Ohio House Bill HB356

Ohio 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Filed/Introduced: 8/6/26
• Introduced: 6/11/25

Caption

To require an audit and corrective action plan for the Aged, Blind, and Disabled Medicaid eligibility group and to make an appropriation.

Summary

HB356 would require the Ohio Department of Medicaid to enter into a data-sharing agreement with the Auditor of State so the auditor can review enrollment and eligibility information for Medicaid recipients in the aged, blind, and disabled eligibility group. The stated purpose of the audit is to identify any individuals who may be ineligible for Medicaid, including by examining whether enrollees have countable assets above federal limits. After the audit, the Department of Medicaid would be required to develop and implement a corrective action plan aimed at reducing Medicaid spending for this eligibility group by $2.4 billion over the biennium. That plan must include disenrolling anyone found ineligible, creating an electronic asset-verification system for applicants and enrollees in the aged, blind, and disabled category, and pursuing other spending-reduction measures. The bill also appropriates $5 million from the General Revenue Fund in fiscal year 2026 to the Auditor of State for audit management and services.

Impact

The bill would add a new audit-and-enforcement process for the aged, blind, and disabled Medicaid eligibility category and would direct the Department of Medicaid and Auditor of State to share data for that purpose. It would not broadly rewrite Medicaid eligibility law, but it would require administrative changes that could affect enrollment verification, asset screening, and continued eligibility determinations for a vulnerable Medicaid population. It also creates a specific appropriation for audit work and ties the audit to a mandated savings target for the biennium.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a fiscal oversight and program-integrity proposal rather than a benefit-expansion or coverage measure. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or bipartisan support in the available record. The bill’s introduction and referral to the House Finance Committee suggest it was still in an early stage of consideration.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be whether the bill’s proposed audit and asset-verification requirements are an appropriate way to control Medicaid spending, especially for the aged, blind, and disabled population. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing ineligible enrollment and reducing costs, while critics may argue that the proposal could create administrative burdens, risk improper disenrollment, or target a medically and financially vulnerable group. The $2.4 billion savings mandate and the use of asset testing are the most likely flashpoints.