Texas hospitals hit with $122 million bill for illegal immigrants' care in single month
Texas hospitals were left on the hook for nearly $122 million in health care costs racked up by illegal immigrants for one month last year, the first month the state began tracking the figures.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed an executive order in August mandating the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (THHSC) to track the number of "individuals not lawfully present" in the U.S. who used Texas public hospitals.
The first report, released Friday, shows more than 31,000 hospital visits by illegal immigrants in November alone — costing Texas hospitals $121.8 million.
Skyrocketing Healthcare Costs For Illegal Immigrants Sparks Border State Outcry
Abbott's executive order directed Texas hospitals to provide THHSC with quarterly breakdowns on patients who are not lawfully present in the U.S., including the number of inpatient discharges, emergency department visits and the cost of care provided to these patients.
Though the $121.8 million incurred represents the month of November 2024, future reports will include full quarterly data, THHSC said. The agency will release its first yearly report of data collected from hospital providers Jan. 1, 2026.
Read On The Fox News App
THHSC said that hospital providers inform patients that their immigration status responses do not affect their care, as required by federal law.
Texas, a border state, reported some of the highest crossing numbers ever recorded under the Biden administration, putting immense pressure on its healthcare system, Andrew Mahaleris, Abbott's press secretary, told Fox News Digital.
Newsom Concedes Skyrocketing Healthcare Costs For Illegals Are 'Partial' Contributor To Medicaid Problem
"Many of these illegal immigrants are straining the Texas hospital system, which is why Governor Abbott directed the Texas Health and Human Services Commission to begin assessing the cost of care," Mahaleris said.
"Now, Texas has reliable data on the dramatic financial impact that illegal immigration is having on our hospital system."
Mahaleris praised President Donald Trump's "swift action" in securing the southern border, noting that illegal crossings have dropped to record lows.
"Texas is hopeful that [Trump's] efforts to remove those who entered unlawfully may also cause these healthcare costs to decline."
Last week, the Texas House Committee on Public Health heard testimony about a bill by Fort Worth Republican Rep. Mike Olcott's that would make Abbott's executive order a law, Fox 26 Houston reported.
Meanwhile, the Texas Hospitals Association, the principal advocate for the state's hospitals and healthcare systems, said that the fact that hospitals are required to collect this data should not be a deterrent for people in need of care.
"With 24/7 life-saving care, hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who comes through the door, regardless of ability to pay, regardless of their demographics," the association said in a statement.
The fact that hospitals are required to collect this data should not be a deterrent for people in need of care. Hospitals remain open and ready to serve Texans' acute care needs."Original article source: Texas hospitals hit with $122 million bill for illegal immigrants' care in single month
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Twin federal proposals threaten provider taxes, key source of Medicaid funding for states
Republican efforts to restrict taxes on hospitals, health plans, and other providers that states use to help fund their Medicaid programs could strip them of tens of billions of dollars. The move could shrink access to health care for some of the nation's poorest and most vulnerable people, warn analysts, patient advocates, and Democratic political leaders. No state has more to lose than California, whose Medicaid program, called Medi-Cal, covers nearly 15 million residents with low incomes and disabilities. That's twice as many as New York and three times as many as Texas. A proposed rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, echoed in the Republicans' House reconciliation bill, could significantly curtail the federal dollars many states draw in matching funds from what are known as provider taxes. Although it's unclear how much states could lose, the revenue up for grabs is big. For instance, California has netted an estimated $8.8 billion this fiscal year from its tax on managed care plans and took in about $5.9 billion last year from hospitals. California Democrats are already facing a $12 billion deficit, and they have drawn political fire for scaling back some key health care policies, including full Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants without permanent legal status. And a loss of provider tax revenue could add billions to the current deficit, forcing state lawmakers to make even more unpopular cuts to Medi-Cal benefits. 'If Republicans move this extreme MAGA proposal forward, millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,' Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement, referring to President Donald Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement. The proposals are also a threat to Proposition 35, a ballot initiative California voters approved last November to make permanent the tax on managed care organizations, or MCOs, and dedicate some of its proceeds to raise the pay of doctors and other providers who treat Medi-Cal patients. All states except Alaska have at least one provider tax on managed care plans, hospitals, nursing homes, emergency ground transportation, or other types of health care businesses. The federal government spends billions of dollars a year matching these taxes, which generally lead to more money for providers, helping them balance lower Medicaid reimbursement rates while allowing states to protect against economic downturns and budget constraints. New York, Massachusetts, and Michigan would also be among the states hit hard by Republicans' drive to scale back provider taxes, which allow states to boost their share of Medicaid spending to receive increased federal Medicaid funds. In a May 12 statement announcing its proposed rule, CMS described a 'loophole' as 'money laundering,' and said California had financed coverage for over 1.6 million 'illegal immigrants' with the proceeds from its MCO tax. CMS said its proposal would save more than $30 billion over five years. 