preventable services
• Children in foster care or receiving adoption assistance
• Individuals eligible via the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Program
Source: 42 CFR § 447.56. This table summarizes the primary federal exemptions. States may have additional exemptions. Some exceptions may apply, such as nominal copays for non-preferred drugs for some otherwise exempt groups.13

---

Section 5: The Impact of Delivery Systems on Beneficiary Costs

A Medicaid beneficiary’s out-of-pocket costs can be influenced not only by their state’s policies and their personal income but also by the delivery system through which they receive their benefits.

The two primary models for delivering Medicaid services are Fee-for-Service (FFS) and Managed Care.

While federal rules establish a baseline of parity between these systems, their underlying financial incentives can lead to different cost-sharing experiences for beneficiaries.

Fee-for-Service (FFS) vs. Managed Care Organizations (MCOs)

In the traditional Fee-for-Service (FFS) model, the state Medicaid agency pays healthcare providers directly for each individual service or procedure they render to a beneficiary.⁴¹

The state sets the payment rates and processes the claims.

The dominant model today, however, is Managed Care.

Over 75% of all Medicaid beneficiaries are now enrolled in some form of managed care, most commonly through a comprehensive risk-based Managed Care Organization (MCO).⁴³

Under this model, the state pays the MCO a fixed monthly fee for each enrolled beneficiary—a payment known as a “capitation rate.” In exchange, the MCO assumes the financial risk and responsibility for arranging and paying for all of the beneficiary’s covered healthcare services.⁴¹

Cost-Sharing Parity and the Potential for Lower Costs in MCOs

A fundamental federal rule governs cost-sharing in managed care: an MCO cannot impose copayments, deductibles, or other charges on beneficiaries that are higher than what the state is allowed to charge under its FFS rules, as defined in the official Medicaid state plan.¹⁴

All state contracts with MCOs must stipulate that any cost-sharing imposed by the plan adheres to these limits.¹⁴

This rule ensures a consistent ceiling on out-of-pocket costs and prevents MCOs from shifting additional financial burdens onto beneficiaries.

Despite this rule establishing parity, the differing financial structures of FFS and managed care can create a scenario where beneficiaries in MCOs actually face lower costs.

The shift from FFS to capitated managed care fundamentally alters the financial incentives related to cost-sharing.

Under FFS, a copayment collected from a beneficiary serves as a direct, albeit small, cost-offset for the state.

The state’s financial outlay for that specific service is reduced by the copay amount.

Under capitation, however, the state has already paid the MCO its fixed monthly fee.

The MCO’s profit or loss is determined by the difference between the total capitation payments it receives and the total cost of the care its members use.⁴²

This creates a powerful business case for the MCO to manage care and use cost-sharing strategically as a tool to influence beneficiary behavior.

For an MCO, waiving a $15 copayment for a primary care visit may be a sound financial investment if it encourages preventive care and helps the member avoid a future $1,500 emergency room visit or a multi-day hospital stay.

The MCO is not collecting the copay on behalf of the state; it is deciding whether collecting that copay serves its own financial interest in managing the total cost of care for its enrolled population.

This dynamic is evident in states like New York, where the official fee-for-service schedule lists numerous copayments that are explicitly noted as being “$0 in managed care plan”.³¹

The “Carve-Out” Phenomenon and Administrative Fragmentation

While the trend is toward comprehensive managed care, many states still “carve out” certain benefits from their MCO contracts.

This means that specific services—most commonly behavioral health, dental care, or prescription drugs—are not covered by the MCO’s capitation payment.

Instead, they are provided and paid for separately, often through the state’s traditional FFS system or a separate, limited-benefit managed care plan.⁴¹

This practice can fragment the cost-sharing experience for a beneficiary.

An individual enrolled in a comprehensive MCO might have to navigate two or even three different sets of cost-sharing rules and provider networks simultaneously.

For example, their primary and acute medical care may be covered by their MCO with zero copayments.

However, when they go to the pharmacy, their prescription drug benefit might be administered by the state’s FFS Vendor Drug Program, which could have a different copayment structure.

This administrative fragmentation can create significant confusion for beneficiaries, making it difficult to understand their out-of-pocket responsibilities and potentially undermining one of the primary goals of managed care: to provide simple, coordinated care.

---

Section 6: Policy Implications and Expert Recommendations

The complex web of Medicaid cost-sharing rules, from spend-down deductibles to waiver-driven premiums, carries significant policy implications for beneficiary access to care, financial stability, and health outcomes.

