logo
What happens to Medicaid in Virginia if massive federal bill to slash billions becomes law?

What happens to Medicaid in Virginia if massive federal bill to slash billions becomes law?

Yahoo23-05-2025

Medicaid sign at U.S. Senate Democrats' press conference on Feb. 19, 2025. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)
This week, Republicans in the U.S. House of Delegates advanced a mega bundle of bills designed to shave billions from the federal budget, which Democrats and advocates have said will take resources from the nation's most vulnerable citizens and hinder social safety nets. Virginia's congressional delegation was split along partisan lines on the measure, which cleared the House by one vote and is now up for consideration in the U.S. Senate.
The 1,116-page package contains 11 total bills and is championed by President Donald Trump, and supported by Virginia's Republican federal lawmakers including U.S. Reps. Rob Wittman, Jen Kiggans, John McGuire, Ben Cline and Morgan Griffith. The legislation aims to extend 2017 tax cuts from Trump's first term at a cost of $3.8 trillion, trim $880 billion from the federal deficit and boost defense and border security spending by cutting several federal social aid programs or incentive packages.
The measure calls for a $625 billion cut to Medicaid over the next decade, which the state's Democratic federal legislators — including U.S. Reps. Jennifer McClellan, Bobby Scott, Suhas Subramanyam, Euguene Vindman, Don Beyer and deceased Congressman Gerry Connolly, who died days before the vote — have cautioned and voted against.
Medicaid is a federal program that helps states provide health insurance coverage to low-income people or people with disabilities. The newly-passed measure would impose work requirements on those who receive it and reduce Medicaid funding to states that choose to use the program for undocumented immigrants. Virginia has specific guidelines for which legal immigrants can qualify for Medicaid and state legislators have considered creating work requirements for Medicaid enrollees in the commonwealth in the past.
As federal funding and systems dwindle, states are left to decide how and whether to make up the difference.
While it's unclear exactly what toll the federal measure's cuts would take in the state if it passes, the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee estimates 161,614 Virginians could lose Medicaid coverage. Meanwhile, some citizens, like Central Virginia residents Aida Pacheco and Andrew Daughtry, are voicing opposition to the work requirements.
Pacheco's daughter is currently unable to work while undergoing breast cancer treatment that Medicaid helps her cover, she said. Daughtry, a construction worker unable to work temporarily after an injury, has used Medicaid because he did not have employer-provided health insurance and now is out of work temporarily due to an injury that needs surgery and physical therapy.
Pacheco and Daughtry joined U.S. Rep. Jennifer McClellan, D-Richmond, on a recent press call, where McClellan said the proposed overhauls to Medicaid could cost taxpayers more money in the long run. Uninsured people are inclined to only seek emergency medical care, rather than preventative care. Because emergency rooms are federally required to treat all patients, care for uninsured patients who cannot pay could become a shared financial burden on taxpayers.
'When you kick people off of their health insurance, that raises the cost for everybody else,' McClellan said.
In contrast, Virginia's Republican representatives have celebrated the proposed changes, framing them as a big step towards fiscal responsibility and a better use of the country's resources.
U.S. Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, told The Mercury before the bill cleared the House that his GOP colleagues 'proved the other party wrong' by not making 'massive, significant cuts to Medicaid.'
McClellan, Virginia Democrats warn of dire impact to state if proposed Medicaid cuts materialize
And though the projected $625 billion in cuts indeed qualify as 'massive,' the federal funding tool that allocates Medicaid money to states called the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) has not changed. Should the bill pass the Senate and be signed by Trump, many beneficiaries would remain covered, though changes like the work requirements could affect some Medicaid recipients. It's a detail of the bill that many Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Westmoreland, have pointed out.
Wittman also framed the bill's work requirements as 'community engagement requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents' in a Thursday statement and emphasized that pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities would still be covered.
