Medicaid cut reversal bill submitted by Hawley, who voted for them just days ago
Hawley's proposed "Protect Medicaid and Rural Hospitals Act" repeals the changes that Trump's bill, which was signed into law on July 4, made to both Medicaid state-directed payments and taxes states could impose on healthcare providers. It also doubles the federal Rural Health Transformation Program's funding to $10 billion starting in 2031.
"Now is the time to prevent any future cuts to Medicaid from going into effect,' Hawley said in a press release. 'We should also increase our support for rural hospitals around the country. Under the recent reconciliation bill, Missouri will see an extra $1 billion for hospitals over the next four years. I want to see Medicaid reductions stopped and rural hospitals fully funded permanently.'
GET TO KNOW YOUR CITY
Find Local Events Near You
Connect with a community of local professionals.
Explore All Events
Hawley wrote up an opinion piece in the New York Times in May titled "Don't Cut Medicaid," in which he called cuts to the federal healthcare system "morally wrong." He then voted for the bill that made those cuts mandatory.
He recently defended his flip-flop on the issue of Medicaid cuts, saying he voted for the bill because the legislation made it so that Missouri's rural hospitals are going to get $1 billion in funding over the next four years.
But health policy expert Emily Gee, who used to work as an economist at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told KSDK, "That's plainly not true."
She said each state will actually have to apply and meet strict criteria to qualify for those competitive nationwide funds.
"There's no guarantee that that will be the slice of the pie that Missouri gets," Gee said.
View KSDK's full report here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The push to defund Planned Parenthood hit other clinics in Maine. Now their group is suing.
Vanessa Shields-Haas, a nurse practitioner, said the organization's clinics have been seeing all patients as usual and completing Medicaid paperwork for visits — but not submitting it because it appears the provision took effect as soon as the law was signed. 'Knowing how hard it is to access care in this state, not allowing these community members to access their care, it's cruel,' Shields-Haas said. Advertisement Maine clinics appear to be only others included in cuts Republican lawmakers targeted Planned Parenthood in one piece of what President Donald Trump dubbed the 'big beautiful' bill that Congress passed and the president signed earlier this month. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up While advocates focused on Planned Parenthood, the bill did not mention it by name. Instead, it cut off reimbursements for organizations that are primarily engaged in family planning services — which generally include things such as contraception, abortion and pregnancy tests — and received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023. The U.S. Senate's parliamentarian rejected a 2017 effort to defund Planned Parenthood because it was written to exclude all other providers by barring payments only to groups that received more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds. The not-for-profit Maine organization asserts in its legal challenge that the threshold was lowered to $800,000 this time around to make sure Planned Parenthood would not be the only affected entity. Advertisement It is the only other organization that has come forward publicly to say that its funding is at risk, too. Federal law already bars taxpayer money from covering most abortions. Instead, the money in question involves other health services, such as cancer screenings and tests, and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. Proponents of that wrinkle in the law say abortion providers use Medicaid money for other services to subsidize abortion. 'This has never been just about Planned Parenthood,' Autumn Christensen, vice president of public policy for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement. 'It's about any Big Abortion business or network that performs abortions. Taxpayers should never be forced to prop up an industry that profits from ending human lives.' The Associated Press has sought comment from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is named in the lawsuit. Maine Family Planning goes beyond abortion Maine Family Planning operates 18 clinics across the state. In 2024, it had about 7,200 family planning patients, including 645 who obtained abortions. Services include pregnancy testing, contraception, family planning counseling, breast exams, cancer screenings and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. Some of the sites also offer primary care services, where there are another 600 or so patients. There are about 800 gender-affirming care patients and about 200 who use its upstart mobile clinic, said George Hill, the president and CEO of the organization. Hill said that for about two-thirds of its patients, Maine Family Planning is the only place they get medical care in a typical year. Advertisement About half of the patients not seeking abortions are enrolled in Medicaid, and the clinics have been receiving about $1.9 million a year in reimbursements, which accounts for about one-fourth of the organization's budget. 'It's a difficult state to provide care in and now we're facing this,' Hill said. In its lawsuit, the group says it has enough reserves to keep seeing patients covered by Medicaid without reimbursement only through October. Finding health care can be a struggle in this rural state Maine Family Planning says that if it had to turn away patients, it would be more complicated for them than simply finding another provider. There aren't enough in rural areas, the group notes — and many don't accept Medicaid. One patient, Ashley Smith, said she started going to Maine Family Planning about five years ago when she could not find other health care she could afford. While she's not enrolled in Medicaid, she fears clinics could be shuttered because of cuts. 