Republican Explains Potential Changes to Medicaid
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
GOP Representative Austin Scott of Georgia explained a potential change House Republicans could make to Medicaid during an interview on Fox Business' Mornings With Maria.
Newsweek reached out to House Speaker Mike Johnson for comment via email.
Why It Matters
More than 80 million Americans are currently enrolled in Medicaid, a government program providing health care to lower income individuals. President Donald Trump has said he would not cut the program, but some Republicans in Congress are eyeing cuts, setting up a potential intraparty battle over the matter.
What to Know
Scott said House Republicans have been discussing a potential change to Medicaid expansion.
Currently, states that have enacted Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act receive a 90 percent federal matching rate, known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP). This means the federal government takes on 90 percent of those costs, while the state governments take on 10 percent.
Republicans are considering lowering the FMAP, which would shift more the funding to the states, Scott told Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo on Monday.
Representative Austin Scott speaks with reporters in Washington, D.C. on October 23, 2023.
Representative Austin Scott speaks with reporters in Washington, D.C. on October 23, 2023.
JULIA NIKHINSON/AFP via Getty Images
"When the Dems expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, they made that percentage match 90-10, so the federal government is paying 90 percent of the Medicaid expansion," Scott said. "What we have talked about is moving that 90 percent level of the expansion back to the more traditional levels of 50 to approximately 80 percent, instead of the 90-10."
He said "nobody would be kicked off Medicaid" as long as governors continued to fund the program.
"We are talking about the state governments paying a small percentage increase in their share of the Medicaid costs of their citizens," he said.
Any efforts to cut Medicaid funding would likely be met with opposition from Democrats, but some Republicans as well. A dozen centrist Republicans wrote a letter to House Republican leaders last week indicating they would "not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations."
What People Are Saying
Senator Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, on X: "Austin and the Republicans know that states have automatic triggers if the federal match falls below 90 percent they will kick off the working poor from Medicaid. 100 of thousands of Arizona families would lose Medicaid coverage."
Dr. Michelle Au, an anesthesiologist and Democratic Georgia state Representative, on X: "The 9 to 1 federal match applies to states that fully expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Congressional Republicans know states can't cover the same number of patients if this federal match is cut. It also allows them to blame governors for the cuts Congress makes."
What Happens Next
House leadership have not formally announced any plans to change Medicaid. Congress is expected to continue working on Trump's legislation, which is expected to include tax cut extensions, as well as potential spending cuts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
26 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how
A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics: Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter? A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill.
27 minutes ago
Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS
Even by the standards of President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk's relationship -- an unprecedented alliance punctuated by a meme-inspired reshaping of the government, numerous rocket launches, assassination attempts, a quarter-billion-dollar political gamble and electric car photo-ops -- it's been an unusual week. For months, Musk had been the closest of Trump's advisers -- even living at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and spending time with the president's family. More recently, Trump gave Musk a congratulatory Oval Office sendoff from his work leading cost-cutting efforts in his administration, giving him a golden key with a White House insignia. But the billionaire's muted criticisms of Trump's "big, beautiful bill" grew louder and more pointed, culminating in posts Thursday on his social media platform taking credit for Trump's November win and Republicans' takeover of the Senate. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk posted. "Such ingratitude." Some lawmakers and Republicans worry Musk's apparent acrimonious departure from Trump's orbit could create new uncertainties for the party -- and stoke GOP divisions that would not serve Republicans well heading into a critical legislative stretch before the midterm elections. The back-and-forth attacks, which continued into the weekend and took a sharply personal turn, reverberated across a capital they have both reshaped. Trump on Friday told several reporters over the phone that he was not thinking about Musk and told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that Musk had "lost his mind." In the near term, Trump and the GOP are trying to muscle their signature tax and domestic policy megabill through the House and Senate, with the slimmest of margins and no shortage of disagreements. Any shift on the key issues could topple the high-wire act needed to please House and Senate Republicans. A nonstop torrent of criticism from Musk's social media megaphone could collapse negotiations, harden the position of the bill's critics and even undermine other pieces of Trump's first-term agenda. "You hate seeing division and chaos," Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who represents a swing district, told ABC News about the Trump-Musk fracas. "It's not helpful." Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, called Musk a "credible voice" on "debt and spending" issues. "It's never helpful when he says those things. He's a believable person and he has a broad reach, but I think he's frustrated and people understand the context," Arrington said, predicting that both men will eventually resolve their dispute. Republican operatives watching the spat unfold this week told ABC News it is too early to say how the feud between Trump and Musk could affect the next election. The billionaire spent more than anyone else on the last election, pouring $270 million into groups boosting Trump and other Republicans up and down the ballot, according to Federal Election Commission filings. He already suggested he would cut back on his political donations next cycle, more than a year out from the midterm elections. In the final stretch of the 2024 race, he relocated to Pennsylvania, hosting town halls and bankrolling his own get-out-the-vote effort in the critical swing state. Since his foray into Washington, Musk has become a deeply polarizing and unpopular figure, while the president's approval rating has ticked up in some recent surveys. Groups affiliated with Musk spent $20 million this spring on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, only for the liberal candidate to win -- signaling to some Republicans the limits of Musk's political pull. While his support may be missed by Republicans next cycle, Trump has continued to raise millions of dollars to support his future political plans, a remarkable sum for a term-limited president that underscores his central role in the party and undisputed kingmaker status. Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who is mulling a gubernatorial bid in 2026, downplayed the tensions or political implications, suggesting that reporters "spend way more time worrying about these things than most average people." "I'm sure they will make peace," Lawler told ABC News on Friday. There were some signs of a détente. While Musk continued to hurl insults at Trump ally and critic Steve Bannon, his social media activity appeared to cool off on Friday, and the billionaire said one supporter was "not wrong" for saying Trump and Musk are "much stronger together than apart." Through nearly a decade in politics and three campaigns for the White House, Trump has demonstrated a remarkable ability to move past disputes or disagreements with many intraparty rivals and onetime critics, including some who now serve in his Cabinet. Now, some Republicans left Washington this week asking themselves if Musk is willing to do the same.
Hamilton Spectator
30 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how
A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics: Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter? A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation . There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. ___ AP college sports: Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
