Kansas faces $3.77B in Medicaid cuts, thousands to lose coverage under Trump's bill: report
New modeling shows 13,000 fewer Kansans would be able to enroll in Medicaid under the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' recently passed by the U.S. House, and the state would lose $3.77 billion in total Medicaid funding.
Man charged in death of Platte County sports reporter shot on I-29
The modeling showed $2.29 billion in lost federal Medicaid funding alone—and $3.77 billion when combined with associated state funding losses over a 10-year period.
Such losses would likely lead to higher uninsured rates and more financial struggles for rural hospitals already on the brink of closure.
These results were recently released by Manatt Health, which conducted the analysis at the request of Kansas health philanthropies United Methodist Health Ministry Fund and REACH Healthcare Foundation. The two organizations wanted to better understand the financial and enrollment impacts of the bill, which would cut $700 billion from Medicaid and is awaiting a vote in the Senate.
Medicaid, the public health insurance program that covers more than 366,000 Kansans, is funded jointly by the state and federal government. It provides low-income parents, children, seniors and people with disabilities with health insurance. Adults who do not have children do not qualify for Medicaid in Kansas.
'If this bill passes, it will cause long-lasting harm to thousands of families across Kansas and seriously threaten the survival of rural hospitals across the state,' said Brenda Sharpe, president and CEO at REACH Healthcare Foundation.
The analysis shows Kansas will face significant coverage losses and funding reductions over the next 10 years.
Manatt said the losses are even greater than shown in the analysis, as data limitations made it unable to model all the provisions in the bill.
The estimates do not account for prohibitions on states setting up any new provider taxes or increasing assessments for other providers. That will cause Kansas health care providers, including nursing homes and other health providers, to lose critical funding over time and cause them to become even more financially vulnerable, Manatt said in a news release Wednesday.
Coverage losses due to the bill's changes to the Affordable Care Act's Health Insurance Marketplace also couldn't be modeled. However, they will result in additional Kansans losing health insurance, according to Manatt.
Not only will the bill remove people's health insurance, it also will remove food assistance. The bill includes $300 billion in cuts from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
'Congress is trying to rush a plan through the process that will take health care and food assistance away from tens of thousands of Kansans, including children, seniors and people with disabilities,' said David Jordan, president and CEO at the Health Fund. 'At a time when hospitals are trying to keep their doors open and working families are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables, we cannot afford these cuts.'
Kansas already has more hospitals at risk of closure than any other state in the country. A recent report from the University of Kansas School of Nursing highlights the growing 'maternal care desert' in Kansas.
Manatt said 63 rural hospitals are currently at risk, and 87% of Kansas rural hospitals are operating in the red. These hospitals struggle to survive with existing federal funding – and provisions in the bill would cause them to lose billions, making it even harder to stay open.
When rural hospitals close, it removes job opportunities and access to health care, creating a ripple effect in small communities, Manatt said.
You can read the full report below or by clicking here.
Medicaid-Cut-Impacts-to-KansasDownload
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
28 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Dalay: Putin Blames Ukraine & EU for the Lack of Deal
Live on Bloomberg TV CC-Transcript 00:00Before we get to this meeting today, I want to start with what we saw on Friday and what, if anything, you think was accomplished or achieved by these two leaders. I think first what the true leader wanted from these meetings. Putin clearly wanted the meeting, wanted a deal, at least a deal and a cease fire to be in all of the meetings. And obviously the Putin got to a meeting that he wanted that's effective. And then the western isolation of Russia breaking the Western consensus on Russia. And probably he hopes that it's not only going to be Ukraine in talks between himself and Trump, but rather Ukraine turns into one subject among many other subjects. That's all the subject includes from that and from the nature, the overall nature of the relation between us and Russia, how to improve it and how to prevent the further sanctions coming down on Russia. So therefore, for Putin, the meetings and the meetings should not be only about Ukraine. For Trump, obviously he wanted a deal that to be announced. Right now what we see at this word in terms of the initial outcomes that Putin has gotten, what it wanted, which was the meetings and the Trump in terms of what he has gotten is still unclear. But what is so important, what is so significant at this stage is the normalization of the meetings and the record like treatment with the Putin by the by the most important by the most important