City, state officials discuss expanding Medicaid to cover medical respite for unhoused
The Recuperative Care Center offers unhoused individuals a place to stay after being discharged from the hospital. (Photo: Michael Lyle/Nevada Current)
As potential federal cuts to Medicaid loom, City of Las Vegas officials are asking state lawmakers to expand Medicaid to pay for medical respite care for unhoused people.
Senate Bill 54, heard Tuesday by the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, would require the state's Department of Health and Human Services to apply for a federal waiver and amend the state Medicaid plan to cover medical respite care for people experiencing homelessness.
The bill would also require DHHS to adopt guidelines for respite care for unhoused populations.
Though Democratic legislators have been publicly fretting that congressional Republicans will drastically cut Medicaid spending to help pay for tax cuts requested by President Donald Trump, state lawmakers on the panel Tuesday didn't directly discuss the prospect, though there were oblique references noting the Senate Finance Committee will be tasked with approving state Medicaid spending details.
When unhoused people are injured or dealing with an illness not deemed serious enough for a hospital stay, they are forced to heal while unsheltered.
Sabra Newby, the deputy city manager for the City of Las Vegas, said authorizing federal reimbursements for services would 'improve health outcomes, reduce unnecessary hospital stays and readmissions, and strengthen Nevada's continuum of care for its most vulnerable residents.'
'Medical respite care offers short term, residential community-based support specifically for homeless individuals who need a safe and sanitary place to heal,' Newby said.
The Recuperative Care Center in the Corridor of Hope, the area in downtown Las Vegas that offers homeless services, opened in 2020 during the Covid pandemic to offer some medical respite care.
The city used funding provided by the American Rescue Plan Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2021, to expand and maintain the 40-bed facility. It also relies on general fund dollars to operate the facility.
The city contracts with the federally qualified Hope Christian Health Center to operate the facility within the homeless services corridor.
City officials told state lawmakers the facility has served 1,115 patients, with the majority referred by hospitals. More than half of those transition into 'some sort of permanent functional housing at their discharge,' said Lindy Cooksey, a neighborhood outreach specialist with the city.
The city plans to temporarily reduce capacity starting this summer as the center goes through construction to double capacity, which is expected to be complete by 2027.
Once the expansion is complete, the estimated annual operating budget is expected to be $7 million.
'Covering the cost for the entirety of this program would place a significant burden on the city's general funds,' said Arcelia Barajas, the director of Neighborhood Services with the City of Las Vegas. 'Although respite care for homeless individuals is fairly new to Nevada, it is a best practice nationally and funded through various avenues with the most common being Medicaid.'
The bill, if passed, would not cover the entire budget of the center but 'reduce the strain' of the city's budget, Barajas said.
Democratic state Sen. Fabian Doñate of Las Vegas, the committee's chair, noted other states have obtained federal waivers for homeless respite housing, and those models hopefully would serve as a template for expediting federal approval.
Republican state Sen. Robin Titus, whose district includes all or parts of six rural counties, asked whether the bill would only apply to services offered at the Las Vegas-based center or would apply to communities throughout the state.
Newby said theoretically it could apply throughout the state but she was 'unaware of any other place that provides these services.
Local governments and health providers alike supported the legislation.
Joanna Jacob, a lobbyist with Clark County who testified in support of the bill, said the county used covid relief dollars to convert motels into noncongregate shelter space. Two of the motels offer respite care, she said.
'There is enough need in our community that we need to build additional resources,' Jacob said.
Cadence Matijevich, a lobbyist with Washoe County, said while the county doesn't have a stand alone respite center, it does provide similar services to what Las Vegas offers. She said the county would also benefit if Medicaid covered costs to cover respite services.
