The number of uninsured Oklahomans could soar if Medicaid funding is rolled back
As a health care leader, my No. 1 concern has always been helping patients receive the care they need, when they need it. That's why I'm greatly concerned about the $880 billion in Medicaid budget cuts Congress is currently considering.
Amid a year already marked by uncertainty and change, about 1 million Oklahomans who rely on Medicaid (also known as SoonerCare) to meet their health care needs face additional worries about whether they will be able to maintain access to the providers they know and trust. Many of these patients live in rural communities where small or critical access hospitals are essential.
Less than 10% of Oklahomans remain uninsured thanks to current Medicaid policies. But that number could soar if Medicaid funding is rolled back. This will not only affect patients — it will affect all of Oklahoma, as it could cost up to $2.5 billion in additional costs to the state. Despite already having a nearly $40 million shortfall for the upcoming fiscal year, Oklahoma may have to draw down our $1.3 billion emergency fund to manage this unexpected expense. The state could also consider raising taxes or reducing funds from other programs to allocate funds toward Medicaid support.
If the state eventually does roll back Medicaid funding because of shifting cost responsibilities, hundreds of thousands of Oklahomans could be displaced from their current health care coverage. In the absence of SoonerCare, many will likely forgo coverage rather than seeking private insurance. This lack of coverage puts a tremendous burden on our hospitals and health systems — especially those in rural areas.
Opinion: Veterinary medicine is important to Oklahoma's health. We can't fall behind.
For rural hospitals, a loss to Medicaid funding could result in an up to 15% reduction in revenue used to provide hope and healing for our most vulnerable community members, resulting in worse health outcomes, delayed treatments and increased mortality rates. This could then force these hospitals to cut essential services and employees or even close their doors, weakening the backbone of local economies by eliminating jobs and forcing residents to travel long distances for medical care.
Having served in health care for over 20 years, I feel strongly that it is more important than ever to amplify the voices of Oklahomans around these important issues. This is not the future I want for Oklahoma. We cannot afford to lose Medicaid funding.
As legislators consider cuts, we as Oklahomans must consider how this may impact communities around the state and advocate for what we want.
Call your federal representatives today and tell them to preserve Medicaid funding. If you are interested in staying up to date about how this issue could impact health care in our state, go to protecthealthcareinOK.org, a coalition focused on protecting and improving sustainable access in Oklahoma.
Jeremy Jones is the chief executive officer of Arbuckle Memorial Hospital in Sulphur.
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Oklahoma could see a $2.5B tab if Medicaid funding is cut | Opinion

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

Associated Press
7 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'