The choices that federal and state policymakers make in this arena reflect a continuous negotiation between program budget constraints and the fundamental mission of providing a health safety Net.

Impact on Access, Outcomes, and Financial Burden

A substantial body of research indicates that imposing out-of-pocket costs on low-income populations can have deleterious effects.

Even nominal cost-sharing amounts have been shown to be a barrier to care, leading beneficiaries to reduce their use of both essential and non-essential medical services.⁹

Studies have specifically linked higher cost-sharing to decreased prescription drug refills, a particularly concerning outcome for individuals managing chronic conditions like diabetes, hypertension, or mental illness.⁹

By deterring or delaying necessary care, cost-sharing can lead to poorer health outcomes and, paradoxically, higher downstream costs for the healthcare system when manageable conditions escalate into medical crises.

While states often implement cost-sharing with the goal of containing program expenditures, evidence suggests that the savings generated may be limited.⁹

These potential savings must be weighed against the significant financial burden placed on families who are, by definition, low-income, as well as the administrative costs states incur to build and maintain the complex systems required to track income, expenses, and out-of-pocket caps.

The expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to nearly all adults with incomes at or below 138% FPL created a new, large population of beneficiaries.⁹

Many states, particularly those using Section 1115 waivers, have targeted this expansion group for experiments with more significant cost-sharing, including monthly premiums.⁹

This remains an active and contentious area of policy debate, with recent federal legislative proposals seeking to mandate or modify cost-sharing requirements for this population, signaling that the rules will likely continue to evolve.¹⁷

Recommendations for Policymakers

Based on the analysis of the legal framework and state practices, several recommendations emerge for policymakers at both the federal and state levels:

1. Design Cost-Sharing with Precision and Care: When implementing cost-sharing, states should prioritize the exemption of high-value services (e.g., preventive care, chronic disease management, mental health services) and medications to mitigate the risk of adverse health outcomes. Policies should be carefully designed to avoid creating “cliff effects” where a small change in income leads to a dramatic increase in financial burden.
2. Invest in Robust and Beneficiary-Friendly Tracking Systems: To ensure the federal 5% out-of-pocket cap is a meaningful protection, states must invest in effective, automated systems to track family spending. These systems must not place the administrative burden on beneficiaries, who are often the least equipped to handle complex paperwork and record-keeping, especially during a health crisis.
3. Rigorously Evaluate Waiver Proposals: Before approving or implementing Section 1115 waivers that introduce premiums or other significant cost-sharing, federal and state officials should conduct and publicly release rigorous analyses of the potential impacts on coverage retention, access to care, and health equity. These analyses should be weighed carefully against projected state savings.

Guidance for Beneficiaries and Advocates

For beneficiaries, families, and the advocates who support them, navigating this system requires diligence and knowledge:

1. Know Your State’s Rules: The first and most critical step is to understand the specific cost-sharing rules in your state. Determine if you or your family members fall into a federally or state-protected exempt population. This information is typically available on your state’s Medicaid agency website.⁴⁹
2. Meticulously Document Spend-Down Expenses: For individuals in a Medically Needy, spend-down, or share-of-cost program, keeping organized records of all medical expenses is essential. This includes bills (paid and unpaid), receipts, insurance premium statements, and logs of transportation costs. Submit these documents to your caseworker promptly to activate coverage as early in the month as possible.
3. Understand Your Rights: Remember that if your income is at or below 100% of the FPL, a provider cannot deny you care because you are unable to pay a copayment at the time of service.¹⁴ You still owe the debt, but the service cannot be withheld.
4. Utilize State Resources: Many states have dedicated resources to help beneficiaries. Make use of Medicaid consumer hotlines ⁴⁹, ombudsman programs that can help resolve disputes with health plans ⁵⁰, and state-run websites that provide program information.

---

Conclusion: A Nuanced Understanding of Medicaid’s Financial Landscape

In conclusion, the answer to the query “Does Medicaid have a deductible?” is a definitive and complex “it depends.” The program does not employ deductibles in the conventional sense of private insurance.

Instead, it utilizes a multifaceted and highly variable system of cost-sharing that is contingent on a beneficiary’s state of residence, income level, age, health status, eligibility category, and the specific delivery system through which they receive care.

Traditional, upfront deductibles are rare.