'I am so worried that if my clinic closes, I don't know what I'll do or if I'll be able to see another provider,' Smith said. Maine Family Planning also supports care at more than 40 other health care facilities. Other than the Planned Parenthood locations that receive money from Maine Family Planning, those other providers don't stand to lose their Medicaid reimbursements. But, Hill said, the loss of Medicaid funding for Maine Family Planning would mean the group would have less to send to partners. The Maine clinics say the law violates their right to equal protection The Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Maine Family Planning in the challenge, says in its legal filing that the defunding denies it equal protection under the law because it would have funding cut off, but organizations that provide similar services would not. Advertisement 'The administration would rather topple a statewide safety network than let a patient get a cancer screening at a facility that also offers abortion care,' Meetra Mehdizadeh, a Center for Reproductive Rights lawyer, said in an interview. Planned Parenthood already sued and won a reprieve from a judge, preventing its Medicaid payments cutoff — at least until July 21 — while a court considers that case. Planned Parenthood has warned that the law could put 200 of its affiliates' roughly 600 clinics across the U.S. at risk of closing.
Hamilton Spectator
21 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Deadly Massachusetts fire highlights the minimal regulations that govern assisted-living facilities
The Massachusetts assisted-living facility where a fatal fire killed nine people was caring for dozens of aging residents reliant on wheelchairs and oxygen tanks, but it lacked the safety measures and most of the staffing requirements that are commonplace in nursing homes. As an assisted-living center, Gabriel House in Fall River , about 50 miles (80 kilometers) south of Boston, offered a type of housing for older residents that has expanded nationally in recent decades. But advocates argue that the absence of any federal regulations and spotty state rules mean the sector is largely left to police itself. 'The real issue is that assisted livings operate in an environment like the Wild West,' said Richard Mollot, executive director of the Long Term Care Community Coalition, a nonprofit that advocates for improved care in nursing and assisted-living facilities. 'They can pretty much do what they want with impunity, and that results in a lot of, I would say, mini-catastrophes every day, frankly.' The fire that tore through the three-story structure late Sunday raised a host of questions about conditions at the dilapidated facility and put the spotlight on the growing number of assisted-living centers in the state and nationwide. Created in the 1980s, assisted living has been marketed as an option for older adults who need some assistance but not as much help as a nursing home. Advocates argue that regulations for the facilities have not kept up as more locations have opened. Nursing homes, for example, are governed by federal regulations because they receive Medicare and Medicaid while there are no federal regulations for assisted-living facilities. Nursing homes must have a minimum number of staffers and trained medical professionals such as doctors and nurses, but assisted-living facilities have no such requirements. 'The regulations are minimal,' said Liane Zeitz, an attorney who is also a member of the state Assisted Living Residences Commission, a body created to make recommendations about the sector. She has advocated for more regulations for assisted-living facilities. The facilities were lightly regulated because initially they were regarded as residential, with lower levels of care and less oversight, she said. But now those facilities are caring for a population 'that is much frailer, and the population is growing.' Not only are the regulations weaker for assisted-living facilities, but advocates argue that the enforcement of the existing rules is often lax. Paul Lanzikos, a former Massachusetts secretary of elder affairs and co-founder of the advocacy group Dignity Alliance, described a 'patchwork' of regulations across the country, with different agencies involved depending on the state. 'Some of the states are much more regulated. Some are regulated as a health care entity. Others, as we do here in Massachusetts, are considered a residential housing model,' he said. U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, has been advocating for increased oversight for years, particularly after the release of reports about health and safety problems in 2018. 'These are serious problems that have been going on for years,' she said at a hearing last year. 'But we hear so much less about what's going in assisted-living facilities than we do in other facilities, like nursing homes.' At that hearing, Mollot noted that scandals in the nursing home industry pushed Congress to act in the 1970s and 1980s, and that such a reckoning could be coming soon for assisted living. He described two major risks: increasingly sick and vulnerable assisted living residents and financial exploitation by owner investors. Speaking Wednesday after learning about the Gabriel House fire, Mollot said the problems that plagued that facility are not unique to Massachusetts. 'Unlike nursing homes, assisted living has no federal state requirements, no requirement for staffing, no requirements for staff training, no requirements for safety protocols, no requirements for inspections,' he said. 'That falls to the states, and the states have overall very weak rules.' ___ Associated Press writers Holly Ramer and Matt O'Brien contributed to this report. 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 .
