Millions of Californians who rely on Medi-Cal and In-Home Supportive Services could lose eligibility
VIDEO | 01:28
Millions of Californians who rely on Medi-Cal and In-Home Supportive Services could lose eligibility
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Cuts at what cost? Childhood care and education leaders weigh in on spending bill's impacts
( — As the Senate continues to debate the passage of the 'Big, Beautiful Bill', California leaders in early childhood care and education are anticipating the impacts of looming federal cuts. Bianca Ventura sat down with First 5 California and Child Care Resource Center representatives on Wednesday. The two organizations have been advocating for California children and families on Capitol Hill. Though they've seen bipartisan support in preserving children's resources like Head Start, they say potential cuts to Medi-Cal and nutritional programs like SNAP could impact children's overall health. 'There are huge cuts proposed in the House reconciliation package to the Medicaid program,' said Vice President of the Child Care Resource Center, Donna Sneeringer. 'Many of those recipients are young children. I think one of the things that we have been trying to speak with lawmakers about, as well as with the public, is that this will not just impact those who are receiving those services through Covered California. They are going to impact our overall health care system. Particularly our rural health care system, our hospitals. It will impact our emergency room services. Everyone's care will become harder to come by and more expensive.' If federal investments are rolled back on health services, food support, and child care, the experts we spoke with anticipate that some of the costs will be shifted. Possibly putting the burden on employers to provide access to health care. 'A lot of businesses, because they are also struggling themselves with the affordability crisis and materials. They can't necessarily afford the robust health care that their employees deserve,' said First 5 California Executive Director, Jackie Wong. 'However, a lot of their employees are likely on Medicaid.' Wong adds that many of those employees work entry-level positions that the state relies on to support the economy. As for education, when we last checked in with leaders in early childhood development and care. President Trump's executive order to dismantle the Department of Education was still in effect. Since then, a federal judge blocked the administration's efforts to eliminate the department while ordering the rehiring of employees who were fired in mass layoffs. Yet, Wong tells us cuts within the department have made it difficult to carry out administrative tasks, like completing payments to Head Start providers. She even learned of cuts to certain programs the last time she traveled to Washington D.C. to speak with Congressional leaders. 'While we were there, actually, we had gotten wind that grants to steward mental health got cut,' said Wong. 'They are actually, in real time, pulling back and clawing back their investments that actually have supported young learners, as well as our students and our student community.' As for what's next? Representatives with First 5 California and the CCRC are going to continue their advocacy in Washington D.C. CCRC is currently collecting stories in hopes of sharing them with congressional lawmakers who want to hear the impacts of federal funding cuts firsthand. Families and caregivers are encouraged to share their testimonies of how they are making ends meet while navigating food costs, health and child care, along with living expenses. You can find more details and pass along your story to state representatives by visiting Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Los Angeles Times
Millions of Californians who rely on Medi-Cal and In-Home Supportive Services could lose eligibility
VIDEO | 01:28 Millions of Californians who rely on Medi-Cal and In-Home Supportive Services could lose eligibility
Business Wire
a day ago
- Business Wire
Lieff Cabraser & Farella Braun + Martel Announce That University of California Researchers Have Filed a Class Action Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration for the Illegal and Unconstitutional Termination of Critical Research Grants
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Lieff Cabraser & Farella Braun + Martel Announce that a group of six University of California faculty and other researchers have filed a class action in federal court against the Trump Administration on behalf of all UC researchers whose previously approved agency grants were terminated pursuant to Executive Orders or other directives of President Trump, as implemented through the Department of Government Efficiency ('DOGE'). University of California Researchers File Class Action Suit Against Trump Administration for Illegal & Unconstitutional Termination of Critical Research Grants Plaintiffs seek a declaration that these grant terminations violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, and the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, as well as statutes that govern agencies' missions and grantmaking and the Administrative Procedure Act. As detailed in the Complaint, these abrupt cancellations of already awarded grants 'ignored or contradicted the purposes for which Congress created the granting agencies and appropriated funds, and dispensed with the regular procedures and due process afforded grantees under the Administrative Procedure Act, in implementing the Trump Administration's political 'cost-cutting' agenda and ideological purity campaign.' According to UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional law scholar and co-counsel on the case, 'President Trump and DOGE have arbitrarily cut off funding to researchers throughout the University of California system in clear violation of the Constitution and federal laws. There has not been a semblance of due process or compliance with the procedures required by federal statutes and regulations. This has caused great harm to a large number of faculty and other researchers and the UC research enterprise as a whole, with potentially grave consequences to everyone in society who benefits from the research in a myriad