Letter to The Dispatch

To the Editor,

I am writing to raise a concern about Ohio’s Medicaid system that goes beyond individual frustration and rises to the level of public risk.

I recently applied for disability-based Medicaid after a change in income. I am a transplant recipient and rely on immunosuppressant medications to stay alive. My application sat in a “received” status for a month, despite my timely submission of required documents. During this time, I repeatedly sought help and encountered phone wait times exceeding an hour — including nearly four hours on the phone in a single day — only to receive different answers depending on who picked up.

I also experienced repeated failures with the Ohio Benefits portal, which would not allow document uploads. As a result, I submitted required information by email instead. However, there was no confirmation that these documents were received, and no clear, standardized alternative process when the portal failed. Applicants are effectively left guessing whether their cases are moving forward at all.

Eventually, I learned that my application had stalled because a caseworker had requested additional documentation weeks earlier. That request was never communicated to me through the portal, by mail, or by phone. It existed only as an internal note visible to staff. There was no way for me to respond to a requirement I was never told about.

This experience exposed multiple systemic failures.

First, access to assistance has become a barrier in itself. When online systems fail, medically vulnerable people are forced to rely on phone support that involves hours on hold and repeated calls. For people managing chronic illness, disability, or complex care, this is not a minor inconvenience — it is an exhausting and unsafe burden.

Second, there is a serious training gap. During one call, a representative placed me on hold to email a coworker who “knows Medicaid off the top of her head.” That should alarm anyone who relies on public benefits. A system that determines access to life-saving care cannot function if staff are trained only on the most common or straightforward pathways, while less typical — but entirely valid — eligibility routes depend on institutional memory or a handful of knowledgeable individuals.

In no private workplace would it be acceptable for employees responsible for critical outcomes to provide conflicting guidance based on incomplete training. Yet we appear to accept this standard in a government system that governs access to medical care, medications, and survival itself.

Medicaid is not abstract. Delays, portal failures, miscommunication, excessive wait times, and uneven training directly affect whether people can fill prescriptions, attend appointments, or maintain stability in serious medical conditions. When these systems fail, it is not paperwork that suffers — it is people.

Ohio can and must do better. Functional online systems, clear applicant notifications, reasonable access to live assistance, and comprehensive training across all Medicaid programs should be baseline expectations, not optional improvements. Vulnerable residents should not have to become experts in public benefits law simply to navigate an administrative process safely.

This is not about special treatment. It is about whether Ohio’s systems are designed to protect the people who depend on them most.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth 'Zee' Holmquist
Columbus, Ohio