[hua7450]

Closes #10368

What and why

CHIP covers only people without other health coverage. PolicyEngine applied that test to children in every state but to pregnant people only in California's FCEP (MCAP) pathway. This PR applies has_chip_disqualifying_health_coverage to both pregnancy pathways in every state.

Pathway	Before	After	Source
Standard pregnancy option (CO, KY, MO, NJ, RI, VA, WV)	No coverage test	Excluded if covered	42 U.S.C. 1397ll(d)(2)(C): a targeted low-income pregnant woman meets 1397jj(b)(1)(C) "in the same manner as a child"
Unborn-child (FCEP) option, 24 jurisdictions besides CA from 2026 (23 before DC's option started in October 2025)	No coverage test	Excluded if covered	42 CFR 457.10 ("child" includes "the period from conception to birth"); 42 CFR 457.310(b)(2)
FCEP in California (MCAP)	Excluded if covered	Unchanged	WIC §§ 15833-15834

Whose coverage counts for the unborn child. The 2002 unborn-child final rule (67 FR 61956) says the other eligibility criteria "pertain to the unborn child" and that the option is meant to reach people "who are currently uninsured". States test the mother's coverage. For example, Missouri's Show-Me Healthy Babies requires that "The pregnant woman must be uninsured" (MO DSS memo IM-110). PolicyEngine has no unborn-child entity, so the pregnant person's coverage stands in, as the California branch already assumed.

Microsimulation effect

Pregnant people with any coverage in gov.hhs.chip.disqualifying_health_coverage lose CHIP pregnancy eligibility outside California. That list covers employer, Medicaid, Medicare, Marketplace and other direct-purchase coverage, TRICARE, VA, CHAMPVA and other means-tested coverage, plus the aggregate has_health_coverage_other_than_chip input. CHIP enrollment and spending on pregnant people fall in the 27 affected jurisdictions (26 in 2024 and 2025). The population effect has not been measured.

API callers who send has_esi or has_health_coverage_other_than_chip for a pregnant person outside California now get no CHIP pregnancy coverage for that person.

Tests

• is_chip_eligible_pregnant.yaml Case 5: a pregnant New Jersey resident at 200% FPL with employer coverage. New Jersey has only the standard option, so this case isolates it.
• is_chip_eligible_fcep.yaml: the case "The California MCAP insurance exclusion does not reach Texas FCEP" asserted the old California-only behavior. It now asserts that Texas FCEP excludes the insured applicant, at 205% FPL (above Texas Medicaid's 203% pregnancy limit, within the 207% FCEP limit). The comment above the California cases now says the list applies in every state.
• ca/dhcs/medi_cal/mixed_households.yaml Case 2, renamed "CHIP no-other-coverage exclusion is applied per person in a mixed-state population": the Texan is now uninsured at 205% FPL and keeps FCEP coverage, so the vector still holds an insured Californian (excluded), an uninsured Texan and an uninsured Californian (both covered). Expected values are unchanged from main.
• A static scan of the YAML suite found no other case with an insured pregnant person outside California. Partner contract tests (tests/policy/baseline/partners/**) have none and are unaffected.

Overlap with other open work

• Extend standard pregnancy CHIP through the postpartum period #10363 (postpartum CHIP) edits is_chip_eligible_standard_pregnant_person.py too. The two edits touch different lines and git merge-file merges them cleanly in either order. Once both merge, the coverage test also applies through the postpartum period, as 1397ll(d)(2) intends.
• The new standard-option case lives in is_chip_eligible_pregnant.yaml because Extend standard pregnancy CHIP through the postpartum period #10363 and Correct CHIP and Medicaid pregnancy income limits and effective dates #10365 both append cases to is_chip_eligible_standard_pregnant_person.yaml. Correct CHIP and Medicaid pregnancy income limits and effective dates #10365 also appends to is_chip_eligible_fcep.yaml; that file merges cleanly with this PR in either order.

Not modeled

• Missouri also denies Show-Me Healthy Babies to a woman who has access to employer insurance with maternity benefits (IM-110). That needs a Missouri rule: Missouri Show-Me Healthy Babies: exclude applicants with access to employer insurance that includes maternity benefits #10476.
• California MCAP's exception for private plans without maternity benefits, or with a maternity-only deductible or copayment above $500 (former 10 CCR 2699.200(b)(1)(G)): California MCAP: keep applicants whose private plan lacks maternity benefits or has a maternity deductible above $500 #10477.

Not changed here

• The coverage list, which children share, also holds Medicare, TRICARE, VA, CHAMPVA and other means-tested coverage. Those are public programs, not a group health plan or issuer coverage under PHSA 2791 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91). Texas excludes Medicare recipients in Texas Works Handbook D-1210, and California does so by statute and regulation (Welf. & Inst. Code 15833; former 10 CCR 2699.200(b)(1)(F)). Any change to the list affects children too and belongs in its own PR: CHIP disqualifying-coverage list includes public coverage that SSA 2110(b)(1)(C) does not exclude #10475. One effect once Correct Rhode Island pregnancy Medicaid routing and postpartum coverage #10391 merges: a pregnant Rhode Islander whose only coverage is VA health care, between Rhode Island's uninsured Medicaid ceiling and its CHIP ceiling, gets neither CHIP nor Rhode Island's insured Medicaid route.

Test plan

• make format (ruff)
• Changelog fragment in changelog.d/
• Local review: statute, regulation and state manuals checked; changed expectations checked by hand
• CI passes (tests were not run locally)

axiom: TheAxiomFoundation/rulespec-us#1929 queued

🤖 Generated with Claude Code