The committee took no action on the bill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
23 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Most Republicans Enrolled in Medicaid 'Worried' About Funding Cuts—Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. While Republicans in Congress have been pushing for major Medicaid cuts in the new budget, many Medicaid enrollees are worried about what this means for their health coverage — including those who identify as Republican. A new poll from KFF revealed that 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid are worried about potential funding cuts. The survey also shows that 17 percent of Republicans identify as Medicaid enrollees. This didn't come as a surprise to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. Why It Matters Republican lawmakers have advanced sweeping changes to Medicaid as part of their budget reconciliation package, known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." The bill, which passed the House in late May 2025, proposes to cut over $700 billion in federal Medicaid spending, threatening coverage for millions of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that more than 10 million people could lose Medicaid coverage if the proposal becomes law. Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025. Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025. CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Potential Medicaid reductions under the new legislation target several key areas, including the federal match for Medicaid expansion, spending caps, new work requirements, and more frequent eligibility checks. While the GOP viewpoint has historically been pro-Medicaid reductions, cuts at this level could significantly impact the nearly 80 million Americans who rely on the program for health insurance, including a significant number of Republicans. In the new KFF report, 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid said they were worried about potential funding cuts. Additionally, more than a quarter of Medicaid enrollees are Republican, including one in five who identify with MAGA. "As a government program, Medicaid provides benefits to millions of Americans in 'red' and 'blue' states," Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. "As such, it should come as no surprise a sizable number of Republicans either receive benefits from the program or know someone who does." The federal government currently pays 90 percent of Medicaid expansion costs, but proposed reductions would lower this rate, threatening financial stability for states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Changes could also introduce per-capita caps or block grants, limit the use of provider taxes to finance Medicaid, and roll back simplified enrollment rules implemented under President Biden. Together, these measures could force states to limit enrollment, reduce benefits, or impose new costs on enrollees. Republican leaders have tied these reductions to broader budget goals, including $4.5 trillion in tax cuts championed by former President Donald Trump. "Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Thompson told Newsweek. "That's not meant to be disingenuous—it simply shows where the power lies: with the wealthy who control the districts and seats in those regions. The truth is, people often vote for their party and don't believe these policies will ever impact them personally—until they do." House Republicans identified more than $880 billion in savings from Medicaid, with much of the debate focused on whether Medicaid should continue to support able-bodied adults without dependents, or remain narrowly focused on children, seniors, and people with disabilities. The bill would also restrict Medicaid funding for certain health care providers, such as Planned Parenthood, and prohibit federal matching funds for gender-affirming care for minors. Nationally, 54 percent of U.S. adults are worried that reductions in federal Medicaid spending would negatively impact their own or their family's ability to get and pay for health care, the KFF report found. "It's a wake-up call for anyone who thinks Medicaid is just a Democratic issue," Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of told Newsweek. "Medicaid isn't red or blue. It's the safety net stretched under millions of American families, including a significant slice of the GOP base." What People Are Saying Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "Over the last three election cycles, the Republican base has expanded far past the days of simply promoting tax cuts and has a large number of supporters who rely on programs like Medicaid for essential services. And while cuts to the program could occur, we've already seen blowback to any proposed reductions. That's more than likely because some Republican members of Congress know cuts could dramatically affect their reelection chances." Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of told Newsweek: "There's a real disconnect between the political talking points and reality. Many Republican voters may not realize just how much their communities (especially rural ones) depend on Medicaid to keep hospitals open and doctors in town. The myth that Medicaid is for 'someone else' is crumbling fast." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "There will be a significant number of people kicked off the Medicaid program—either because they didn't submit their work requirements on time, were removed due to the rollback of Medicaid expansion, or simply no longer qualify." What Happens Next Ryan said if the cuts are enacted, rural hospitals will close, and working-class families will lose their health coverage. "The fallout will land squarely in the heart of Republican country," Ryan said. "You can't gut the safety net and expect your own voters to walk away unscathed." "Medicaid cuts are political dynamite. History shows voters punish politicians who take away health coverage. Just ask Missouri and Tennessee. If Republicans push too hard, they risk alienating their own base."
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You're Confused by the New COVID Vaccine Guidelines for Kids & Pregnant People, Read This