Time Magazine
22 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
What Republicans Have Said About the Epstein Controversy
The Trump Administration's handling of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's case is opening divides among Republican lawmakers, officials, and right-wing media figures as the President confronts a wave of backlash from his MAGA supporters. A memo released by the Department of Justice and FBI that denies the existence of an Epstein 'client list' and states that he died by suicide, aiming to put to bed conspiracies surrounding the disgraced financier harbored by those on the right, has sparked widespread outcry from President Donald Trump's MAGA base. 'I don't understand what the interest or what the fascination is,' Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews on Tuesday, speaking of public interest in Epstein. 'The credible information's been given.' Amid the blowback, Trump allies from House Speaker Mike Johnson to right-wing activist Laura Loomer have broken with the Administration over its handling of the issue, while some other conservatives have voiced support—or sought to avoid the controversy. Prominent voices on the right clash with the Trump Administration Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, an outspoken MAGA voice in Congress, told CNN that the Trump Administration's mishandling of files related to Epstein's case, which Trump pledged to release during his 2024 campaign, is 'just a red line that it crosses for many people.' 'This is something that's been talked about by many people serving in the Administration, myself and many others on the right and the left of there needing to be transparency of the rich and powerful elites,' she added. Conspiracy theories about Epstein's case were previously promoted by multiple high-ranking members of the Administration, including Vice President J.D. Vance and FBI Director Kash Patel. Over the weekend, however, Patel said in a post on X that 'the conspiracy theories just aren't true, never have been.' Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana told NBC News that he understands the public intrigue surrounding Epstein, 'who he trafficked those women to and why they weren't prosecuted.' 'I think the Justice Department is going to have to go back to the drawing board in answering those questions,' he said. Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee told The Hill he 'would just like the files to be turned over.' Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, another outspoken MAGA lawmaker, on Tuesday called for the appointment of a special counsel in the matter, floating former Rep. Matt Gaetz for the role. 'We deserve the truth about the Epstein Files,' she wrote in a post on X. 'I'm ready for a Special Counsel to handle this.' Right-wing media commentators have also contributed to the blowback. 'The fact that the U.S. government, the one that I voted for, refused to take my question seriously and instead said, 'Case closed, shut up conspiracy theorist,' was too much for me,' right-wing commentator and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson said in a speech at Turning Point USA Student Action Summit on Friday. Far-right activist and Trump ally Laura Loomer warned that the 'lack of transparency' would cost Republicans House and Senate seats in a post on X. In an interview with Politico, Loomer called for a special counsel to 'independently investigate the handling of the Epstein files.' Attorney General Pam Bondi has faced particular ire. Bondi in February stated that Epstein's alleged 'client list' was 'sitting on my desk right now to review.' The same month, the Justice Department released a cache of files related to Epstein's case that were heavily redacted and mostly consisted of information that had previously been made public despite Bondi's promises that the documents would include flight logs and the names of people involved, leaving many underwhelmed. Following the release of the memo last week, Bondi said that she had been referring to the case file on Epstein in the February interview as opposed to a 'client list.' Trump defended Bondi, writing in a Truth Social post earlier this week that the Attorney General 'is doing a FANTASTIC JOB!' But others on the right have voiced a much more critical sentiment. After initially saying he trusted the Administration to make the 'right decision,' House Speaker Mike Johnson urged Bondi to 'come forward and explain' what happened with the Epstein 'client list' in an interview with youtuber Benny Johnson. 