'This proposed rule stops the shell game and ensures federal Medicaid dollars go where they're needed most — to pay for health care for vulnerable Americans who rely on this program, not to plug state budget holes or bankroll benefits for noncitizens,' Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, said in the statement. Medicaid allows coverage for noncitizens who are legally present and have been in the country for at least five years. And California uses state money to pay for almost all of the Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants who are not in the country legally. California, New York, Michigan, and Massachusetts together account for more than 95% of the 'federal taxpayer losses' from the loophole in provider taxes, CMS said. But nearly every state would feel some impact, especially under the provisions in the reconciliation bill, which are more restrictive than the CMS proposal. None of it is a done deal. The CMS proposal, published May 15, has not been adopted yet, and the reconciliation bill is likely to be altered significantly in the Senate. But the restrictions being contemplated would be far-reaching. A report by Michigan's Department of Health and Human Services, ordered by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, found that a reduction of revenue from the state's hospital tax could 'destabilize hospital finances, particularly in rural and safety-net facilities, and increase the risk of service cuts or closures.' Losing revenue from the state's MCO tax 'would likely require substantial cuts, tax increases, or reductions in coverage and access to care,' it said. CMS declined to respond to questions about its proposed rule. The Republicans' House-passed reconciliation bill, though not the CMS proposal, also prohibits any new provider taxes or increases to existing ones. The American Hospital Association, which represents nearly 5,000 hospitals and health systems nationwide, said the proposed moratorium on new or increased provider taxes could force states 'to make significant cuts to Medicaid to balance their budgets, including reducing eligibility, eliminating or limiting benefits, and reducing already low payment rates for providers.' Because provider taxes draw matching federal dollars, Washington has a say in how they are implemented. And the Republicans who run the federal government are looking to spend far fewer of those dollars. In California, the insurers that pay the MCO tax are reimbursed for the portion levied on their Medi-Cal enrollment. That helps explain why the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment is sharply higher than on commercial enrollment. Over 99% of the tax money the insurers pay comes from their Medi-Cal business, which means most of the state's insurers get back almost all the tax they pay. That imbalance, which CMS describes as a loophole, is one of the main things Republicans are trying to change. If either the CMS rule or the corresponding provisions in the House reconciliation bill were enacted, states would be required to levy provider taxes equally on Medicaid and commercial business to draw federal dollars. California would likely be unable to raise the commercial rates to the level of the Medi-Cal ones, because state law constrains the legislature's ability to do so. The only way to comply with the rule would be to lower the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment, which would sharply reduce revenue. CMS has warned California and other states for years, including under the Biden administration, that it was considering significant changes to MCO and other provider taxes. Those warnings were never realized. But the risk may be greater this time, some observers say, because the proposed changes are echoed in the House-passed reconciliation bill and intertwined with a broader Republican strategy — and set of proposals — to cut Medicaid spending by close to $800 billion. 'All of these proposals move in the same direction: fewer people enrolled, less generous Medicaid programs over time,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy. California's MCO tax is expected to net California $13.9 billion over the next two fiscal years, according to January estimates. The state's hospital tax is expected to bring in an estimated $9 billion this year, up sharply from last year, according to the Department of Health Care Services, which runs Medi-Cal. Losing a significant slice of that revenue on top of other Medicaid cuts in the House reconciliation bill 'all adds up to be potentially a super serious impact on Medi-Cal and the California state budget overall,' said Kayla Kitson, a senior policy fellow at the California Budget & Policy Center. And it's not only California that will feel the pain. 'All states are going to be hurt by this," Park said. Wolfson writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Twin federal proposals threaten provider taxes, key source of Medicaid funding for states
