logo
The devastating impact of Trump's big beautiful bill, in one chart

The devastating impact of Trump's big beautiful bill, in one chart

Vox5 hours ago

covers health for Vox, guiding readers through the emerging opportunities and challenges in improving our health. He has reported on health policy for more than 10 years, writing for Governing magazine, Talking Points Memo, and STAT before joining Vox in 2017.
While public attention has largely been focused on the Middle East and on President Donald Trump's immigration policy, Republicans in Congress are on the verge of passing massive Medicaid cuts as part of a budget bill that could lead to millions of Americans losing their health insurance benefits and, according to one recent estimate, thousands of unnecessary deaths every year.
While the GOP's so-called 'big, beautiful' bill is a smorgasbord of policy — potentially including everything from blocking AI regulation to restricting the power of the federal courts — perhaps the most consequential changes would be to Medicaid. The program, which covers low-income Americans of all ages, is now the country's single largest insurer, covering more than 70 million people. The legislation approved by House Republicans, which is now being debated and amended by the Senate, would cut Medicaid spending by $793 billion over 10 years. The upshot is that 10.3 million fewer people would be enrolled in the program by 2034.
Those coverage losses would more than undo the progress the US has made in reducing the ranks of the uninsured over the past few years. On Tuesday, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that the number of US adults without insurance in 2024 had fallen to 27.2 million, down from 31.6 million in 2020. The GOP bill would reverse those gains and then some within a decade.
The consequences would be much more severe than the mere loss of a government health insurance card. According to one analysis of the House bill published last week in the Annals of Internal Medicine by a trio of Harvard-affiliated researchers, those losses of Medicaid coverage would lead to fewer Americans reporting good health, fewer patients getting preventive health screenings, and, at the end of the day, between 8,200 and 24,600 additional annual deaths.
Senate Republicans are not going to adopt the House bill exactly as it is, which means any estimates of its effects are preliminary. But it appears likely GOP senators will keep at least two impactful provisions: new work requirements for many of the people on Medicaid and limits on the financing tools that the states can use to access more federal Medicaid funding. The Harvard study broke out the estimated effects by provision and the results are still foreboding: between 3,000 and 9,000 annual deaths attributable to Medicaid work requirements, and between 4,200 and 12,600 deaths if state provider taxes were completely eliminated.
Even short of the worst-case scenario, Americans' health would be worse off under the Republican bill, according to researchers Adam Gaffney, David Himmelstein, and Steffie Woolhandler. The number of Americans who have a personal doctor would drop by 700,000 under Medicaid work requirements; 285,000 fewer people would ever get their blood cholesterol checked, and 235,000 fewer patients would ever have their blood sugar tested. The number of women getting a recommended mammogram within the past 12 months would drop by nearly 139,000. And an additional 385,000 people would have to borrow money or skip paying other bills to afford their medical care. The people affected are low-income and disproportionately Black and Hispanic.
There is plenty of uncertainty in these projections. It is also hard to be sure how these policies would interact with each other: The Harvard researchers noted in their cumulative estimate of the House bill's effects that there would likely be some overlap in the policies' projected effects when combined together. Some of the people who lose their Medicaid coverage would be able to get insurance by other means, offsetting the losses to a degree that can be difficult to predict.
But the takeaway from the analysis is clear: A lot of people are going to suffer if these proposals become law.
The US is sabotaging its own health care system
The debate in the Senate has not yet concluded, and the bill could still change. Hospitals are busy on Capitol Hill, lobbying Republicans to reduce the spending cuts and warning lawmakers of the devastating consequences that the legislation would have. Some GOP senators are reportedly open to providing additional funding for rural hospitals, to relieve the impact on the facilities that would be hardest hit by the proposed Medicaid cuts.
But after Republicans narrowly failed to roll back Medicaid during Trump's first term, they seem likely to succeed this time — a step backward from building a true universal health care system.
America's lack of universal health care is the main reason we spend more money than any other country in the world while seeing worse outcomes. One recent JAMA analysis found that deaths that could be prevented by accessible health care increased in the United States from 2009 to 2019, while declining in most other comparable countries.
You can achieve universal health care via a variety of strategies, including the expansion of private health insurance, but the Republican bill could instead lead to more unnecessary deaths by taking existing benefits away from people, according to the Annals of Internal Medicine study.
Medicaid has actually been a rare bright spot in America's often dysfunctional health care system. The program has its own problems — not enough doctors participate because of its low reimbursement rates, for one — but since its expansion through the Affordable Care Act in 2010, research has shown that Medicaid allowed more people to access health care, reduced their financial burden from medical services, and improved their physical and mental well-being.
Republican lawmakers and Trump administration officials justify the Medicaid cuts by saying that people who can work should be required to work in order to receive government benefits. They claim nobody who deserves to be on Medicaid will lose their coverage. As one White House official put it to Politico earlier this month: 'Medicaid does not belong to people who are here illegally, and it does not belong to capable and able-bodied men who refuse to work. So no one is getting cut.' (Undocumented migrants are already ineligible for federal Medicaid funding. Six states cover undocumented adults through Medicaid using the state's own funds, and 14 cover undocumented children.)
But independent analysts say that most of the people on Medicaid are either children, elderly, disabled — or adults who are already working or caring for another person — meaning they are limited in their ability to work. Most of the projected coverage losses result from people having paperwork problems in documenting their work or proving they should be exempt from the requirements, not because people are actually ineligible under the new rules.
That aligns with the experience of Arkansas during Trump's first term. That state tested work requirements in the real world for the first time and 18,000 people lost their health insurance in a matter of months, with no meaningful effect on their employment.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Graham overrides Paul's border wall, immigration enforcement proposal
Graham overrides Paul's border wall, immigration enforcement proposal