Confused about the new COVID-19 vaccine guidelines for children and pregnant people? Trust us, you're not alone. It all started on May 27, when Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the U.S. would no longer recommend COVID-19 shots for healthy children over 6 months or healthy pregnant people — a move that shocked most healthcare providers. Not only did the announcement upend the typical vaccine recommendation process, it also targeted a vaccine with good safety and efficacy data. Then, just a few days later, the CDC walked back part of RFK's statement regarding children's vaccines. The agency announced COVID shots would stay on the schedule for healthy children 6 months to 17 years old, as long as the children and their caregivers consulted with a doctor or provider — a caveat even doctors found confusing. 'My neck still hurts from the whiplash,' Dr. Molly O'Shea, MD, FAAP, an official spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and a faculty at the Children's Hospital of Michigan General Pediatrics Continuity Clinic, said on a briefing hosted by the non-profit HealthyWomen this week. More from SheKnows Elon Musk's Daughter Vivian Reveals One of Their Last Tense Interactions - Nearly 5 Years Ago RFK is a known vaccine skeptic, but it's highly unusual for the Health Secretary to make such decisions unilaterally, as multiple experts pointed out during the briefing. So ultimately, what does this mean for children and pregnant people when it comes to getting vaccinated for COVID? Are these shots still necessary, and will insurance still foot the bill for them if without this government backing? Here's what we know so far, according to experts in the briefing. The COVID vaccine is still considered very effective for children and pregnant people, with lower risks than the infection itself. Early in the pandemic, pregnant people and children often suffered significant outcomes from COVID, explained Dr. Margot Savoy, MD, MPH, FAAFP, senior vice president of education, inclusiveness and physician well-being at the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). 'For pregnant people, in particular, the risk of ending up in the ICU, the risk of ending up on a ventilator, and the risk of death were just remarkably high, much more than you would expect,' she explained during the briefing. Once the vaccine became available, 'those rates declined,' Dr. Savoy said. In fact, the serious outcomes that many worried would be side effects from the vaccine — things like miscarriage, preeclampsia, blood clots, or premature delivery — were actually more likely to happen as side effects from COVID itself, not the vaccine. 'If you find yourself vaccinated, the rates of all of those things actually go down to almost none,' Dr. Savoy explained. Plus, there's the fact that vaccinated pregnant people pass their immunity to their fetus. That means that the vaccine protects the pregnant person themselves; their fetus, against stillbirth and premature delivery; and the baby, once they're born, by conferring protection in their first six months, Dr. Savoy explained. That's a good thing, because 'babies are very high risk' when it comes to respiratory infections like COVID, added Dr. Alice Sato, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and a member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Advocacy Task Force at the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. 'Because they have such small airways… just a little bit of inflammation can make a baby get into trouble with their breathing a lot faster,' Dr. Sato explained. '[Babies] had very high hospitalizations, even with the last wave [of COVID-19.]' Children of any age can also experience long COVID — Dr. Sato said the most recent estimate was that 6 million children in the US were suffering from it — leading to symptoms like fatigue and fussiness. COVID can also lead to missing crucial periods of time from school or preschool. Getting vaccinated can help shorten those periods and protect them from those kinds of complications. 'In my vaccinated patients who get COVID, they get mild COVID, if they get it at all — and they aren't as apt to get long COVID,' Dr. O'Shea said. The vaccines are also still considered safe, the doctors agreed. In short, 'the recommendations have changed, but the science hasn't changed,' said Kate Connors, senior director of public affairs at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. So what are those new recommendations? The CDC no longer recommends COVID vaccination during pregnancy, which 'seems to be following a unilateral decision from the HHS Secretary,' Connors noted, referencing RFK Jr. 'It was made without any of the input of the experts at the CDC, the members of ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices], certainly without feedback from organizations like ACOG, and so we're very concerned about this.' She noted that ACOG continues to recommend COVID vaccination for pregnant people. For children, the new recommendations are less cut-and-dry. After initially saying the US no longer recommends COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children over 6 months (with exceptions for children with certain medical conditions), the CDC now says it recommends a 'collaborative decision-making [approach] with your pediatrician,' explained Dr. O'Shea. 'Healthy children with no underlying health conditions can, in collaboration with their pediatrician, make a decision about whether or not they want to have their child vaccinated this coming fall against COVID-19.' However, this unusual caveat leaves the door open for insurance companies to rescind coverage of the vaccine, possibly forcing parents to pay out of pocket to vaccinate their children (more on that below). For Dr. Savoy, the 'really deeply troubling' part of these decisions is the lack of evidence to support them. 'I actually don't know what data was used to make the decisions that we're talking about today,' she said. 'The data that I have been able to see most recently continues to mark pregnant people as being incredibly high risk. There would be no situation in the data that I saw that would make me think that it makes sense to remove that recommendation.' The same goes for children, she added. COVID-19 remains a threat, Dr. Savoy emphasized. 'We keep having new variants show up. We keep having people end up in the hospital. We keep running out of beds in the ER. There's things that are still happening, even though they don't show up on the news.' This is one thorny question to come out of the changing guidelines. 'We don't know what's going to happen with insurance coverage, and we're very, very worried about it,' Connors said. That's because there's a direct connection between government vaccine recommendations and insurance coverage of those vaccines, Dr. Savoy explained. Insurance companies typically use government recommendations as a sign that a vaccine is safe and essential; when those recommendations are removed or weakened, the companies may see it as a sign (or an opportunity) to stop covering that vaccine. Connors also pointed out that we're only a few months from flu and RSV season, when vaccines become all the more essential for public health. 