logo
What's a Medicaid cut? Senate GOP tiptoes around $800B question

What's a Medicaid cut? Senate GOP tiptoes around $800B question

The Hill2 days ago

When is a Medicaid cut not actually a cut?
That's the $800 billion question facing Senate Republicans as they write their own version of the sweeping House-passed tax and spending bill.
Administration officials and senators defending against attacks on the bill have coalesced around a message that there will be no cuts to benefits, and the only people who will lose coverage are the ones who never deserved it to begin with: namely immigrants without legal status and 'able-bodied' individuals who shouldn't be on Medicaid.
'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more commonsense,' Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said during a recent CNN interview. 'That's what this bill does. No one will lose coverage as a result.'
Among many provisions, the House bill would require states to deny Medicaid to people who can't prove they are working, looking for work, in school or volunteering for 80 hours a month. It would prohibit states from using their own money to cover immigrants without legal status and would deny coverage to other lawfully present immigrants who are currently eligible.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the legislation will result in nearly 11 million people losing health insurance coverage over the next decade.
The Medicaid provisions alone would result in 7.8 million people losing their insurance. Those coverage losses would equate to hundreds of billions of dollars in savings for the federal government.
However, GOP lawmakers and administration officials insist the legislation will protect Medicaid for 'deserving' people such as the elderly and disabled, while forcing others to prove they aren't freeloading.
'It's important for us to provide a nudge to some Americans to remember that they have agency over their future,' Mehmet Oz, the administration's Medicare and Medicaid chief, told reporters on Wednesday, following a closed-door meeting with GOP senators.
Later Wednesday in an interview on Fox Business, Oz elaborated.
'Go out there, do entry-level jobs, get into the workforce, prove that you matter. Get agency into your own life,' he said.
Republicans are wary about being attacked over health care cuts, and they're eager to reframe the debate and try to go on offense. Voter backlash over the 2017 ObamaCare repeal effort led to widespread GOP losses and cost them control of the House in the 2018 midterms.
'Give me a break, This is just fear-mongering from Democrats,' Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said in a post on the social platform X. 'No one's losing health care—unless you count the 1.4 million illegal immigrants getting Medicaid on your dime.'
Most immigrants without legal status can't qualify for Medicaid at the federal level, but some blue states have extended health care coverage to them. The legislation would penalize those states if they continued to offer coverage by lowering their federal matching rate.
In a CNBC interview Thursday, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said the people who lose Medicaid coverage will merely transition to employer-sponsored health care.
'It's not kicking people off Medicaid. It's transitioning from Medicaid to employer-provided health care. So yes, we've got 10 million people that are not going to be on Medicaid, but they then are going to be on employer-provided health care,' Lankford said.
Yet according to the CBO, 'few of those disenrolled from Medicaid because of the policy would have access to and enroll in employment-based coverage.'
A bloc of Republican senators has been raising concerns about some of the Medicaid provisions, and some have said they do not like the idea of anything that could be interpreted as a cut.
But by and large, they've signaled the coverage losses aren't what's troubling.
'[We need to] protect the program for the people that really deserve and need the help and need the program, you know, and that's children, disabled, seniors, on and on and on,' said Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.)
'That's what we got to do. You know, at the end of the day, we shouldn't be protecting the program for people that are abusing or people that shouldn't be eligible, or whatever.'
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has said he worries about the bill's potential impact on rural hospitals and pledged to withhold support from any bill that cuts Medicaid benefits.
But what is a benefit cut?
'If my state tells me that, because of legislative changes in the House bill, the Senate bill, we're going to have to cut benefits. That's a benefit cut,' Hawley told The Hill.
Missouri has 1.3 million Medicaid beneficiaries, but Hawley said he thinks there would only be a small number impacted by the work requirements.
'I'm fine with people who are able-bodied and not working … I'm all for that. So you know what, cut benefits from illegal aliens. Yeah, I'm fine with that, but I'm concerned about people who are here legally, residents of my state, citizens of my state, who are working and would lose health care coverage,' he said.
Hawley has said that President Trump reiterated his opposition against any Medicaid cuts during recent conversations about the 'big, beautiful bill,' though the president supported the House version.
Health experts say the impact of the cuts will go far beyond the small slice of the population Republicans claim.
Work requirements will likely add layers of red tape for people to prove they meet the threshold.
'The people losing coverage aren't people who aren't working … but they're actually people who should satisfy the work reporting or should qualify for an exemption, but they can't navigate the complex systems for either reporting one's hours for work or other activities,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy.
The legislation includes some exemptions, like for caregiving, but it doesn't specify what would qualify or how beneficiaries would prove they qualify. There's no requirement that states exempt people automatically, Park said, so many people who would be eligible likely wouldn't be enrolled.
No matter how Republicans spin it, Park said, 'these are huge Medicaid cuts. They're going to take away coverage from millions of low-income people.'
'And those cuts are going to affect everyone throughout the Medicaid program, not just the expansion group, but also kids, seniors and people with disabilities,' he added. 'And it's going to have big ripple effects throughout the health care system.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