'I've fought to protect and preserve Medicaid for Virginia's most vulnerable, and this bill does just that,' he said. He added that the bill 'strengthens the integrity of the program, saves taxpayers billions, and ensures care is available for those who truly rely on it.'
In April, he'd also co-signed a letter to Republican U.S. House leadership cautioning the legislative body not to cut too much from the program.
Likewise, U.S. Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Virignia Beach, characterized the bill as a way to strengthen, not destroy, Medicaid.
Kiggans said in a statement on X that she voted in favor of the measure because it 'puts people first by protecting Medicaid for vulnerable families, delivering tax relief and child care credits to working Virginians, investing in our servicemembers and shipbuilders, and cutting wasteful federal spending.'
As Kiggans represents Virginia's 2nd Congressional District, anchored in Virginia Beach, she and her predecessors from both parties have been considered vulnerable incumbents in elections. The district has oscillated between partisan control over the years, placing its representatives under heightened scrutiny for votes they take.
Though the 1st Congressional District has been historically Republican-leaning, its absorption in redistricting of blue or politically purple Richmond suburbs has made it an opportunity for Democrats to try to flip. This spring, some constituents hosted a town hall and invited Wittman to hear their concerns about the federal cuts, but he didn't show up.
Wittman constituents host town hall in his absence to address immigration, federal funding concerns
Though congressional elections aren't until next year, the impact of their votes concerning Medicaid remain to be seen.
In the meantime, an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows that about 10.3 million people nationwide would lose access to Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program, with 7.6 million people becoming uninsured during that 10-year budget window.
The 'Big Beautiful Bill,' as Trump has called it, is not yet law. It still must pass the Senate chamber before he can sign it.
Some GOP senators are calling for a rewrite of it to address a range of concerns to include the bill's projected impact on federal debt, the phaseout of clean energy incentives and notably, the reforms to Medicaid. A key sticking point from Senate conservatives is concern that the bill doesn't do enough to cut future deficits.
With some Medicaid recipients already standing to lose access as the bill has so-far advanced, further changes to the in-progress bill — like addressing the FMAP — could put about 630,000 more people in health insurance limbo.
This is because when lawmakers were compromising to expand Medicaid in 2018, they settled on trigger language that would upend the expansion if the FMAP were adjusted.
Virginia's private hospitals have financially supported the state's Medicaid expansion since 2018, and are closely monitoring federal developments.
Julian Walker, a spokesperson for the Virginia Hospitals and Healthcare Association, said that the organization is glad Virignia's congressional delegation across both aisles has been listening to its feedback and is appreciative that the FMAP was not altered in the current draft of the bill.
Walker said earlier this year that hospitals have been 'proud' to help sustain Virginia's Medicaid expansion, but acknowledged uncertainty about what lies ahead.
State lawmakers are monitoring the situation too.
Del. Mark Sickles, D-Fairfax, suspects the legislature would need to go into a special session if the Medicaid expansion were undone but he also believes that congressional actions could wrap up in time for the 2026 Virginia General Assembly session.
'It could turn out we know everything we need to know by the time our regular session starts,' he said.
Or, he added, if Congress takes too long and has to pass continuing resolutions, they could still be sorting through final details of their proposal as Virginia's legislature begins meeting early next year.
As chair of the House of Delegates' Health and Human Services committee and vice-chair of its Appropriations committee, Sickles is watching Congress closely.
'We need to see what they actually do,' he said.
He echoed McClellan's warnings about the potential financial burden to Virginia taxpayers if people unenrolled from Medicaid are forced to seek more care from emergency rooms.
'In the end, the savings that (Republicans are) claiming are going to come from fewer enrollees in Medicaid, the cost of their health care does not go away,' Sickles said. 'There is no free lunch if you're not enrolled in Medicaid.'SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more

Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.

Trump says more troops will be deployed. Where do things stand with California protests?
Trump says more troops will be deployed. Where do things stand with California protests?

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump says more troops will be deployed. Where do things stand with California protests?

Protests in Los Angeles continued to escalate late Monday, after the first contingent of National Guard troops, deployed by President Donald Trump, arrived to the city on Sunday. Late Monday news broke that Trump planned to deploy additional National Guard members to quell violent protests. Images out of L.A. showed scenes of chaos — Waymo self-driving cars lit on fire as masked protesters waved Mexican flags. At least five cars were set ablaze, according to a CBS News report. The Google-owned taxi service said they don't believe protesters intentionally targeted their vehicles but paused its service in the areas where it faced disruption. The LAPD announced they made 50 arrests during the demonstrations over the weekend. As Fox News' Bill Melugin reported, the charges included attempted murder with a Molotov cocktail, and assault with a deadly weapon on an officer. 'Five officers and five LAPD horses have sustained minor injuries, and crowds were using hand held radios to communicate law enforcement movements to each other,' Melugin reported. There was a brief reprieve in the violence early Monday, although city residents continued navigating street and freeway closures amid protests. Among the demonstrators was an interfaith group that sung hymns in front of the police, as CNN showed Monday morning. ICE agents stood behind LAPD officers. Trump announced Saturday night he would deploy 2,000 National Guardsmen to Southern California to protect federal buildings and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who were carrying out raids on migrants in the country illegally. On Monday, the Trump administration moved to also send 700 Marines to quell the protests. The troops were scheduled to arrive over the next 24 hours. 'You watch the same clips I did: cars burning, people rioting, we stopped it,' Trump said, speaking at the White House. 'If we didn't do the job, that place would be burning down just like the houses,' he added, referring to the wildfires in Los Angeles in January. 'I feel we had no choice ... We did the right thing.' While Trump says he felt his administration didn't have a choice and 'did the right thing,' California Democrats argue the president escalated the situation. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who opposed the deployment of National Guard troops, criticized Trump for sending soldiers to California in a post on X. 'U.S. Marines have served honorably across multiple wars in defense of democracy,' Newsom said. 'They shouldn't be deployed on American soil facing their own countrymen to fulfill the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial President,' he said. 'This is un-American.' Hours later, in a separate post, Newsom said he 'was just informed Trump is deploying another 2,000 Guard troops to L.A.' He claimed the first set of National Guard members Trump sent to California didn't receive food or water and only roughly 300 of them are actively deployed while the rest await their next orders in federal buildings. 'This is Reckless. Pointless. And Disrespectful to our troops,' Newsom added. Newsom urged the Trump White House to rescind the National Guard deployment on Sunday. By Monday, his administration had filed a lawsuit against the federal government. Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced they sued the Trump administration for sending the National Guard without the governor's authorization or request during a press conference Monday. 'Donald Trump is creating fear and terror by failing to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and overstepping his authority. This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic,' said Newsom. 'Every governor, red or blue, should reject this outrageous overreach,' the governor added. According to Bonta, this marks California's 24th lawsuit against the Trump White House over the past four months. Newsom urged Californians to protest peacefully. During Monday's press conference, Bonta also cautioned violent demonstrators against breaking the law to avoid arrests. L.A. Mayor Karen Bass claimed the ICE raids last week and the military presence in the city sparked increased violence over the weekend. 'If you dial back time and go to Friday, if immigration raids had not happened here, we would not have had the disorder that went on last night,' Bass said on CNN's 'The Situation Room.' 'If they see ICE, they go out, and they protest, and so it's just a recipe for pandemonium that is completely unnecessary. Nothing was happening here. Los Angeles was peaceful before Friday.' Vice President J.D. Vance told the governor to do his job. 'That's all we're asking,' he added. Trump patted himself on the back for deploying the National Guard in a post on Truth Social. 'We made a great decision in sending the National Guard to deal with the violent, instigated riots in California,' he said. 'If we had not done so, Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.' He criticized Newsom and Bass for not accepting the federal government's help nor expressing any gratitude for it. 'Instead, they choose to lie to the People of California and America by saying that we weren't needed, and that these are 'peaceful protests,'' he wrote.

Lopez: Why this overheated invasion of L.A. looks so ugly and feels so personal
Lopez: Why this overheated invasion of L.A. looks so ugly and feels so personal

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Lopez: Why this overheated invasion of L.A. looks so ugly and feels so personal

