Michigan has become an unlikely testing ground for debates over universal basic income programs. Since 2024, new mothers participating in Rx Kids can receive up to $7,500 in unconditional cash payments during pregnancy and throughout the first year after childbirth. Supporters of such programs should expect meaningful improvements in the lives of participating families, especially when taxpayer dollars are involved. So far, the evidence from Rx Kids falls well short of that standard.
RxKids started in Flint, MI in 2024 and now operates in dozens of other communities in Michigan and is expanding to Ohio. It offers a $1500 lump sum to expectant mothers and $500 per month for up to 12 months after the birth — up to $7500 in total. The program is universal with no eligibility criteria other than pregnancy and community residency, and participants are free to use the cash for any purpose.
Giving low-income mothers and babies additional resources has obvious appeal. Research shows that higher income is strongly associated with better child outcomes, and data shows that families who receive extra money tend to spend it on child-related things, such as diapers, food and other necessities. However, transferring income to low-income families is not the same as demonstrating that the funding improves their lives. For policymakers, the critical question is whether unconditional cash assistance produces meaningful improvements for children.
Regrettably, much of the research we have about Rx Kids, and guaranteed income pilots generally, raises questions about effectiveness. Research published in the Lancet in June 2026 claimed that Rx Kids improved birth outcomes, including reduced preterm births and low-weight births. However, a No-Spin Evidence Review by the nonpartisan, independent Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy found that study “not accurately reported.”
Because Rx Kids is not a randomized control trial, researchers must rely on statistical methods to create comparisons between those who received the payments and those who did not. The authors’ own alternative analyses found competing results based on the methods used, raising serious doubts about their results. Further undermining their conclusions, a separate study found no positive effect on birth outcomes stemming from Rx Kids. In reality, the reductions in preterm births and low-weight births documented in the Lancet were likely due to chance, with no difference to other Michigan communities that did not have Rx Kids during the same time.
The same researchers published another study examining the effects of Rx Kids on child maltreatment, but that study suffered from the same issues. Perhaps more concerning, the authors chose to highlight a reduction in child maltreatment allegations, while downplaying the lack of a statistically significant reduction in substantiated allegations.
Perhaps the strongest rebuttal against Rx Kids is Baby’s First Years, a similar program that started in 2019 and is still running. Unlike Rx Kids, Baby’s First Years does not suffer from the same statistical vulnerabilities because it was run as a randomized control trial. It includes a large sample of 1,000 mothers, 400 of whom received $333 per month (approximately $4000 per year) from the time of birth through age six compared to a control group of 600 mothers who received a minimal payment of $20 per month. The findings of this program have been extensively published on with researchers preregistering their analyses and measured outcomes.
The results of Baby’s First Years found no impact on child and maternal health in the short term or by year 4, no effect on child cognition, no effect on language and socioemotional development, and no effect on self-reported economic hardship or maternal well-being. Essentially, children in families who received the unconditional payment looked no different than those who did not on a variety of child and maternal outcomes. The strength of this research alone should create serious doubt over the utility of unconditional cash programs for new mothers and babies.
While Rx Kids may be well-meaning, policymakers should not confuse popularity and good intentions with credible evidence of effectiveness. The evidence from Rx Kids and Baby’s First Years raises enough questions about whether these programs can deliver meaningful improvements to warrant consideration of alternative approaches in Michigan and across the country.