State Department orders departure of nonessential staff from Baghdad embassy
State Department orders departure of nonessential staff from Baghdad embassy

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

State Department orders departure of nonessential staff from Baghdad embassy

The State Department is ordering the departure of all nonessential staff from its embassy in Baghdad due to concern over increased security risks in the region, according to two State Department officials familiar with the matter. "President Trump is committed to keeping Americans safe, both at home and abroad. In keeping with that commitment, we are constantly assessing the appropriate personnel posture at all our embassies," one of the officials said. "Based on our latest analysis, we decided to reduce our Mission in Iraq." The embassy already has a very limited number of nonessential employees, so the order is not expected to impact many individuals. Under the current plan, one official said the U.S. military would not be involved in transporting the nonessential personnel out of the country, but that those plans could change if the situation on the ground calls for it. Another U.S. official said that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has authorized the voluntary departure of military dependents from locations across the Middle East as tensions ratchet up between Israel and Iran. -ABC News' Luis Martinez and Anne Flaherty contributed to this report. State Department orders departure of nonessential staff from Baghdad embassy originally appeared on

'Expensive and complicated': Most rural hospitals no longer deliver babies
'Expensive and complicated': Most rural hospitals no longer deliver babies

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

'Expensive and complicated': Most rural hospitals no longer deliver babies

Jun. 11—Nine months after Monroe County Hospital in rural South Alabama closed its labor and delivery department in October 2023, Grove Hill Memorial Hospital in neighboring Clarke County also stopped delivering babies. Both hospitals are located in an agricultural swath of the state that's home to most of its poorest counties. Many residents of the region don't even have a nearby emergency department. Stacey Gilchrist is a nurse and administrator who's spent her 40-year career in Thomasville, a small town about 20 minutes north of Grove Hill. Thomasville's hospital shut down entirely last September over financial difficulties. Thomasville Regional hadn't had a labor and delivery unit for years, but women in labor still showed up at its ER when they knew they wouldn't make it to the nearest delivering hospital. "We had several close calls where people could not make it even to Grove Hill when they were delivering there," Gilchrist told Stateline shortly after the Thomasville hospital closed. She recalled how Thomasville nurses worked to save the lives of a mother and baby who'd delivered early in their ER, as staff waited for neonatal specialists to arrive by ambulance from a distant delivering hospital. "It would give you chills to see what all they had to do. They had to get inventive," she said, but the mother and baby survived. Now many families must drive more than an hour to reach the nearest birthing hospital. Nationwide, most rural hospitals no longer offer obstetric services. Since the end of 2020, more than 100 rural hospitals have stopped delivering babies, according to a new report from the Center for Healthcare Quality & Payment Reform, a national policy center focused on solving health care issues through overhauling insurance payments. Fewer than 1,000 rural hospitals nationwide still have labor and delivery services. Across the nation, two rural labor and delivery departments shut their doors every month on average, said Harold Miller, the center's president and CEO. "It's the perfect storm," Miller told Stateline. "The number of births are going down, everything is more expensive in rural areas, health insurance plans don't cover the cost of births, and hospitals don't have the resources to offset those losses because they're losing money on other services, too." Staffing shortages, low Medicaid reimbursement payments and declining birth rates have contributed to the closures. Some states have responded by changing how Medicaid funds are spent, by allowing the opening of freestanding birth centers, or by encouraging urban-based obstetricians to open satellite clinics in rural areas. Yet the losses continue. Thirty-six states have lost at least one rural labor and delivery unit since the end of 2020, according to the report. Sixteen have lost three or more. Indiana has lost 12, accounting for a third of its rural hospital labor and delivery units. In rural counties the loss of hospital-based obstetric care is associated with increases in births in hospital emergency rooms, studies have found. The share of women without adequate prenatal care also increases in rural counties that lose hospital obstetric services. And researchers have seen an increase in preterm births — when a baby is born three or more weeks early — following rural labor and delivery closures. Babies born too early have higher rates of death and disability. Births are expensive The decline in hospital-based maternity care has been decades in the making. Traditionally, hospitals lose money on obstetrics. It costs more to maintain a labor and delivery department than a hospital gets paid by insurance to deliver a baby. This is especially true for rural hospitals, which see fewer births and therefore less revenue than urban areas. "It is expensive and complicated for any hospital to have labor and delivery because it's a 24/7 service," said Miller. A labor and delivery unit must always have certain staff available or on call, including a physician who can perform cesarean sections, nurses with obstetric training, and an anesthetist for C-sections and labor pain management. You can't subsidize a losing service when you don't have profit coming in from other services. — Harold Miller, president and CEO of the Center for Healthcare Quality & Payment