I was driving while listening to the news Sunday when I heard House Speaker Mike Johnson justify President Trump's move to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles. 'We have to maintain the rule of law,' Johnson said. I almost swerved off the road. Maintain the rule of law? Trump pardoned the hooligans who ransacked the Capitol because he lost the 2020 presidential election. They clashed with police, destroyed property and threatened the lives of public officials, and to Trump, they're heroes. Maintain the rule of law? Trump is a 34-count felon who has defied judicial rulings, ignored laws that don't serve his interests, and turned his current presidency into an unprecedented adventure in self-dealing and graft. And now he's sending an invading army to Los Angeles, creating a crisis where there was none. Arresting undocumented immigrants with criminal records is one thing, but is that what this is about? Or is it about putting on a show, occupying commercial and residential neighborhoods and arresting people who are looking for — or on their way to — work. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that U.S. Marines were on high alert and ready to roll, and in the latest of who knows how many escalations, hundreds are headed our way. What next, the Air Force? I'm not going to defend the vandalism and violence — which plays into Trump's hands—that followed ICE arrests in Los Angeles. I can see him sitting in front of the tube, letting out a cheer every time another "migrant criminal" flings a rock or a scooter at a patrol car. But I am going to defend Los Angeles and the way things work here. For starters, undocumented immigration is not the threat to public safety or the economy that Trump like to bloviate about. It's just that he knows he can score points on border bluster and on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), so he's going full gasbag on both, and now he's threatening to lock up Gov. Gavin Newsom. Read more: Reopen Alcatraz as a prison? Yes, but Trump shouldn't stop there To hear the rhetoric, you'd think every other undocumented immigrant is a gang member and that trans athletes will soon dominate youth sports if someone doesn't stand up to them. I can already read the mail that hasn't yet arrived, so let me say in advance that I do indeed understand that breaking immigration law means breaking the law, and I believe that President Biden didn't do enough to control the border, although it was Republicans who killed a border security bill early last year. I also acknowledge the cost of supporting undocumented immigrants is substantial when you factor in public education and, in California, medical care, which is running billions of dollars beyond original estimates. But the economic contributions of immigrants — regardless of legal status — are undeniably numerous, affecting the price we pay for everything from groceries to healthcare to domestic services to construction to landscaping. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that a surge in immigrants since 2021 — including refugees, asylum seekers and others, legal and illegal — had lifted the U.S. economy "by filling otherwise vacant jobs," as The Times reported, and "pumping millions of tax dollars into state, local and federal coffers." According to a seminal 2011 study by the Public Policy Institute of California, 'many illegal immigrants pay Social Security and other taxes but do not collect benefits, and they are not eligible for many government services." In addition, the report said: 'Political controversies aside, when illegal immigrants come, many U.S. employers are ready to hire them. The vast majority work. Estimates suggest that at least 75 percent of adult illegal immigrants are in the workforce.' Trump can rail against the lunatic radical left for the scourge of illegal immigration, but the statement that 'employers are ready to hire them' couldn't be more true. And those employers stand on both sides of the political aisle, as do lawmakers who for decades have allowed the steady flow of workers to industries that would suffer without them. Read more: What happened during three days of protests over immigration raids in downtown L.A. On Sunday, I had to pick up a couple of items at the Home Depot on San Fernando Road in Glendale, where dozens of day laborers often gather in search of work. But there were only a couple of men out there, given recent headlines. A shopper in the garden section said the report of federal troops marching on L.A. is "kind of ridiculous, right?" He said the characterization by Trump of "all these terrible people" and "gang members" on the loose was hard to square with the reality of day laborers all but begging for work. I found one of them in a far corner of the Home Depot lot, behind a fence. He told me he was from Honduras and was afraid to risk arrest by looking for work at a time when battalions of masked troops were on the move, but he's got a hungry family back home, including three kids. He said he was available for any kind of jobs, including painting, hauling and cleanup. Two men in a pickup truck told me they were undocumented too and available for construction jobs of any type. They said they were from Puebla, Mexico, but there wasn't enough work for them there. I've been to Puebla, a city known for its roughly 300 churches. I was passing through about 20 years ago on my way to a small nearby town where almost everyone on the street was female. Where were the men? I was told by a city official that the local economy was all about corn, but local growers couldn't compete with American farmers who had the benefit of federal subsidies. So the men had gone north for work. Another reason people head north is to escape the violence wrought by cartels armed with American-made weapons, competing to serve the huge American appetite for drugs. In these ways, and more, the flow of people across borders can be complicated. But generally speaking, it's simply about survival. People move to escape poverty or danger. They move in search of something better for themselves, or to be more accurate about it, for their children. The narratives of those journeys are woven into the fabric of Los Angeles. It's part of what's messy and splendid and complicated about this blended, imperfect corner of the world, where many of us know students or workers or families with temporary status, or none at all. That's why this overheated invasion looks so ugly and feels so personal. We're less suspicious of our neighbors and the people we encounter on our daily rounds than the hypocrites who would pardon insurrectionists, sow division and send an occupying army to haul away members of our community. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store