country in the world, which is the united of the most powerful country in the world in the Western camps. And I think that meeting probably has paved the way for paved the way for other meetings coming down, coming down on the coming down the road. And the finally, in all the important things that Russia always wanted to talk about, the European security, not only Ukraine, but the overall nature of the European security order with us, not with with Europeans. And thus far it seems that the Russia is succeeding. Well. Well, so then where does that leave the discussions around a ceasefire or potentially peace? Because Trump also wants to see Zelensky and Putin meeting in the near term. European leaders are against that. Is that not a part of the discussion right now? Is that what you're saying? Well, the Trump wanted a ceasefire and they found that Putin didn't want a ceasefire. Is that the Putin talk about a comprehensive peace agreement which is unlikely to be achieved anytime soon? And I think one thing that probably one strategy that put it is pursuing the failure of getting a comprehensive deal, whatever that means at this stage, because that will that will involve some really tough questions regarding the territorial adjustment, the regarding what the U.S. means by the security guarantees that deal with the security guarantees that has been floated around, whether that is effectively a NATO like commitment without the NATO membership for Ukraine or what it is like, just like an idea that is being floated without much of much did. But nevertheless, right now, the if the failure the failure of this talk about a comprehensive deal, I think then Putin wants to blame Ukraine and Europeans for the intransigence and then basically tell the standard from that it was it was dumb that they didn't want a comprehensive deal rather than Russia once did, and therefore that it is time for the U.S. and Russia to even to reset the ties despite the fact that there may not be over or Ukraine. Gleb, do you see the European leaders stepping in and potentially changing the calculus of where these talks are at right now? Well, the trouble with European leaders or the European strategy towards Russia, towards Ukraine is even though Europe has been talking about the plan A, plan B, a plan C, but all of them coming to the same idea, actually, how to keep the U.S. in the game in one way or another. I still don't see any European plans despite all this talk about or the formation of the coalition of the willing, the formation, or the idea that the U.S. may not be in the game for long despite all this holds. I still do not see any European plan that is premised on the idea that Europe and the U.S. might be completely out of the picture. So the idea that I see is still gaining currency at the European capital. If the US even withdraw in presence, can we can we have like the U.S. backstops for the Europeans? So that's the first thing. The second thing that I see beyond offering the financial commitment, beyond offering further military equipment to Ukraine and further financial financial help to Ukraine, also buy more from the Americans. What for markets? I still don't see a workable European plan if the U.S. exit, if the U.S. is not in endgame. So therefore, this is like a drastic moment where, as in true for the European security, but probably one of the most significant days that we are passing through since the end of the Cold War and the tragedy for Europe. The Europe is not ready for the game. Europe is not ready for the challenge. If the U.S. is not in the game.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
News Analysis: Newsom's decision to fight fire with fire could have profound political consequences
Deep in the badlands of defeat, Democrats have soul-searched about what went wrong last November, tinkered with a thousand-plus thinkpieces and desperately cast for a strategy to reboot their stalled-out party. Amid the noise, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has recently championed an unlikely game plan: Forget the high road, fight fire with fire and embrace the very tactics that virtue-minded Democrats have long decried. Could the dark art of political gerrymandering be the thing that saves democracy from Trump's increasingly authoritarian impulses? That's essentially the pitch Newsom is making to California voters with his audacious new special election campaign. As Texas Democrats dig in to block a Republican-led redistricting push and Trump muscles to consolidate power wherever he can, Newsom wants to redraw California's own congressional districts to favor Democrats. His goal: counter Trump's drive for more GOP House seats with a power play of his own. It's a boundary-pushing gamble that will undoubtedly supercharge Newsom's political star in the short-term. The long-game glory could be even grander, but only if he pulls it off. A ballot-box flop would be brutal for both Newsom and his party. The charismatic California governor is termed out of office in 2026 and has made no secret of his 2028 presidential ambitions. But the distinct scent of his home state will be hard to completely slough off in parts of the country where California is synonymous with loony lefties, business-killing regulation and an out-of-control homelessness crisis. To say nothing of Newsom's ill-fated dinner at an elite Napa restaurant in violation of COVID-19 protocols — a misstep that energized a failed recall attempt and still haunts the governor's national reputation. The redistricting gambit is the kind of big play that could redefine how voters across the country see Newsom. The strategy could be a boon for Newsom's 2028 ambitions during a moment when Democrats are hungry for leaders, said Democratic strategist Steven Maviglio. But it's also a massive roll of the dice for both Newsom and the state he leads. 