of disciplines." As described by Plaintiff Dr. Neeta Thakur, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at UCSF, 'The EPA has abruptly terminated a three-year grant that was supporting research on how wildfire smoke affects the lungs, heart, and brain of all Californians. My colleagues and I at UCSF and UC Berkeley have worked on this important project for two years, and its sudden end — communicated through a simple form letter — puts our progress in danger. This decision disrupts our ongoing work with community-based organizations and stops us from generating life-saving information designed to improve public health and protect the well-being of all Californians, especially those living in at-risk communities.' Plaintiff Jedda Foreman, the Director of the Center for Environmental Learning at the Lawrence Hall of Science at UC Berkeley, explains, 'My team and I at the Lawrence Hall of Science earned NSF grants to make science education more accessible to all learners. Instilling a love of science is critical to envisioning and creating a better future for us all. In one day, we lost two projects, and nearly 75% of our funding, because of terminations by NSF. A week later, NSF terminated yet another one of our projects. These terminations haven't just affected our team, but also our longtime community partners and thousands of students across the United States.' These are just two of hundreds of examples of the damage wrought by the Trump Administration's illegal and unconstitutional terminations. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, seeks a return to the pre-Trump Administration process of orderly grantmaking that aligns with congressionally authorized purposes, and affords due process to grant-funded researchers. Plaintiffs seek, for themselves and the class of UC researchers who have suffered unlawful grant terminations, an injunction restoring their lost funding, providing them sufficient time to complete the work for which their grants were originally approved, and preventing further illegal grant terminations. Plaintiffs will be filing a motion for a temporary restraining order on June 5, 2025. The case, No. 3:25-cv-4737, is assigned to the Honorable Rita F. Lin. Background on the Lawsuit Each year, researchers in the UC system receive hundreds of millions of dollars in grants from the full spectrum of federal agencies, ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency, to the National Science Foundation, to the National Institutes of Health. These grants fund the production of new knowledge and fuel the development of discoveries that greatly benefit society at large. The grants have also been key to the innovation that has consistently earned the UC system pride of place among research institutions, including first place in the list of universities with the most utility patents. They have also made the UC Berkeley campus the number one ranked public research in institution in the world for nine of the past ten years. Before President Trump took office, federal grantmaking proceeded under the authority of Congress, which appropriated taxpayer funds for specific public purposes. For decades, agencies carried out these statutory directives and observed due process in making, renewing, and (only seldom) terminating grants. They each adhered to their own grant regulations and followed Administrative Procedure Act processes when modifying such regulations. On the rare occasions when agencies terminated grants, they did so pursuant to predictable, regularized processes and terminated grants only for reasons stated in the regulations. All of this changed abruptly on January 20, 2025 (Inauguration Day). After January 20, 2025, Defendants Donald J. Trump and DOGE, through a flurry of Executive Orders and other directives, commanded the Federal Agency Defendants to terminate scores of previously awarded research grants. As the Complaint notes, the 'abrupt, wholesale, and unilateral termination of these grants has violated the Constitution's bedrock principle of separation of powers and its guarantees of freedom of speech and due process; flouted the Impoundment Control Act limits on the Executive's ability to withhold or redirect congressionally appropriated money; ignored statutory requirements that agencies fulfill their substantive missions and fund congressionally specified activities; contravened agency-specific grant-making regulations that cannot by law be revised on an abrupt, unexplained, chaotic basis; and violated the Administrative Procedure Act through this arbitrary, capricious, and ultra vires conduct.' As further detailed in the Complaint, grounds the agencies have offered for such terminations were spurious. In some cases, agency correspondence to grantees asserted that grant termination would reduce public costs and promote government efficiency, although no evidence was provided to support this claim. In other cases, agency communications made it clear that grants were being terminated to further Defendant Trump's political objectives, which included the elimination of research on climate, environmental justice, 'gender ideology,' and 'DEI.' These grant terminations are occurring not because the grant-funded research departed from its originally approved purpose, but because that purpose now offends the political agenda and ideological requirements of the Trump Administration. In terminating these grants, the agencies have violated the Constitution, numerous federal statutes, and their own regulations. Plaintiff UC researchers have suffered concrete financial, professional, and other harms from Defendants' unilateral termination of grants for projects to which they have already dedicated time and effort; for research upon which they have staked careers and reputations; and for work with research teams through which they endeavored to train a next generation. These terminations have impaired and will impair the public-serving research mission of the UC system and the concern for public welfare that undergirds it. Named Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class will continue to suffer such harms on an ongoing basis, and will experience increasing and irreparable harm absent the court declaration and injunction they seek through this lawsuit.