However, for individuals in the 36 states with Medically Needy programs, the “spend-down” or “share of cost” mechanism functions as a significant financial threshold that must be met before coverage begins.¹

This process, which involves incurring a large volume of medical expenses, acts as a gateway to eligibility for those caught in the difficult space between standard Medicaid income limits and the ability to afford private coverage.

Other out-of-pocket costs, including nominal copayments, percentage-based coinsurance, and, in waiver states, monthly premiums, are also part of the Medicaid landscape.

Yet, these charges are constrained by a robust federal framework of protections designed to safeguard access for the most vulnerable.

Federal law carves out blanket exemptions for critical populations like children and pregnant women and for essential services like emergency and preventive care, establishing a floor beneath which no state can go.

Furthermore, the aggregate 5% cap on family out-of-pocket spending provides a crucial backstop against financial catastrophe.

Ultimately, the patchwork of cost-sharing policies across the country is a direct reflection of Medicaid’s identity as a federal-state partnership.

It underscores the ongoing policy tension between the goals of state budget containment and the program’s core mission: to serve as the nation’s foundational health safety Net. Understanding a beneficiary’s potential out-of-pocket costs requires a nuanced appreciation of this intricate and ever-evolving financial landscape.

Works cited

1. www.nolo.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/medicare-medicaid-whats-difference-29615.html#:~:text=Most%20state%20Medicaid%20programs%20do,and%20Ohio)%20have%20Medicaid%20deductibles.
2. Does Medicaid Have a Deductible? – Medicare.org, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.medicare.org/articles/does-medicaid-have-a-deductible/
3. Benefits: Medicaid Deductible(FAQs) | Welcome to LawHelpNC.org | A guide to free and low cost legal aid, assistance and services in North Carolina, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.lawhelpnc.org/resource/faqs-medicaid-deductible
4. Cost Sharing Out of Pocket Costs | Medicaid, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/cost-sharing/cost-sharing-out-pocket-costs
5. What Is Medicaid Cost Sharing? – Givers, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.joingivers.com/learn/medicaid-cost-sharing
6. Premiums, Deductibles, Coinsurance & Copays Explained | Aetna, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.aetna.com/health-guide/explaining-premiums-deductibles-coinsurance-and-copays.html
7. Copayment – Glossary | HealthCare.gov, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/co-payment/
8. Understanding Copays, Coinsurance and Deductibles – Schoolcraft Memorial Hospital, accessed August 12, 2025, https://scmh.org/understanding-copays-coinsurance-and-deductibles/
9. Understanding the Impact of Medicaid Premiums & Cost-Sharing …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/understanding-the-impact-of-medicaid-premiums-cost-sharing-updated-evidence-from-the-literature-and-section-1115-waivers/
10. Medicaid | Medicare, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.medicare.gov/basics/costs/help/medicaid
11. What Is a Medicaid Spend Down? – National Council on Aging, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.ncoa.org/article/what-is-medicaid-spend-down/
12. Your Guide to Medicaid by State – Policygenius, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.policygenius.com/health-insurance/a-state-by-state-guide-to-medicaid/
13. 42 CFR § 447.56 – Limitations on premiums and cost sharing …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/447.56
14. 42 CFR Part 447 Subpart A – Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing – eCFR, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-IV/subchapter-C/part-447/subpart-A/subject-group-ECFRa3c17d28ea07411
15. Cost Sharing – Medicaid, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/cost-sharing
16. Cost-Sharing and Premiums in Medicaid What Rules Apply?, 2/28/07, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/archive/2-28-07health.htm
17. Cost Sharing Requirements Could Have Implications for Medicaid Expansion Enrollees With Higher Health Care Needs | KFF, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/cost-sharing-requirements-could-have-implications-for-medicaid-expansion-enrollees-with-higher-health-care-needs/
18. Medicaid Cost-Sharing and Premiums – CMS, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cms.gov/deficitreductionact/downloads/costsharing.pdf
19. Share of Cost Medi-Cal – California Health Care Foundation, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.chcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PDF-ShareOfCostMediCal2010.pdf
20. What Is a Medicaid Spend Down? – National Council on Aging, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.ncoa.org/article/what-is-medicaid-spend-down