'It's great politics for him if this passes,' Maviglio said. 'If it fails, he's dead in the water.' The path forward — which could determine control of Congress in 2026 — is hardly a straight shot. The 'Election Rigging Response Act,' as Newsom has named his ballot measure, would temporarily scrap the congressional districts enacted by the state's voter-approved independent redistricting commission. Under the proposal, Democrats could pick up five seats currently held by Republicans while bolstering vulnerable Democratic incumbent Reps. Adam Gray, Josh Harder, George Whitesides, Derek Tran and Dave Min, which would save the party millions of dollars in costly reelection fights. But first the Democratic-led state Legislature must vote to place the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot and then it must be approved by voters. If passed, the initiative would have a 'trigger,' meaning the redrawn map would not take effect unless Texas or another GOP-led state moved forward with its own gerrymandering effort. 'I think what Governor Newsom and other Democrats are doing here is exactly the right thing we need to do,' Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin said Thursday. 'We're not bringing a pencil to a knife fight. We're going to bring a bazooka to a knife fight, right? This is not your grandfather's Democratic Party,' Martin said, adding that they shouldn't be the only ones playing by a set of rules that no longer exist. For Democrats like Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), who appeared alongside Newsom to kick off the effort, there is "some heartbreak" to temporarily shelving their commitment to independent redistricting. But she and others were clear-eyed about the need to stop a president "willing to rig the election midstream," she said. Friedman said she was hearing overwhelmingly positive reactions to the proposal from all kinds of Democratic groups on the ground. "The response that I get is, 'Finally, we're fighting. We have a way to fight back that's tangible,'" Friedman recounted. Still, despite the state's Democratic voter registration advantage, victory for the ballot measure will hardly be assured. California voters have twice rallied for independent redistricting at the ballot box in the last two decades and many may struggle to abandon those beliefs. A POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll found that voters prefer keeping an independent panel in place to draw district lines by a nearly two-to-one margin, and that independent redistricting is broadly popular in the state. (Newsom's press office argued that the poll was poorly worded, since it asked about getting rid of the independent commission altogether and permanently returning line-drawing power to the legislators, rather than just temporarily scrapping their work for several cycles until the independent commission next draws new lines.) California voters should not expect to see a special election campaign focused on the minutia of reconfiguring the state's congressional districts, however. While many opponents will likely attack the change as undercutting the will of California voters, who overwhelmingly supported weeding politics out of the redistricting process, bank on Newsom casting the campaign as a referendum on Trump and his devious effort to keep Republicans in control of Congress. Newsom employed a similar strategy when he demolished the Republican-led recall campaign against him in 2021, which the governor portrayed as a "life and death" battle against "Trumpism" and far-right anti-vaccine and antiabortion activists. Among California's Democratic-heavy electorate, that message proved to be extremely effective. "Wake up, America," Newsom said Thursday at a Los Angeles rally launching the campaign for the redistricting measure. "Wake up to what Donald Trump is doing. Wake up to his assault. Wake up to the assault on institutions and knowledge and history. Wake up to his war on science, public health, his war against the American people." Kevin Liao, a Democratic strategist who has worked on national and statewide campaigns, said his D.C. and California-based political group chats had been blowing up in recent days with texts about the moment Newsom was creating for himself. Much of Liao's group chat fodder has involved the output of Newsom's digital team, which has elevated trolling to an art form on its official @GovPressOffice account on the social media site X. The missives have largely mimicked the president's own social media patois, with hyperbole, petty insults and a heavy reliance on the 'caps lock' key. "DONALD IS FINISHED — HE IS NO LONGER 'HOT.' FIRST THE HANDS (SO TINY) AND NOW ME — GAVIN C. NEWSOM — HAVE TAKEN AWAY HIS 'STEP,' " one of the posts read last week, dutifully reposted by the governor himself. Some messages have also ended with Newsom's initials (a riff on Trump's signature "DJT" signoff) and sprinkled in key Trumpian callbacks, like the phrase 'Liberation Day,' or a doctored Time Magazine cover with Newsom's smiling mien. The account has garnered 150,000 new followers since the beginning of the month. Shortly after Trump took office in January, Newsom walked a fine line between criticizing the president and his policies and being more diplomatic, especially after the California wildfires — in hopes of appealing to any semblance of compassion and presidential responsibility Trump possessed. Newsom had spent the first months of the new administration trying to reshape the California-vs.