Republican efforts to restrict taxes on hospitals, health plans, and other providers that states use to help fund their Medicaid programs could strip them of tens of billions of dollars. The move could shrink access to health care for some of the nation's poorest and most vulnerable people, warn analysts, patient advocates, and Democratic political leaders. No state has more to lose than California, whose Medicaid program, called Medi-Cal, covers nearly 15 million residents with low incomes and disabilities. That's twice as many as New York and three times as many as Texas. A proposed rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, echoed in the Republicans' House reconciliation bill, could significantly curtail the federal dollars many states draw in matching funds from what are known as provider taxes. Although it's unclear how much states could lose, the revenue up for grabs is big. For instance, California has netted an estimated $8.8 billion this fiscal year from its tax on managed care plans and took in about $5.9 billion last year from hospitals. California Democrats are already facing a $12 billion deficit, and they have drawn political fire for scaling back some key health care policies, including full Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants without permanent legal status. And a loss of provider tax revenue could add billions to the current deficit, forcing state lawmakers to make even more unpopular cuts to Medi-Cal benefits. 'If Republicans move this extreme MAGA proposal forward, millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,' Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement, referring to President Donald Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement. The proposals are also a threat to Proposition 35, a ballot initiative California voters approved last November to make permanent the tax on managed care organizations, or MCOs, and dedicate some of its proceeds to raise the pay of doctors and other providers who treat Medi-Cal patients. All states except Alaska have at least one provider tax on managed care plans, hospitals, nursing homes, emergency ground transportation, or other types of health care businesses. The federal government spends billions of dollars a year matching these taxes, which generally lead to more money for providers, helping them balance lower Medicaid reimbursement rates while allowing states to protect against economic downturns and budget constraints. New York, Massachusetts, and Michigan would also be among the states hit hard by Republicans' drive to scale back provider taxes, which allow states to boost their share of Medicaid spending to receive increased federal Medicaid funds. In a May 12 statement announcing its proposed rule, CMS described a 'loophole' as 'money laundering,' and said California had financed coverage for over 1.6 million 'illegal immigrants' with the proceeds from its MCO tax. CMS said its proposal would save more than $30 billion over five years. 'This proposed rule stops the shell game and ensures federal Medicaid dollars go where they're needed most — to pay for health care for vulnerable Americans who rely on this program, not to plug state budget holes or bankroll benefits for noncitizens,' Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, said in the statement. Medicaid allows coverage for noncitizens who are legally present and have been in the country for at least five years. And California uses state money to pay for almost all of the Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants who are not in the country legally. California, New York, Michigan, and Massachusetts together account for more than 95% of the 'federal taxpayer losses' from the loophole in provider taxes, CMS said. But nearly every state would feel some impact, especially under the provisions in the reconciliation bill, which are more restrictive than the CMS proposal. None of it is a done deal. The CMS proposal, published May 15, has not been adopted yet, and the reconciliation bill is likely to be altered significantly in the Senate. But the restrictions being contemplated would be far-reaching. A report by Michigan's Department of Health and Human Services, ordered by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, found that a reduction of revenue from the state's hospital tax could 'destabilize hospital finances, particularly in rural and safety-net facilities, and increase the risk of service cuts or closures.' Losing revenue from the state's MCO tax 'would likely require substantial cuts, tax increases, or reductions in coverage and access to care,' it said. CMS declined to respond to questions about its proposed rule. The Republicans' House-passed reconciliation bill, though not the CMS proposal, also prohibits any new provider taxes or increases to existing ones. The American Hospital Association, which represents nearly 5,000 hospitals and health systems nationwide, said the proposed moratorium on new or increased provider taxes could force states 'to make significant cuts to Medicaid to balance their budgets, including reducing eligibility, eliminating or limiting benefits, and reducing already low payment rates for providers.' Because provider taxes draw matching federal dollars, Washington has a say in how they are implemented. And the Republicans who run the federal government are looking to spend far fewer of those dollars. In California, the insurers that pay the MCO tax are reimbursed for the portion levied on their Medi-Cal enrollment. That helps explain why the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment is sharply higher than on commercial enrollment. Over 99% of the tax money the insurers pay comes from their Medi-Cal business, which means most of the state's insurers get back almost all the tax they pay. That imbalance, which CMS describes as a loophole, is one of the main things Republicans are trying to change. If either the CMS rule or the corresponding provisions in the House reconciliation bill were enacted, states would be required to levy provider taxes equally on Medicaid and commercial business to draw federal dollars. California would likely be unable to raise the commercial rates to the level of the Medi-Cal ones, because state law constrains the legislature's ability to do so. The only way to comply with the rule would be to lower the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment, which would sharply reduce revenue. CMS has warned California and other states for years, including under the Biden administration, that it was considering significant changes to MCO and other provider taxes. Those warnings were never realized. But the risk may be greater this time, some observers say, because the proposed changes are echoed in the House-passed reconciliation bill and intertwined with a broader Republican strategy — and set of proposals — to cut Medicaid spending by close to $800 billion. 'All of these proposals move in the same direction: fewer people enrolled, less generous Medicaid programs over time,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy. California's MCO tax is expected to net California $13.9 billion over the next two fiscal years, according to January estimates. The state's hospital tax is expected to bring in an estimated $9 billion this year, up sharply from last year, according to the Department of Health Care Services, which runs Medi-Cal. Losing a significant slice of that revenue on top of other Medicaid cuts in the House reconciliation bill 'all adds up to be potentially a super serious impact on Medi-Cal and the California state budget overall,' said Kayla Kitson, a senior policy fellow at the California Budget & Policy Center. And it's not only California that will feel the pain. 'All states are going to be hurt by this,' Park said. Wolfson writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
