logo
‘A really bad deal for West Virginians': Advocates decry GOP's cuts to health care, food assistance

‘A really bad deal for West Virginians': Advocates decry GOP's cuts to health care, food assistance

Yahoo23-05-2025

A Republican plan — if passed by the U.S. Senate — would cut Medicaid by at least $716 billion and the Supplemental Food Nutrition Program by $300 billion through 2034 and push a portion of the cost of the program to the states to backfill. Advocates say this would have "devastating" effects in West Virginia. (Getty Images)
A Republican plan to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from food assistance and health care programs for low income Americans to make way for tax cuts would have 'devastating' results in West Virginia, advocates and providers say.
The U.S. House of Representatives early Thursday passed a budget bill that analysts say would cut Medicaid by at least $716 billion — the largest in the program's history — and cause roughly 15 million people to lose their health care coverage over the next few years.
The bill, which has yet to be approved by the U.S. Senate, would also cut the Supplemental Food Nutrition Program by $300 billion through 2034 and push a portion of the cost of the program to the states to backfill.
Both West Virginia Reps. Riley Moore and Carol Miller, R-W.Va., voted in support of the bill, which narrowly passed with a 215 to 214 vote.
Kelly Allen, executive director of the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy, said the bill breaks a lot of promises made by Congress and President Donald Trump.
'It does, in fact, enact deep cuts to Medicaid and SNAP that will result in eligible people losing those benefits. It will raise grocery prices and health care costs for tens of thousands of West Virginia families,' she said. 'And despite all that, it still increases the deficit, and that's because it extends huge windfall tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthiest households in America.'
'Overall, this package just feels like a really bad deal for West Virginians,' she said.
In West Virginia more than 500,000 people rely on Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program for their health coverage.
The bill adds work reporting requirements, primarily for the expansion population — those that are on the program as a result of the Affordable Care Act expanding coverage to low-income households, Allen said. It also requires more frequent renewals, where participants are revaluated for eligibility in the program.
The work reporting requirements and the more frequent determinations would result in an estimated 50,000 West Virginians being kicked off the health programs, despite continuing to qualify for coverage, she said.
'The vast majority of West Virginians on Medicaid are either already working or likely would meet an exemption because they're doing caregiving, they're in school, they're disabled,' Allen said. 'But just because what we've seen in other states who have tried this is that overwhelmingly, people who do qualify get kicked off because the new requirements are confusing, burdensome and difficult to follow.'
The bill also adds co-pays up to $35 per Medicaid service and reduces retroactive eligibility from 90 days to one month, which would lead to hospitals in the states absorbing more uncompensated care, Allen said.
The changes are estimated to cost West Virginia about $200 million per year in federal health care money that go to the state's hospitals and providers, Allen said.
'We know hospitals will see less revenue, and instead they'll see more of a need for uncompensated care,' Allen said. The loss of revenue will result in an estimated loss of 2,000 to 3,000 health care jobs in the state, she said.
Laura Jones, executive director of Milan Puskar Health Right, a free and charitable clinic in Morgantown, said the Medicaid cuts would have a 'profoundly negative effect' on the communities the clinic serves.
'We will have, once again, many people who lack health insurance,' Jones said. 'And while there are six free clinics in the state in somewhat strategic locations, there are many areas of the state where options for people without insurance are limited or nonexistent.
'People will resort back to using the emergency room for primary care, which is by far the most expensive way to provide care,' she said. 'Wait times at emergency departments will increase, and hospitals will be overwhelmed with uncompensated care yet again.'
Jones' comments came during a virtual press conference about the Medicaid cuts Thursday hosted by the health care advocacy organization Protect Our Care. The group urged West Virginia Republicans Sens. Shelley Moore Capito and Jim Justice to vote against the cuts when the Senate considers the legislation.
'Medicaid is a lifeline for West Virginia families, seniors, people with disabilities, low income adults and children,' Lynette Maselli, state director of Protect Our Care, said during the press conference. 'Today, nearly one in three West Virginians rely on Medicaid for their health care. Cuts to the program mean fewer doctor visits, fewer life saving prescriptions, and more families forced to choose between paying rent and affording care for providers. It means more uncompensated care, lower reimbursements, job losses and potentially even closures of medical centers.'
The bill does not extend tax credits put in place under the Biden Administration that have helped approximately 50,000 West Virginians pay for their health care on the health insurance marketplace established by the Affordable Care Act. The tax credits are set to expire at the end of the year. Allen said the tax credits expiring is likely to mean 15,000 state residents will lose their health care because plans are no longer affordable.
'I think West Virginia would be among the state's most impacted, because we have the highest health care prices in the country,' she said. 'So those subsidies have made a huge difference in helping make prices more affordable.'
The federal government has historically covered the entire cost of SNAP benefits, which help approximately 277,000 or one in six West Virginia residents get access to food. The state splits the cost of administering the program with the federal government.
Under the bill that passed the House Thursday, the federal government would shift between 5 to 25% of the cost of SNAP benefits to state governments beginning in 2028. The amount a state pays would depend on its payment error rate.
West Virginia would pay up at least $28 million and up to about $141 million, depending on the error rate, according to an analysis from the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities.
'[$141 million is] more than West Virginia spends on child care, CPS workers and the Promise Scholarship combined,' Allen said. 'There's not a lot of flexibility in the state budget right now as we've seen. That almost certainly means state lawmakers would have to raise taxes, raise revenue or cut SNAP or other things that are currently being paid for through the state budget.'
In addition to shifting the costs to the states, the proposal would expand a current work requirement for SNAP recipients. With some exceptions, able-bodied people up to age 54 who receive food benefits are required to work 80 hours a month or face a time limit on receiving SNAP assistance. Under the bill, those work requirements would be required through age 64. Parents of children age 7 and above, with some exceptions, would be subject to the work requirement.
An estimated 80,000 West Virginia residents become subject to the work requirements or live in household with someone who does, Allen said.
Amy Wolfe, executive director of the Charleston soup kitchen Manna Meal, said the cuts to food assistance would be devastating to the people her program serves. Wolfe estimates that at least 80% of Manna Meal clients get SNAP benefits. Her program helps families fill in the gaps that the SNAP program does not cover, she said.
'Millions of families could lose access to healthy foods that literally we need,' she said. 'These are the foods that we need to thrive, and we're going to cut that? I mean, we're talking children, seniors, people with disabilities, people without stable access to health care because of the Medicaid cuts — all of our local economies will be affected.'
The bill also eliminates funding to SNAP-Ed, the educational arm of the SNAP program. In West Virginia, SNAP Ed supports the West Virginia University Extension program. Kristin McCartney, public health specialist and director of the SNAP education programs with WVU Extension, said the cuts would decimate staffing for the extension service, which currently has 40 staff educators in addition to administrative staff.
'There would probably only be enough funding for potentially, like half of that,' she told West Virginia Watch.
The West Virginia Democratic Party condemned Moore and Miller's support for the bill, calling the legislation 'a massive tax giveaway to the ultra-wealthy that slashes essential services for working families across West Virginia.'
In the statement, party vice chair Teresa Toriseva called the bill 'a disaster for West Virginians and a betrayal of the very people Moore and Miller were elected to represent.'
Amelia Ferrell Knisely contributed to this story.
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