The Hill

time28 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Graham overrides Paul's border wall, immigration enforcement proposal

Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has unveiled a plan to override Homeland Security Committee Chair Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) proposal to fund border security and immigration enforcement activities at roughly half the amount favored by Senate and House Republican leaders. Paul created an uproar two weeks ago when he unveiled his portion of the Trump agenda megabill that would spend $6.5 billion on completing President Trump's border wall and $22.5 billion on expanding detention facilities for migrants. Now Graham has answered with a move of his own, unveiling a proposal to restore funding for the border wall and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the full amount envisioned by GOP leaders when they passed a blueprint for the bill earlier this year. 'As Budget Chairman, I will do my best to ensure that the President's border security plan is fully funded because I believe it has been fully justified,' Graham said in a statement accompanying the release of his legislative text. 'The president promised to secure our border. His plan fulfills that promise. The Senate must do our part and past his bill,' he said. Graham would provide Customs and Border Patrol $46.5 billion to build the border wall and related infrastructure such as access roads, cameras, lights and sensors. Paul, by contrast, provided $6.5 billion for completion of the wall, telling colleagues that's the amount that Customs and Border Patrol estimated on its website the construction would cost. 'The wall, if you look at the [Customs and Border Protection] website — until they removed it yesterday — they said it would cost $6.5 million per mile' to build the border wall, Paul told reporters earlier this month. 'If you add that up for about 1,000 miles that's $6.5 billion. They asked for $46.5 billion so they got a math problem,' he added. 'Instead of addressing the math problem, CBP took that off their website two days ago.' Graham's 'updated Senate Homeland Security Title' would also provide $45 billion for the detention of aliens ICE has taken into custody. That's substantially more than the $22.5 billion that Paul's legislative text allocated for expanding detention capacity.

Senate Tax Bill Preserves SALT Workaround For Traders And SSTBs
Senate Tax Bill Preserves SALT Workaround For Traders And SSTBs

Forbes

time29 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Senate Tax Bill Preserves SALT Workaround For Traders And SSTBs

