What do you really know about Medicaid? Take our quiz and find out.
What do you really know about Medicaid? Take our quiz and find out.
Medicaid will be at the center of talks this week on Capitol Hill as House Republicans consider how to cut a program that is the primary source of health insurance coverage for low-income populations. Paid for by the federal government and states (as well as D.C.), Medicaid is a lifeline for many groups, including children and seniors.
Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over health care, are charged with finding $880 billion in savings, which they can't do without touching Medicaid. Yet some lawmakers say they won't vote for a bill that scales back a program on which many of their constituents rely.
How much do you know about how Medicaid works? Test your knowledge with our quiz:
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
40 minutes ago
- CBS News
Medicaid cuts could devastate hundreds of rural hospitals in GOP states, Democrats say
Cuts to federal spending on Medicaid could affect hundreds of rural hospitals in many states that have elected Republican senators and voted for President Trump, Senate Democrats warned Thursday, citing a list they commissioned of rural hospitals in financial distress. "If Republicans plan to pass drastic cuts to Medicaid and Medicare and effectively repeal the Affordable Care Act, communities should know exactly what they stand to lose," Sen. Ed Markey, the top Democrat in the Senate's health committee, said in a statement. The warning from Senate Democrats, outlined in a letter sent to President Trump and Republican congressional leaders, comes as senators are now wrestling with the budget package that Mr. Trump dubbed the "big, beautiful bill," which narrowly passed the House last month. Budget analysts say a slew of changes that the House bill made to Medicaid provisions — which backers argue would target "excesses and abuses" in the program — could add up to reduced federal Medicaid spending by more than $800 billion over the next decade, resulting in 7.8 million more uninsured people. The American Hospital Association has warned Medicaid cuts being considered by Congress "could have a devastating impact on rural hospitals," which often face larger shares of patients without health insurance. "Rural hospitals serve as critical — and sometimes the sole — source of care for rural communities," the hospital lobbying group says. Democrats cited a list of at-risk rural hospitals that the University of North Carolina's Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research compiled at their request. "If your party moves ahead with these drastic health care cuts that will cut millions of people off their health insurance coverage, rural hospitals will not get paid for the services they are required by law to provide to patients. In turn, rural hospitals will face deeper financial strain," the Democrats' letter states. The center analyzed data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to compile a list of rural hospitals at the highest risk of financial distress, broken down by state and congressional district. "Republican health care cuts would be felt by rural hospitals across the country. In Louisiana, 32 rural hospitals — or a majority of rural hospitals in the state — are serving a high concentration of Medicaid patients. A total of 33 hospitals are at risk based on serving a high share of Medicaid patients, experiencing negative total margins, or both," Democrats wrote. Louisiana is the home state of Sen. Bill Cassidy, the top Republican on the Senate health panel. The letter also itemized rural hospitals at risk in Alaska, Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama and Tennessee. "Substantial cuts to Medicaid or Medicare payments could increase the number of unprofitable rural hospitals and elevate their risk of financial distress. In response, hospitals may be forced to reduce service lines, convert to a different type of healthcare facility, or close altogether," wrote University of North Carolina researchers Mark Holmes, George Pink and Tyler Malone in their responses to the Democrats.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr.'s latest big move could leave you paying more for vaccines
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sent shockwaves through the scientific community this week when he fired all 17 members of the federal government's key vaccine advisory board, raising concerns that he might try to replace them with immunization skeptics. Those fears were confirmed for many on Wednesday when Kennedy unveiled eight new members who included some of the most prominent critics of the COVID-19 vaccines. The swap could have wide-reaching public health consequences. But one of the most straightforward impacts may be on consumers' wallets. That's because recommendations by the board — known as the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, or ACIP — determine which vaccines most insurance plans are required to cover at zero cost, such as inoculation against measles or your annual flu shot. If the new members decide to reverse the panel's old guidance, patients could find themselves paying out of pocket for vaccines that were once available for free. 'For the average person who has never heard of ACIP before, this could affect their access to vaccines,' said Jennifer Kates, a senior vice president at the healthcare think tank KFF. Created in 1964, ACIP is the official outside panel of medical experts responsible for advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on what to include on its lists of routine shots for both children and adults. While its recommendations aren't binding, federal officials have typically adopted them. As a result, the board's decisions carry enormous weight, affecting patients and parents, as well as the vaccines schools require for students. Over the years, the panel has played a growing role in determining insurance coverage as well. By law, shots recommended by ACIP must be covered by the free Vaccines for Children program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicaid, and Medicare Part D. The Affordable Care Act also requires private insurers to pay for vaccines with no cost sharing if they have the panel's seal of approval. (Past administrations have said the rule only applies if the CDC also adopts the board's recommendation.) In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week, Kennedy said his decision to replace the board was meant to fight a 'crisis of public trust' in vaccines by ridding the committee of what he described as 'persistent conflicts of interest.' (Kennedy's critics have argued that his allegations against ACIP's former members are unfounded.) His new picks for the panel include several figures who rose to national fame by casting doubt on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Among them is Dr. Robert Malone, an accomplished scientist who did pioneering work on mRNA technology but later attacked its use in shots during the pandemic and who was at one point banned from Twitter for spreading COVID misinformation. He'll be joined by Retsef Levi, an MIT business school professor who gained attention in 2023 for claiming there was 'indisputable evidence' that 'MRNA vaccines cause serious harm including death,' and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, who advocated letting COVID spread among younger Americans to achieve 'herd immunity' and was later let go from Harvard Medical after refusing to be vaccinated. In his announcement, Kennedy said that each new member of ACIP was 'committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations' — suggesting they'll be less likely to add new shots to the government's immunization schedules. But he added that the board will also 'review safety and efficacy data for the current schedule as well,' raising the possibility that it will scrap some of its old recommendations. Even before this week's shake-up, the government had already begun changing its recommendations on COVID shots. In May, the CDC dropped its recommendation that healthy pregnant women receive the vaccine and revised its guidance for young children, saying they should only receive it after consultation with a doctor. Private insurers could still choose to cover vaccines even if the federal government stops recommending them. Whether they will is less certain. 