21. 617_medicaid decuct – State of Michigan, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/mdhhs/Folder1/Folder40/617_medicaid_decuct.pdf?rev=0479458bf2a5465ebd87079616624de8
22. Medically Needy – Iowa Department of Health and Human Services, accessed August 12, 2025, https://hhs.iowa.gov/medicaid/plans-programs/fee-service/medically-needy
23. 2024 Medically Needy Brochure – English – Florida Department of …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.myflfamilies.com/document/59546
24. Share of Cost – DPSS, accessed August 12, 2025, https://dpss.lacounty.gov/content/dam/dpss/documents/en/medical/Share%20of%20Cost%20Flyer.pdf
25. Spend Down | dmh.mo.gov – Missouri Department of Mental Health, accessed August 12, 2025, https://dmh.mo.gov/medicaid-eligibility/spend-down
26. How Florida Medicaid Share of Cost Works – Verywell Health, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.verywellhealth.com/florida-medicaid-share-of-cost-how-does-it-work-1738835
27. Understanding the Share of Cost for Medi-Cal – CANHR, accessed August 12, 2025, https://canhr.org/understanding-the-share-of-cost-for-medi-cal/
28. Medi-Cal Share of Cost – Health Consumer Alliance, accessed August 12, 2025, https://healthconsumer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/HCA-Medi-Cal-Share-of-Cost_2.pdf
29. Share of Cost (SOC) – Medi-Cal, accessed August 12, 2025, https://mcweb.apps.prd.cammis.medi-cal.ca.gov/file/manual?fn=share.pdf
30. Medicaid spend-down in New York State – Medicare Rights Center, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.medicarerights.org/fliers/Medicaid/Medicaid-Spend-Down-(NY).pdf?nrd=1
31. New York MEDICAID CO-PAYMENT POLICY – Western New York …, accessed August 12, 2025, http://health.wnylc.com/health/afile/88/115/
32. Medicaid Drug Coverage Presentation to the Texas Pharmaceutical Initiative, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.hhs.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/july-2024-tpi-agenda-item-4.pdf
33. O-5200, Medicare and Co-Payment | Texas Health and Human Services, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.hhs.texas.gov/handbooks/medicaid-elderly-people-disabilities-handbook/o-5200-medicare-co-payment
34. D-1830, Copayment Requirements | Texas Health and Human Services, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.hhs.texas.gov/handbooks/texas-works-handbook/d-1830-copayment-requirements
35. Guide to Medicaid in Texas – SingleCare, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.singlecare.com/blog/texas-medicaid-guide/
36. D-1840, Cost Sharing Cap Amounts | Texas Health and Human …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.hhs.texas.gov/handbooks/texas-works-handbook/d-1840-cost-sharing-cap-amounts
37. Medicaid Waiver Tracker: Approved and Pending Section 1115 Waivers by State | KFF, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/medicaid-waiver-tracker-approved-and-pending-section-1115-waivers-by-state/
38. Medicaid Section 1115 Waivers: The Basics – KFF, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/medicaid-section-1115-waivers-the-basics/
39. Section 1115 Waiver Tracker Work Requirements – KFF, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/report-section/section-1115-waiver-tracker-work-requirements/
40. Cost sharing and premiums – MACPAC, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.macpac.gov/subtopic/cost-sharing-and-premiums/
41. Provider payment and delivery systems – MACPAC, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.macpac.gov/medicaid-101/provider-payment-and-delivery-systems/
42. Medicaid Delivery Systems – Members Brief – Ohio.gov, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.lsc.ohio.gov/assets/organizations/legislative-service-commission/files/medicaid-delivery-systems.pdf
43. 10 Things to Know About Medicaid Managed Care – KFF, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/10-things-to-know-about-medicaid-managed-care/
44. Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program Managed Care Access, Finance, and Quality Final Rule (CMS-2439-F), accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicaid-and-childrens-health-insurance-program-managed-care-access-finance-and-quality-final-rule
45. Why did they do it that way? Understanding managed care, accessed August 12, 2025, https://medicaiddirectors.org/resource/understanding-managed-care/
46. Service Delivery Under Medical Assistance and MinnesotaCare – Minnesota House of Representatives, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/mamndeliv.pdf
47. Health Provisions in the 2025 Federal Budget Reconciliation Law – Medicaid – 10786 | KFF, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/report-section/health-provisions-in-the-2025-federal-budget-reconciliation-law-medicaid/
48. Tracking the Medicaid Provisions in the 2025 Reconciliation Bill – KFF, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/tracking-the-medicaid-provisions-in-the-2025-budget-bill/
49. Ohio Department of Medicaid, accessed August 12, 2025, https://medicaid.ohio.gov/
50. NC Medicaid: Home, accessed August 12, 2025, https://medicaid.ncdhhs.gov/