Fact check: Which U.S. states offer state-funded Medicaid or CHIP-equivalent coverage to undocumented children and what are the eligibility details?

1. Clear Claims: Who is Covered and How Many States Took Action

The central factual claim from the briefing is categorical: 14 states plus D.C. provide fully state-funded coverage for income-eligible children irrespective of immigration status, and seven states plus D.C. extend fully state-funded coverage to some income-eligible adults ^[1]. That assertion frames the landscape as a patchwork in which a minority of states have chosen to fill federal coverage exclusions with state dollars. The reporting also asserts that other, larger groups of states have used CHIP specifically to cover pregnant people or children regardless of immigration status, with figures indicating 22 states cover pregnant people through CHIP regardless of immigration status and 12 states cover children through CHIP on that basis ^[3]. These discrete numeric claims set a baseline for comparing eligibility frameworks and programmatic reach across jurisdictions ^{[1] [3]}.

2. What “Eligibility” Means in Practice: Income, Program, and Population Differences

The analyses emphasize that eligibility is not uniform: “income-eligible” is program-dependent and states set thresholds within their Medicaid-like or CHIP-equivalent state-funded plans ^[1]. Some states replicate standard Medicaid/CHIP income tests, while others set different limits or carve-outs for specific age groups or pregnant people. The CHIP-focused count highlights that several states used existing CHIP authority to include pregnant people or children without regard to immigration status, but the scope of benefits, age limits, and income cutoffs vary—creating substantive differences in who actually becomes insured even where a state has a stated policy of coverage regardless of immigration status ^[3]. These program design choices determine the population impact and administrative complexity of each state’s approach ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Evidence of Impact: Coverage Gains and Uninsured Rates Among Immigrants

Survey findings included in the analyses connect policy choices to outcomes: immigrants in states that implemented more expansive coverage options are less likely to be uninsured, with adult immigrant uninsured rates lower in states adopting broader policies ^[2]. That correlation supports the interpretation that state-funded expansions reduce coverage gaps left by federal eligibility rules. The analyses do not, however, present causal attribution at the individual policy level within the provided excerpts; they report population-level associations between state policy adoption and uninsured rates among immigrant populations, reinforcing that policy adoption aligns with measurable coverage improvements ^{[2] [1]}.

4. Variability and Policy Mechanisms: CHIP vs. State-Only Programs

The materials differentiate between two primary mechanisms states use: state-funded Medicaid/CHIP-equivalent programs funded entirely by states, and CHIP expansions that use the CHIP framework to cover certain populations without federal immigrant eligibility restrictions ^{[1] [3]}. The counts—14 states plus D.C. for full child coverage, 22 for pregnant people through CHIP, and 12 for children through CHIP—illustrate that states pursue multiple pathways and that the same state might appear in multiple categories depending on population and program ^{[1] [3]}. This multiplicity complicates simple tallies and means advocacy or enrollment efforts must track program type, benefit scope, and administrative rules within each jurisdiction.

5. Data Limits, Timing, and What’s Missing from the Briefing

The briefing furnishes tallies and survey associations but leaves important details unenumerated: it does not list the specific states in each category, specify exact income thresholds, enumerate benefit parity with standard Medicaid/CHIP, or provide program start dates and enrollment figures in the excerpts provided ^{[1] [3]}. The most recent date noted in the materials situates the 14-states-plus-D.C. claim “as of September 2025,” indicating currency for that headline figure ^[1]. For operational decisions—eligibility determinations, enrollment assistance, or policy design—stakeholders require state-by-state program rules and implementation timelines beyond the summary counts presented here ^{[1] [3] [2]}.