-Trump narrative that dominated the president's first term and move away from his party's prior "resistance" brand. Those conciliatory overtures coincided with Newsom's embrace of a more ecumenical posture, hosting MAGA leaders on his podcast and taking a position on transgender athletes' participation in women's sports that contradicted the Democratic orthodoxy. Newsom insisted that he engaged in those conversations to better understand political views that diverged from his own, especially after Trump's victory in November. However, there was the unmistakable whiff of an ambitious politician trying to broaden his national appeal by inching away from his reputation as a West Coast liberal. Newsom's reluctance to readopt the Trump resistance mantle ended after the president sent California National Guard troops into Los Angeles amid immigration sweeps and ensuing protests in June. Those actions revealed Trump's unchecked vindictiveness and abject lack of morals and honor, Newsom said. Of late, Newsom has defended the juvenile tone of his press aides' posts mocking Trump's own all-caps screeds, and questioned why critics would excoriate his parody and not the president's own unhinged social media utterances. "If you've got issues with what I'm putting out, you sure as hell should have concerns about what he's putting out as president," Newsom said last week. "So to the extent it's gotten some attention, I'm pleased." In an attention-deficit economy where standing out is half the battle, the posts sparkle with unapologetic swagger. And they make clear that Newsom is in on the joke. 'To a certain set of folks who operated under the old rules, this could be seen as, 'Wow, this is really outlandish.' But I think they are making the calculation that Democrats want folks that are going to play under this new set of rules that Trump has established,' Liao said. At a moment when the Democratic party is still occupied with post-defeat recriminations and what's-next vision boarding, Newsom has emerged from the bog with something resembling a plan. And he's betting the house on his deep-blue state's willingness to fight fire with fire. Times staff writers Seema Mehta and Laura Nelson contributed to this report. 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.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
TD Cowen Reiterates Buy Rating on Molina Healthcare (MOH) Stock
Molina Healthcare, Inc. (NYSE:MOH) is one of the Oversold Fundamentally Strong Stocks to Buy Now. On July 28, Ryan Langston, an analyst from TD Cowen, reiterated a 'Buy' rating on the company's stock, and the associated price target was lowered to $203.00. The analyst noted that Molina Healthcare, Inc. (NYSE:MOH) continues to effectively manage the medical costs in the challenging environment, mainly in Medicaid, where it is witnessing pressures in behavioral, pharmacy, and inpatient/outpatient care. A doctor in scrubs shaking hands with a patient, representing the healthcare services provided to individuals and families. Molina Healthcare, Inc. (NYSE:MOH) continues to actively work with state partners in order to restore Medicaid rates to appropriate levels. It has considered increased cost trends in the Medicare and Marketplace bids for 2026. Despite challenges, Molina Healthcare, Inc. (NYSE:MOH)'s strategic efforts and adjustments in rate filings reflect growth potential, justifying the analyst's rating. For FY 2025, the Premium revenue is expected to be ~$42 billion, reflecting an increase of ~9% from FY 2024. Molina Healthcare, Inc. (NYSE:MOH) expects its FY 2025 GAAP earnings to be no less than $16.90 per diluted share. Oakmark Funds, advised by Harris Associates, released its Q2 2025 investor letter. Here is what the fund said: 'Molina Healthcare, Inc. (NYSE:MOH) is a leading managed care company. The company is the fourth largest player in managed Medicaid and has consistently delivered industry-leading margins historically. In our view, this is thanks to Molina Healthcare's exceptional management team and culture of operational excellence. Moreover, we think Molina Healthcare has a long runway for growth given its small scale relative to peers and untapped opportunities in their Medicare and Marketplace business segments. Recently, the Medicaid industry has come under substantial pressure due to a challenging redetermination cycle and additional headwinds from legislation under the current administration. This provided the opportunity to, in our view, purchase shares in a best-in-class managed care company at depressed valuation on trough earnings.' While we acknowledge the potential of MOH as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 13 Cheap AI Stocks to Buy According to Analysts and 11 Unstoppable Growth Stocks to Invest in Now Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