'I'm for transparency,' the House lawmaker said. 'It's a very delicate subject but we should put everything out there and let the people decide it.' Still, he opposed Democratic efforts to release files related to Epstein. "I'm sure it's a relief for Pam Bondi to hear the president is still in her corner. Unfortunately, huge swaths of the party are not,' conservative commentator Megyn Kelly wrote on X. 'She repeatedly misled on Epstein. Then didn't have the courage to explain herself. Suddenly, she's camera shy & no Qs allowed. Good luck!" Carlson blamed Bondi for the backlash facing the Trump Administration in an NBC News interview published earlier this week. Saying he now thinks the Justice Department doesn't have 'much relevant information about Jeffrey Epstein's sex crimes,' Carlson told the outlet, 'Rather than just admit that, Pam Bondi made a bunch of ludicrous claims on cable news shows that she couldn't back up, and this current outrage is the result.' Inside the department, FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, who previously promoted conspiracy theories about a government coverup related to Epstein's case, has reportedly had a falling out with Bondi over the issue and threatened to quit. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who has clashed with Trump on issues from Iran to the President's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' on Tuesday announced he was launching an effort to force a vote on the release of files related to Epstein's case alongside Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California with a procedural tool known as a discharge petition. 'We all deserve to know what's in the Epstein files, who's implicated, and how deep this corruption goes,' Massie said in a statement, adding, 'If your Representative won't sign the discharge petition, ask why.' Some GOP members of Congress voice support—or dodge the issue Still, some Republican lawmakers, including Chuck Grassley of Iowa, have made public statements in support of Administration officials or are backing off from making any strong comments about the issue at all. Grassley said that based on what he knows he does believe Bondi provided enough information about Epstein, though he told The Hill that he 'always urge[s] the greatest of transparency.' Sen. Jim Jordan of Ohio, a strong Trump ally, told NBC News he trusted the President and his team. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Sen. John Cornyn echoed the sentiment by deferring to Trump on the matter. Rep. Darrell Issa of California spoke more strongly in support of Trump, saying that much of what his base believes about the case simply isn't true. 'I trust the people who reported it to us and who looked at them,' Issa said. As a number of Republican lawmakers have looked to avoid the controversy, Democratic lawmakers have sought to take advantage of it by forcing their GOP colleagues to show their cards. Rep. Khanna introduced an amendment to a cryptocurrency bill that would have required Bondi to release the Epstein files. 'This is a question of whose side are you on?' Khanna said on the House floor on Monday. Most of the Republicans on the House Rules Committee—Reps. Virginia Foxx, Michelle Fischbach, Erin Houchin, Nicholas Langworthy, Austin Scott, Morgan Griffith, and Brian Jack—voted to block the amendment. Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina was the sole Republican on the panel to vote to advance it for the consideration of the full House. Rep. Chip Roy did not vote. Langworthy defended his vote by saying that Democrats politicized the amendment. 'He voted no because it was a pointless political gimmick, not a path to justice,' a spokesperson from Langworthy's office told ABC News 10. 'I think most of us believe what's appropriate will be released when it is time for the president to release it,' said Foxx, who chairs the committee. A similar move by Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland last week won more Republican support, however. Van Hollen introduced an amendment to a funding bill before the Senate Appropriations Committee that would force the Justice Department to retain Epstein files, and provide a report to Congress on the history of the case. The committee approved it unanimously with bipartisan support.