'This is a really tough time for these conversations, for these unanswered questions,' she said. All four experts continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccines for everyone, including pregnant people and children. Dr. Sato cited the 'incredible, robust' data that shows that the COVID-19 is safe, effective, and presents fewer risks of complications than an infection itself. 'The science has not changed,' added Connors. 'The COVID vaccine is safe and it is effective… [It's] the best tool that we have to prevent severe outcomes associated with COVID infection.' Dr. Savoy agreed. 'I would still strongly recommend that if you're a pregnant person, that you get vaccinated, not just to protect yourself, but… to protect the fetus and to protect your newborn infant on the other side of that delivery,' she stressed. 'I'm still willing to stand on that hill… And if you were bringing your child in for their visit, I would still say that your child needs to have at least that primary series as a routine recommendation.' Before you go, shop these products to soothe your child's cold symptoms: Best of SheKnows Amanda Seyfried, Megan Fox, & More Celebrities Who Have OCD 18 Baking Soda-Free Natural Deodorants That Won't Irritate Your Sensitive Pits 24 Celebrities Living With Autoimmune Disorders
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New online tool helps women on Medicaid find prenatal care and family planning
At the University of Mississippi Medical Center, one researcher's full-time job for the past nine months has been to find out which clinics around the state offer different kinds of women's health care, and whether they accept various forms of Medicaid. The final result is a recently launched database aimed at helping women locate the nearest clinic that can offer the care they need. The work that went into creating it highlights a pervasive problem: Even making an appointment can be a barrier that keeps women from improving their lives. 'We Need to Talk' is a compilation of all Mississippi clinics offering prenatal care – specifying which ones also offer family planning, and whether they take Medicaid insurance, Medicaid waivers and see women whose Medicaid applications are pending. There is also a hotline designed to give additional support to anyone having questions or feeling overwhelmed about the process. At the University of Mississippi Medical Center, one researcher's full-time job for the past nine months has been to find out which clinics around the state offer different kinds of women's health care, and whether they accept various forms of Medicaid. The final result is a recently launched database aimed at helping women locate the nearest clinic that can offer the care they need. The work that went into creating it highlights a pervasive problem: Even making an appointment can be a barrier that keeps women from improving their lives. 'We Need to Talk' is a compilation of all Mississippi clinics offering prenatal care – specifying which ones also offer family planning, and whether they take Medicaid insurance, Medicaid waivers and see women whose Medicaid applications are pending. There is also a hotline designed to give additional support to anyone having questions or feeling overwhelmed about the process. 'Having gone through the work, it was remarkable. It wasn't easy to figure out where you should go for care,' said Dr. Thomas Dobbs, former state health officer and dean of the John D. Bower School of Population Health at UMMC, who oversaw the project. 'And that should be one of the most basic bits of information we have.' The new database is an initiative of UMMC's Myrlie Evers-Williams Institute – housed in the Jackson Medical Mall – which is committed to eliminating health disparities by studying the intersection of health and social issues. The institute has a clinic on site that practices what's called 'social medicine,' a key element of eliminating those disparities, the institute's executive director Victoria Gholar explained. 'If you have a patient who has asthma and they're living in a situation where mold is in their environment, it will really be hard for them to get better,' Gholar said. 'Or, if we have a patient who has to use an electronic (medical) device, and their electricity is no longer available because they weren't able to take care of their utility bill, then we try to work with them and connect them to resources that might be able to help.' The institute employs a wide range of professionals who work on health from a non-clinical standpoint, such as researchers, community engagers, social workers and registered dietitians. It hosts events like food drives and offers free support from budgeting strategies to meal preparation for those with conditions like diabetes or high blood pressure. Aside from knowing what to search for, finding clinics that accept Medicaid can also be complicated because Mississippi Medicaid eligibility is constantly changing for a woman based on her age and circumstance – what kinds of services she's seeking, as well as whether she's pregnant. Medicaid eligibility in Mississippi is among the strictest in the nation, with one exception – pregnant women. That means many low-income women only become eligible for Medicaid once pregnant. And since an application can take up to eight weeks to be processed, the chances that a woman in this situation will be able to use her newly acquired Medicaid insurance in the first trimester are slim. A law that would cut out this interim period and allow low-income pregnant women to be immediately seen by a doctor passed the Legislature in 2024, but was never implemented because of legislative errors. The policy went back through the Legislature in 2025, passed overwhelmingly again, but is not yet in effect. Some doctors already see women whose Medicaid application is pending, and the UMMC tool specifies at which clinics that's the case. Women of reproductive age seeking reproductive health care are also eligible for leniency in the typical Medicaid stipulations. These women can apply for a Medicaid family planning waiver, which allows them to access Medicaid for family planning purposes, even if they don't qualify for general Medicaid coverage. The income requirement for pregnancy Medicaid and the family planning waiver is a household income of less than 194% of the federal poverty level, or about $2,500 a month for one person in 2025. Dobbs, who has been the main point person on the project, said he hopes the online database is one more resource improving health care accessibility and women's health metrics in Mississippi. 'This isn't about getting patients to UMMC at all,' Dobbs said. 'It's about empowering patients to be able to get the care they need where they live.' This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