USA Today
36 minutes ago
- USA Today
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts.
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts. | Opinion Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. Show Caption Hide Caption Disabled protesters removed from House committee hearing Disabled demonstrators protesting a Republican proposal to cut benefits were forced to leave a House committee hearing and arrested. Perhaps you've heard: Republicans are about to kick millions of people off health insurance. That claim is all over the news media as Congress debates the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Advocates on the left even say the proposed changes will kill people. Such claims have no basis in reality. The point is to frighten Republican lawmakers into giving up on necessary reforms. Instead, the GOP should double down. Congressional Budget Office is biased, and often wrong The source for this fearmongering is the Congressional Budget Office. As the Foundation for Government Accountability shows in our new research, CBO staff consists largely of registered Democrats and the agency is often wrong in its projections. Washington elites and their media allies like to hold up the CBO as an all-seeing oracle. In theory, it's a nonpartisan federal agency inside Congress that accurately predicts how legislation will play out in the real world. In reality, CBO is overwhelmingly staffed by Democrats and its findings are less than trustworthy. We painstakingly analyzed the voter registration of every CBO employee. Our finding: A staggering 79% of CBO staff are Democrats. A mere 12% are Republicans. That's actually worse than senior bureaucrats at the most liberal federal agencies, including Housing and Urban Development, the State Department and Health and Human Services. And when you look at key CBO departments, the liberal bias is even more stark. The Health Analysis Division is 93% Democrat and zero Republican. That's the department now driving the news about the dangers of the Republican bill. In other words, CBO may well be the most liberal government outfit in all of Washington. And surprise, surprise: It does Democrats' bidding. Tell us: Republicans want massive cuts to Medicaid. What do you want? | Forum Opinion That fact should persuade Republicans to ignore CBO's analysis of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In May, CBO asserted that about 10 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage by 2034 if the bill passed. CBO blames Republican reforms like Medicaid work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks and the removal of illegal immigrants from Medicaid. But think about what's really happening. A group of Democratic bureaucrats are criticizing Republican efforts to roll back Democratic priorities. This isn't nonpartisan policy analysis. It's political damage control. CBO projections were wrong on 'Obamacare' And wouldn't you know: The leftist CBO is frequently wrong. The agency has a long history of underestimating the benefits of Republican policies like tax cuts and health care reforms. The CBO also routinely minimizes the damage of Democratic policies, especially the soaring cost of government expansions. In 2010, when the Affordable Care Act passed, the CBO said only 13 million able-bodied adults would be covered under the law's Medicaid expansion in all 50 states. But within a decade, 50% more able-bodied adults had jumped onto Medicaid, even though only two-thirds of states had expanded the program. Opinion: GOP must cut Medicaid now. Or risk debt crisis and devastating cuts later. CBO's error made "Obamacare" look more affordable than it is, and taxpayers have spent tens of billions of additional dollars on able-bodied adults who push vulnerable Americans and individuals with disabilities back in line. For more than a decade, CBO has been consistently wrong on Medicaid expansion's real-world impact, underestimating enrollment and the cost to taxpayers. But when CBO analyzed the Republican repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate in 2017, it overestimated how many people would lose coverage. It said 4 million people would lose private health coverage and Medicaid in the first two years alone. But by 2020, about 13 million people had gained coverage. CBO could hardly have been more wrong. And the agency is still in charge of making predictions. Now, the CBO is once again warning about massive coverage losses, and their media allies are dutifully repeating the assertion. But congressional Republicans should see through the charade. Case in point: CBO's predictions about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act include 1.6 million people enrolled in Medicaid in multiple states. They won't lose coverage in the state where they live, but CBO still counts them among those losing coverage. In addition, 200,000 'losses' are people who aren't even on Medicaid. CBO just assumes they'll join in the years ahead. GOP is doing the right thing with Medicaid The truth is that Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. That will allow states to focus on Medicaid's intended recipients such as individuals with disabilities. Republicans are also removing ineligible people and illegal immigrants from Medicaid rolls. CBO makes it sound like those coverage losses are wrong, but what's really wrong is letting millions of people take advantage of taxpayers. Republicans are looking out for Americans − taxpayers, individuals with disabilities and future generations. The Congressional Budget Office, on the other hand, is looking out for the Democratic agenda of growing government at any cost. Republicans in the Senate should ignore the fearmongering and move forward with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as soon as possible. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability, where Addison Scherler is a data investigator.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A very public feud: Entertainment world reacts to Donald Trump and Elon Musk fallout
Donald Trump and Elon Musk's friendship is seemingly coming to an end after the tech billionaire pushed back against the US president's divisive One Big Beautiful Bill Act - which he called a "disgusting abomination". Despite public support for one another, Musk's role in Trump's election campaign and his previous (and incredibly controversial) position as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the bromance came crashing down due to the aforementioned bill, which proposes a range of tax cuts and changes to social programs that Musk claims would "burden American citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt". Trump publicly said that he was 'very disappointed with Elon', claiming the former DOGE head 'knew the inner workings' of the Big Beautiful Bill 'better than anybody' and had 'no problem with it' until he realised that the government was 'going to cut the (electric vehicle) mandate'. Musk responded: 'False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' The increasingly explosive fallout continued with Trump threatening to cut Elon's government contracts, including with Tesla and SpaceX, and claimed that the CEO was "crazy". "Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" Trump wrote on Truth Social. Musk promptly hit back, claiming that the President would have lost the election without his contributions to the campaign. He also agreed with an X user that Trump should be impeached. "Such ingratitude," he added. The came the bombshell X post on Thursday, in which Musk alleged that Trump had shared a long friendship with convicted abuser and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrup is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' 'Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out,' Musk added in a follow-up post. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed his claims in a statement, saying: "This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted." As to be expected, the entertainment world has been reacting to this swiftly escalating public feud. Among the first people to react to the ongoing feud was Kanye 'Ye' West, who has publicly and controversially aligned himself with Trump and Musk countless times before. 'Broooos please nooooo We love you both so much,' he posted on X. Piers Morgan reacted to Musk's claims that Trump is in the Epstein File with a 'Holy Shit', before offering both men a platform to 'duke this out for a few hours'. 'BBB actually stands for Big Beautiful Breakup,' commented right-wing activist Laura Loomer, while conspiracy theorist Alex Jones wrote: 'God Help Us ALL….' after Musk's accusation. Steve Bannon, a right-wing activist who has opposed Musk's role in the government, took things up a notch by telling the New York Times that Musk should be 'deported' and that the government should 'initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status.' Elsewhere, popular politician Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez offered her take when asked about the feud: 'Oh man, the girls are fighting, aren't they?' Democratic Senator Adam Schiff joked on X: 'Going to need a Big Beautiful Bucket of popcorn for this ugly brawl.' Comedian, writer and TV host Jon Stewart wrote: 'Good thing Trump didn't willfully hand over the entirety of our country's operating system to Elon and his… oops.' As for celebrated musician Jack White, who has consistently been critical of both Trump and Musk – he wrote in response to Kanye West's post: '3 fucking nazi clowns collapsing under the weight of their own unchecked egos. More popcorn gruppenfuehrer! L to R: Joseph Noballs, Yedolf Hitler, and Herman Boring. Is America 'Great' yet boys?' Another notable reaction came from Vivian Jenna Wilson, Elon Musk's estranged transgender daughter. Wilson posted a short video of herself with the caption 'I love being proven right.' She also posted a photo on Threads with the song 'Job Application' by Chase Icon and the caption, 'Such beauty in life.'