The Senate takes a more balanced approach to SALT and PTET rules—avoiding punitive carveouts and restoring deductions for traders and service professionals. Senate Rejects House's PTET Ban on Traders Senate Republicans released a draft tax reform bill on June 16 that sharply diverges from the House's approach to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction and the pass-through entity tax (PTET). Unlike the House version, which aggressively targets specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs), the Senate draft restores PTET deductions for all pass-throughs—offering welcome relief to traders, CPAs, and other professionals. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), set to expire after 2025, capped the SALT itemized deduction at $10,000 per year. In response, 37 states enacted PTET regimes allowing pass-through entities to deduct state taxes at the entity level—effectively bypassing the SALT cap for eligible business owners. The House bill proposes raising the SALT cap to $40,000 with income-based phaseouts and denies PTET deductions to SSTBs. By contrast, the Senate draft keeps the SALT cap at $10,000 as a placeholder, signaling ongoing negotiations. Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo and many Republicans oppose raising the cap, with some advocating for its complete elimination. In a notable departure from the House bill, the Senate version eliminates SSTB exclusions. Instead, it applies a uniform PTET limitation: the greater of $50,000 or 50% of the eligible PTET deduction, regardless of industry. While more restrictive than current law—which in many states allows near-total deduction—this framework avoids discriminatory carveouts against service professionals. Traders operating in PTET-eligible entities and qualifying for trader tax status (TTS) would retain access to this key deduction under the Senate proposal. However, sole proprietors, employees, and investment companies not eligible for TTS remain excluded. The Senate Finance Committee's draft remains under discussion, with a floor vote anticipated as early as late June. If the Senate passes the bill, it will proceed to House-Senate reconciliation. The final outcome will determine whether PTET parity and SALT deduction relief endure in the finalized legislation. As many taxpayers discovered under the TCJA, SALT cap limitations have been a major driver of increased federal tax bills—especially in high-tax states. The Senate proposal takes a more balanced approach, extending PTET relief without penalizing service professionals. GreenTraderTax will continue monitoring developments and advise traders and professionals on year-end planning implications. Darren Neuschwander, CPA, contributed to this article.

CDC nominee Susan Monarez sidesteps questions about disagreements with RFK in Senate hearing
CDC nominee Susan Monarez sidesteps questions about disagreements with RFK in Senate hearing

Associated Press

time33 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

CDC nominee Susan Monarez sidesteps questions about disagreements with RFK in Senate hearing

Susan Monarez, President Donald Trump's pick to lead the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told senators Wednesday that she values vaccines, public health interventions and rigorous scientific evidence, but largely sidestepped questions about widespread cuts to the agency, elimination of programs and whether she disagreed with any of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s actions to date. 'The secretary is doing the important work of leading a complex agency,' Monarez told members of a Senate health committee that will decide whether to advance her nomination. Monarez, 50, is the first nominee for CDC director to require Senate confirmation. She was named acting director in January and the nominee for the post in March after Trump abruptly withdrew his first choice, David Weldon. Monarez is the former director of a federal biomedical research agency and a respected scientist, though she would be the first nonphysician to lead the CDC in decades. Monarez repeatedly said she had not been involved in decisions earlier this year to cut hundreds of staff and eliminate CDC programs, but that she would work to retain the agency's core functions and transition key programs to other parts of the Health and Human Services department. Her answers appeared to frustrate some senators, including Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine, who said he had no questions about her qualifications. 'I've got questions about your willingness to follow through on your values,' he said. In the two-hour hearing, Monarez was sharply questioned about Kennedy's recent move to fire all 17 members of a crucial committee that evaluates and recommends vaccines, his downplaying of the risks of measles during a nationwide outbreak and staffing cuts to a program that investigates lead poisoning in children. Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who is chairman of the committee, sought assurances about the scientific integrity of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which was reconstituted by Kennedy to include vaccine skeptics. 'Someone can speak as a critic, but there should be someone who's reviewing the overwhelming evidence of the safety of vaccines,' Cassidy said. Monarez said she strongly supported public health interventions, including immunizations, saying, 'I think vaccines save lives.' 'The ACIP has a very vital role to play,' she added. 'And it must make sure that it is using science and evidence to drive that decision-making.' She vowed to prioritize innovation, 'evidence-based rapid decision-making' and clear communication at the $9.2 billion agency tasked with evaluating vaccines, monitoring diseases and watching for threats to Americans' health. Monarez declined to say whether she had disagreed with any of Kennedy's decisions regarding the agency to date, saying he has 'laid out a very clear vision.' 'I think he has prioritized key public health activities for preventing chronic diseases,' she added. If Monarez is confirmed, it would end a stretch of confusion at the Atlanta-based CDC, where, for months, it wasn't clear who was running the agency. The acting director's role was filled in part by Matthew Buzzelli, the CDC's chief of staff who is a lawyer and political appointee with no medical experience. Monarez holds doctorate in microbiology and immunology from the University of Wisconsin, and her postdoctoral training was in microbiology and immunology at Stanford University. At CDC headquarters in Atlanta, employees have said Monarez was rarely heard from between late January and late March, when Trump nominated her. The CDC was created nearly 80 years ago to prevent the spread of malaria in the U.S. Its mission was later expanded, and it gradually became a global leader on infectious and chronic diseases and a go-to source of health information. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store