'That's territory we haven't really had to traverse before,' said KFF's Kates. Sarah Moselle, a vaccine market expert at the health industry consulting firm Avalere, said there may be some 'fragmentation' in how carriers approach the issue. Some may drop coverage entirely or begin requiring co-pays. But many 'do anticipate that they would continue to cover some vaccines,' even if they aren't required to, since it would 'add value' for their customers, she said. In theory, insurers could also have an incentive to maintain vaccine coverage since it could keep their patients healthier and reduce the costs of their care, though it's unclear exactly how those savings would stack up against the added expense of paying for shots. For many vaccines, the out-of-pocket cost might be relatively cheap for patients. But others could turn out to be steep. Take Gardasil, the HPV vaccine that has been the focus of growing safety concerns among patients despite studies suggesting they're unfounded. Some experts told Yahoo Finance they thought the shot could be a target for more scrutiny under Kennedy's new ACIP. Currently, the shot is covered by insurance because it's recommended for pre-teens through young adults. The CDC lists its full price at over $300 a dose. Even modest costs can dissuade patients from getting vaccinated, according to Loren Adler, associate director at the Brookings Institution's Center on Health Policy. 'We know that folks having to pay $10 for a vaccine limits the uptake somewhat,' he said. As a result, just a small increase in what patients have to pay out of pocket could have ripple effects on public health. One issue to keep an eye on, according to Moselle, is whether state governments step in to require more extensive insurance coverage of vaccines if the federal government walks back some of its recommendations. If they do, vaccine access could start to vary more by where patients happen to live. Jordan Weissmann is a senior reporter at Yahoo Finance. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest health industry news and events impacting stock prices
WebMD
an hour ago
- WebMD
More Thoughts on the Myth of the Perfect Patient
In my last post, I talked about the extreme efforts I took to be the healthiest, most perfect MS patient. I realized I had more to say on the subject. If the average person looked at my diet today, they'd still think I was pretty strict. I still cut out most inflammatory foods: gluten, dairy, excessive sugar, corn, oats, veggie oils, and highly processed foods. But some "bad" habits have definitely snuck back into my life. I drink coffee every day, have Diet Coke a few times a week, indulge in (gluten-free and vegan) sugary desserts, eat out often, sacrifice sleep for fun, no longer read food labels with a magnifying glass, blast music through my headphones, and occasionally grab fast food after a night out. And with these choices comes guilt. Constant, nagging guilt that I indulge so much despite having an inflammatory condition. You would think I'd have more self-restraint, given the implications, and yet I've entered a chapter in my life where that's just … not a priority. People are often surprised by my lifestyle. Those who knew me throughout my MS journey saw me transform from a lifestyle that was average, to extremely strict and healthy, to average again, and now possibly even slightly unhealthy. They're shocked that I've "regressed" so much, and I get questioned about it constantly. I'm always uncomfortable answering. What do I say? "Yes, I still have multiple sclerosis and it's a really scary disease, but I'm just kind of taking a break from being healthy"? Or when people who newly meet me realize I have MS, they often question how it's possible when we seemingly live the same lives. They applaud me for having so much energy and "handling it so well." But they don't see me take three-hour naps just to get through my day. They don't see the migraines, numbness, and spasms that creep up on me. They don't see the constant doctor appointments, blood tests, and MRIs. Why are they so shocked by my diagnosis? Why are people shocked that I stopped eating such a strict diet? Why do they make comments about it? Why do their comments make me feel even more guilty? Why are they allowed to drink a can of soda, but not me? Nothing is worse than when someone points out I'm doing something unhealthy and asks how it affects my MS. Even when they don't mention my MS directly, the implications of my chronic illness hang heavy in the air. Because the reality is they're projecting an image of a perfect patient onto me, and that simply does not exist. Even when I was at my healthiest, I wasn't perfect. Eating that healthy gave me extreme anxiety, and any misstep sent me into a spiral. But truly, you cannot win with a chronic illness. When you try to eat super healthy, you put immense pressure and stress on yourself. When you decide not to prioritize it, the guilt and shame eat at you. Not to mention that your body changes throughout each transformation, making the transition even more obvious and difficult. When people come to me for advice about managing MS through lifestyle changes, I feel like an imposter. Yes, for almost two years I was eating strictly healthy and following all the health trends. But now, I don't really think about them. I feel inauthentic talking to people about what they should do to be healthier because I don't currently follow those practices. Sometimes, I wish I could recapture that energy, passion, discipline, and motivation I had to be so healthy. But I'm not perfect, and I am certainly not the perfect patient. For now, I will enjoy my indulgences. I will remind myself that nothing in life is permanent and that life has many chapters. I will never be the perfect patient, because there is no perfect patient. It is not my fault I have MS, and there is no need to punish myself more for it. I'm sure my healthy habits will come back to me one day. For now, I will enjoy myself in ways I never even thought possible a few years ago. And I'll try to let go of the guilt that comes from not living up to an impossible standard. Maybe the healthiest thing I can do is accept myself exactly as I am today, and try my best to live in the present.