Reform "There's a minimum fixed cost you incur [as a hospital] to have all of that, regardless of how many births there are," Miller said. In most cases, insurers don't pay hospitals to maintain that standby capacity; they're paid per birth. Hospitals cover their losses on obstetrics with revenue they get from more lucrative services. For a larger urban hospital with thousands of births a year, the fixed costs might be manageable. For smaller rural hospitals, they're much harder to justify. Some have had to jettison their obstetric services just to keep the doors open. "You can't subsidize a losing service when you don't have profit coming in from other services," Miller said. And staffing is a persistent problem. Harrison County Hospital in Corydon, Indiana, a small town on the border with Kentucky, ended its obstetric services in March after hospital leaders said they were unable to recruit an obstetric provider. It was the only delivering hospital in the county, averaging about 400 births a year. And most providers don't want to remain on call 24/7, a particular problem in rural regions that might have just one or two physicians trained in obstetrics. In many rural areas, family physicians with obstetrical training fill the role of both obstetricians and general practitioners. Ripple effects Even before Harrison County Hospital suspended its obstetrical services, some patients were already driving more than 30 minutes for care, the Indiana Capital Chronicle reported. The closure means the drive could be 50 minutes to reach a hospital with a labor and delivery department, or to see providers for prenatal visits. Longer drive times can be risky, resulting in more scheduled inductions and C-sections because families are scared to risk going into labor naturally and then facing a harrowing hourlong drive to the hospital. Having fewer labor and delivery units could further burden ambulance services already stretched thin in rural areas. And hospitals often serve as a hub for other maternity-related services that help keep mothers and babies healthy. "Other things we've seen in rural counties that have hospital-based OB care is that you're more likely to have other supportive things, like maternal mental health support, postpartum groups, lactation support, access to doula care and midwifery services," said Katy Kozhimannil, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, whose research focuses in part on maternal health policy with a focus on rural communities. State action Medicaid, the state-federal public insurance for people with low incomes, pays for nearly half of all births in rural areas nationwide. And women who live in rural communities and small towns are more likely to be covered by Medicaid than women in metro areas. Experts say one way to save rural labor and delivery in many places would be to bump up Medicaid payments. As congressional Republicans debate President Donald Trump's tax and spending plan, they're considering which portions of Medicaid to slash to help pay for the bill's tax cuts. Maternity services aren't on the chopping block. But if Congress reduces federal funding for some portions of Medicaid, states — and hospitals — will have to figure out how to offset that loss. The ripple effects could translate into less money for rural hospitals overall, meaning some may no longer be able to afford labor and delivery services. "Cuts to Medicaid are going to be felt disproportionately in rural areas where Medicaid makes up a higher proportion of labor and delivery and for services in general," Kozhimannil said. "It is a hugely important payer at rural hospitals, and for birth in particular." And though private insurers often pay more than Medicaid for birth services, Miller believes states shouldn't let companies off the hook. "The data shows that in many cases, commercial insurance plans operating in a state are not paying adequately for labor and delivery," Miller said. "Hospitals will tell you it's not just Medicaid; it's also commercial insurance." He'd like to see state insurance regulators pressure private insurance to pay more. More than 40% of births in rural communities are covered by private insurance. Yet there's no one magic bullet that will fix every rural hospital's bottom line, Miller said: "For every hospital I've talked to, it's been a different set of circumstances." Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at [email protected]. YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

More Americans see increased influence from religion in US: Gallup
More Americans see increased influence from religion in US: Gallup

The Hill

time20 minutes ago

  • The Hill

More Americans see increased influence from religion in US: Gallup

More Americans said they see an increased influence from religion in the U.S., according to a new Gallup poll. The Wednesday poll found that 34 percent of respondents said they believe 'religion as a whole is increasing its influence on American life,' up 14 points from May 2024. In December, 35 percent said the same about religion, one point higher than the recent Gallup poll. Back in April, President Trump pledged that 'religion is coming back to America' after kicking off his first White House Easter Egg Roll since coming back to office 'We're bringing religion back in America. We're bringing a lot of things back, but religion is coming back to America. That's why you see the kind of numbers that you see, the spirit and the kind of numbers that you see,' the president said in April. In Wednesday's Gallup poll, 59 percent of respondents said they believe religion's influence is dropping, down 2 points from December. Two percent also said religion's influence is the 'same' while 5 percent had 'no opinion.' In February, a Pew Research Center survey found that a decline in the number of Americans who identify as Christian appeared to be slowing down following years of losses. The Gallup poll took place from May 1 to 18, featuring 1,003 people and plus or minus 4 percentage points as a margin of sampling error.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store