1.Should states be allowed to impose work requirements as a condition for receiving Medicaid benefits? Do work requirements promote independence and upward mobility, and, if so, are those two goals legitimate objectives of the Medicaid program? Are work requirements unnecessary barriers to care? Those who oppose work requirements argue that they do not further the objective of the program, which is to provide coverage to those who cannot afford it. As a practical matter, most beneficiaries are already working, and most of those who are not working are in poor health or disabled, are acting as caregivers, or are students. Many of the nonworkers would be exempt even under the recently approved waivers. In addition, work requirements create extensive administrative obligations for beneficiaries and administrators alike. Of the 1 to 4 million beneficiaries estimated to lose coverage if work requirements are imposed broadly, most would be disenrolled due to lack of reporting. Those who support requirements contend that everyone who can work should be working, both to reduce the burden on the Medicaid program and to support personal upward mobility. According to this view, the ultimate goal should be to wean people off of Medicaid and promote work requirements. Some states with Republican legislatures, such as Virginia, would not support expanding Medicaid under the ACA without work requirements. Do you support work requirements? Even if you oppose work requirements, is it better to expand coverage with work requirements than to not expand coverage at all?