Waiver money may not fund practitioner benefits paid to a third party
What the document says“No payments made to carry out this paragraph shall be used by a State to make payments to a third party on behalf of an individual practitioner for benefits such as health insurance, skills training, and other benefits customary for employees, in the case of a class of practitioners for which the program established under this title is the primary source of revenue.”
The section bars a State from using money under the paragraph to pay a third party on behalf of an individual practitioner for benefits such as health insurance, skills training and other customary employee benefits, where the program is the main source of revenue for that class of practitioners.
What the document actually says“No payments made to carry out this paragraph shall be used by a State to make payments to a third party on behalf of an individual practitioner for benefits such as health insurance, skills training, and other benefits customary for employees, in the case of a class of practitioners for which the program established under this title is the primary source of revenue.”
The money may not be paid to a third party. That is a payment on behalf of a single worker. It covers benefits such as health cover or training.
The bar bites where the program is the main income source. That is judged for a class of workers. The money must go to the care itself.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.