American Press
3 hours ago
- American Press
Landry wants special session to revive controversial legislation that died
(Special to the American Press) With just minutes to spare, Louisiana lawmakers concluded the 2025 legislative session on Thursday — but, per usual, it ended with a bang. Before lawmakers could even walk out the Capitol doors, Gov. Jeff Landry said he planned to call a special session in the future, with the hopes of reviving controversial legislation that died Thursday. It is unclear when exactly lawmakers would be asked to return. Last-minute amendments to bill, which would prohibit companies from owning both pharmacy benefits managers and drugstores, caused a frenzy in the final days of session — complete with fiery testimony from lawmakers, a massive lobbying campaign to block the measure by retail giant CVS and promises of legal action by the Attorney General. Also in the final hours of session lawmakers approved the state's $51 billion budget. Lawmakers earmarked $1.8 million for 'expenses related to the recapture of fugitive offenders' in the aftermath of a massive New Orleans jail escape. They also pulled $1.2 billion from a state savings fund mainly to spend on infrastructure improvements and spruce up sites seeking private sector investment. In a blow to Landry, the GOP-dominated Legislature allocated less than half the $93.5 million he requested for expanding a school voucher program. Traditionally this year's gathering is fiscally focused, But the GOP-dominated legislature filed hundreds of bills to tackle issues that lawmakers felt were plaguing the state, from fiscal matters to social issues. Here's a look at some of the bills. Passed ABORTION LIABILITY EXPANSION: The measure expands who can be sued over abortions, targeting out-of-state doctors and activists who prescribe, sell or mail pregnancy-ending drugs to residents in Louisiana — where abortions are banned with few exceptions. MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN: Louisiana passed its own package of nutrition reforms. The measures restrict certain food additives in schools, set nutrition education requirements for health care providers, require food manufacturers to disclose the use of certain artificial ingredients, and order restaurants to post if they are using seed oils. INSURANCE: Despite facing stiff opposition from the insurance industry and pushback from Republican lawmakers, Landry succeeded in passing legislation giving the state's insurance commissioner more authority to block auto insurance rate increases by companies. Other passed bills aim to limit the damages for people involved in vehicle accidents, such as barring damages to cover injuries for the driver primarily responsible for a crash. IMMIGRATION: Lawmakers passed a package of legislation that expands the state's role in immigration enforcement and promises cooperation with federal efforts. One bill would make it a crime for law enforcement agents and public officials to obstruct federal immigration enforcement efforts. Another measure requires state agencies to verify and report anyone illegally in the U.S. who is receiving state services. ETHICS: Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a bill written by the governor's personal attorney that makes it harder for the state's ethics board to investigative allegations of wrongdoing and file charges against elected officials. IVF TREATMENT: In an effort to avoid what happened in Alabama, lawmakers passed a bill that protects in vitro fertilization providers from criminal charges and lawsuits. CAMPAIGN FUNDING: Lawmakers raised the disclosure thresholds for campaign finance matters, meaning less information will be shared with the public about the donations they receive and their spending of donations. They also expanded the ways elected officials' campaign funds could be spent, including on Mardi Gras celebrations in Washington, D.C. IVERMECTIN: One measure allows the antiparasitic drug, a discredited COVID-era treatment, to be sold for over-the-counter use. WEATHER MODIFICATION: Louisiana is the latest state to prohibit anyone from 'intentionally' injecting, releasing, applying or dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere with the purpose of affecting the 'temperature, weather, climate, or intensity of sunlight.' Rejected DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION: After emotional pleas from Black lawmakers, a bill that bans state government DEI programs died on the vine in the Senate. SPLIT JURY: Incarcerated people, who were convicted under the now-banned practice of split juries, would have had the opportunity to ask for a new trial under one proposed measure. However, Republicans rejected the bill. MINIMUM WAGE: One bill would have gradually increased Louisiana's minimum wage, which currently stands at $7.25, over the next four years. Similar bills have repeatedly been shot down. ABORTION BAN EXCEPTIONS: For the third year, lawmakers rejected a bill that would have added rape, in cases where the victim is under the age of 17, to the narrow list of exceptions to the state's abortion ban. LGBTQ WORKPLACE PROTECTIONS: A measure that would prohibit employment discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation failed in committee. FLUORIDE BILL: A bill that would have outlawed fluoride in Louisiana's public water systems failed.
