The devastating impact of Trump's big beautiful bill, in one chart
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 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.
The US has made halting progress in its pursuit of a better health system. In 2010, the uninsured rate was 16 percent. Today, it's half of that. But in the GOP's proposed future, the problems that have left Americans so frustrated with their health care system are going to get worse.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

23 minutes ago
FDA requires updated warning about rare heart risk with COVID shots
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — The Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday it has expanded existing warnings on the two leading COVID-19 vaccines about a rare heart side effect mainly seen in young men. Myocarditis, a type of heart inflammation that is usually mild, emerged as a complication after the first shots became widely available in 2021. Prescribing information from both Pfizer and Moderna already advises doctors about the issue. In April, the FDA sent letters to both drugmakers asking them to update and expand the warnings to add more detail about the problem and to cover a larger group of patients. While the FDA can mandate label changes, the process is often more of a negotiation with companies. Specifically, the new warning lists the risk of myocarditis as 8 cases per 1 million people who got the 2023-2024 COVID shots between the ages of 6 months and 64 years old. The label also notes that the problem has been most common among males ages 12 to 24. The previous label said the problem mostly occurs in 12- to 17-year-olds. The FDA's labeling change appears to conflict with some prior findings of scientists elsewhere in the U.S. government. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention previously concluded there was no increased risk of myocarditis detected in government vaccine injury databases for COVID-19 shots dating back to 2022. Officials also noted that cases tend to resolve quickly and are less severe than those associated with COVID-19 infection itself, which can also cause myocarditis. The FDA announcement came as new vaccine advisers appointed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. met to debate the continuing use of COVID-19 vaccines for key groups, including pregnant women. It's the first meeting of the CDC advisory panel since Kennedy abruptly dismissed all 17 members of the group, naming a new panel that includes several members with a history of anti-vaccine statements. The FDA's label update is the latest step by officials working under Kennedy to restrict or undercut use of vaccines. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and a top deputy recently restricted annual COVID-19 shots to seniors and other Americans at higher risk from the virus. They've also suggested seasonal tweaks to match the latest circulating virus strains are new products that require extra testing. Outside experts said the new warning is the wrong approach. 'They are right to suggest that we need to consider myocarditis risks associated with the vaccine, but what they propose is exactly the wrong solution,' said Dr. Robert Morris, a public health specialist at the University of Washington. 'We should be investigating who is prone to myocarditis to see if we can predict and mitigate that risk.' Makary and several other FDA officials gained prominence during the pandemic by suggesting the federal government exaggerated the benefits of COVID-19 boosters and downplayed serious side effects, including myocarditis. Before joining the government, Makary and two of his current FDA deputies wrote a 2022 paper that said mandating booster shots in young people would cause more vaccine-related injuries than prevented hospitalizations from COVID-19 infections. The conclusion contradicted that of many leading vaccine and public health experts at the time, including at the CDC. ___

24 minutes ago
Nestle says it will remove artificial dyes from US foods by 2026
Nestle said Wednesday it will eliminate artificial colors from its U.S. food and beverages by the middle of 2026. It's the latest big food company making that pledge. Last week, Kraft Heinz and General Mills said they would remove artificial dyes from their U.S. products by 2027. General Mills also said it plans to remove artificial dyes from its U.S. cereals and from all foods served in K-12 schools by the middle of 2026. The move has broad support. About two-thirds of Americans favor restricting or reformulating processed foods to remove ingredients like added sugar or dyes, according to an AP-NORC poll. Both California and West Virginia have recently banned artificial dyes in foods served in schools. On Sunday, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas signed a bill requiring foods made with artificial dyes or additives to contain a new safety label starting in 2027. The label would say they contain ingredients 'not recommended for human consumption' in Australia, Canada, the European Union or the U.K. The federal government is also stepping up its scrutiny of artificial colors. In January, days before President Donald Trump took office, the U.S. regulators banned the dye called Red 3 from the nation's food supply, nearly 35 years after it was barred from cosmetics because of potential cancer risk. In April, Trump's Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency would take steps to eliminate synthetic dyes by the end of 2026, largely by relying on voluntary efforts from the food industry. Nestle has pledged to remove artificial dyes before. Early in 2015, the company said it would remove artificial flavors and colors from its products by the end of that year. But the promise didn't hold. Nestle said Wednesday it's been removing synthetic dyes from its products over the last decade, and 90% of its U.S. portfolio doesn't contain them. Among those that do is Nesquik Banana Strawberry milk, which is made with Red 3. Nestle said Wednesday it wants to evolve with its U.S. customers' changing nutritional needs and preferences. 'Serving and delighting people is at the heart of everything we do and every decision that we make,' Nestle's U.S. CEO Marty Thompson said in a statement.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oregon Legislature repeals contested wildfire hazard map
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Oregon lawmakers have voted to repeal the state's contentous wildfire hazard map, which subjected homeowners in certain areas at high risk of wildfires to stricter building codes and requirements to reduce vegetation on their properties. The measure passed the state House with just one vote against Tuesday, after passing the state Senate unanimously in April. Republicans had called for the map's repeal throughout the legislative session and accused Democrats of stalling it. The bill now heads to Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek. 'Despite an incredibly frustrating political process, we appreciate the members who have chosen to do the right thing in repealing these maps," Republican House Minority Leader Christine Drazan said. She added in her statement that the maps had created 'chaos' in rural areas. An updated version of the state-developed maps released earlier this year created new rules for those living in the most fire-prone areas that also border wildlands such as forests or grasslands. The building and so-called defensible space provisions impacted 6% of the state's roughly 1.9 million tax lots, a reduction from an earlier version developed in 2022 but retracted after homeowners raised concerns that it would increase insurance premiums. The building codes were set to require new construction in high hazard areas in the so-called wildland-urban interface to have fire-resistant features, and to apply to existing homes if certain upgrades were made. The bill passed by the Legislature revokes those defensible space and building code requirements, instead directing state agencies to create model codes that local governments can choose to adopt. The two maps showing wildfire hazard levels and the wildland-urban interface were released by the Oregon Department of Forestry and developed by Oregon State University scientists. Under a state law passed in 2023, insurers cannot use a wildfire hazard map produced by a state agency to cancel or decline to renew a homeowner insurance policy, or to increase premiums. But many who opposed the maps said they were flawed and placed burdens on homeowners. Experts who worked on the maps said they were an important step in identifying and protecting fire-prone areas as the state continues to contend with record-breaking wildfires. Oregon's wildfire season last year was a record in terms of cost and acres burned, and wind-fueled blazes over Labor Day weekend in 2020 killed nine people and destroyed thousands of homes. California, Arizona and New Mexico have had wildfire hazard maps for years. Last year, lawmakers in Washington state ordered the creation of a statewide wildfire risk map, and in 2023, Colorado passed a law establishing a wildfire resiliency code board.