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Gets Delightfully Catty On Trump-Musk Split
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Gets Delightfully Catty On Trump-Musk Split

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Gets Delightfully Catty On Trump-Musk Split

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) played the feud between President Donald Trump and former DOGE henchman Elon Musk for laughs on Thursday. (Watch the video below.) Approached by Spectrum News 1 about the fracture in their bromance, the smiling AOC said: 'Oh man, the girls are fighting, aren't they?' The progressive lawmaker could be forgiven for a little regressive humor. She has been one of the Democrats' most vocal opponents of Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill' ― the legislation that actually ignited the Trump-Musk row. Musk called the spending measure an abomination and once Trump finally expressed his disappointment in the Tesla magnate and Trump mega-donor, things turned personal between the two. The bill is being ironed out in the Senate and would reportedly ax 11 million people off Medicaid over time. Ocasio-Cortez had made a similar prediction last month. 'When this country wakes up in the morning, there will be consequences to pay for this,' she said at the time. But perhaps she didn't see the bill resulting in the breakup of DC's premier platonic power couple. For a moment anyway, it was something to crack wise about. AOC on Musk and Trump: "the girls are fighting aren't they ?"💀 — Winter Politics (@WinterPolitics1) June 6, 2025 Stephen Colbert Spots The Musk-Trump Feud Moment That Proves 'Things Are Bad' 1 Subtle Barb In Trump-Musk Blow-Out Has Dana Bash Saying 'Wow, Wow, Wow' 'My Prediction': Jimmy Kimmel Reveals Ugly Next Phase Of Trump-Musk Feud

We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.
We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.

Let's just get this out of the way: The birth rate is a red herring. It's been a common refrain that if the Trump administration and congressional leadership truly wanted to make it easier for families in America to grow and thrive, they would turn to policies like national paid leave, affordable child care, maternal health care and home and community-based services for our aging and disabled loved ones. They would be investing in early education and the caregiving workforce. They would be supporting commonsense accommodations like remote work. They would be growing social safety nets. But they've done none of that. Their response to child care is to send in grandma. They've said next to nothing about paid leave. What they apparently have suggested instead is both hilarious and dystopian. A medal for women with six or more children? Classes on your own menstrual cycle? Coupons for minivans? And instead of investing and building for the future, they're slashing and burning. From fertility and maternal health programs, to food and farm assistance, to Medicaid and Social Security, they're going after all the powerful things our country has built to sustain life. Elon Musk says the birth rate crisis is about the disappearance of civilization. I'd say he's already destroying its foundations. The real crisis is one of care. As baby boomers age, more and more of us are taking care of our parents and children all at the same time, with little help, and drowning financially and emotionally. No federal paid leave, in many counties without access to child care. The answer to the real crisis is not what we can gut and burn and take away from people, but what we can give them, the world we can create. My organization, Paid Leave for All, is asking people to envision their lives if they had the guarantee of paid family and medical leave ‒ if they knew no matter where they worked and the joy or loss they faced, they could maintain their life and their livelihood. Imagine the businesses and ventures that might be started, the families that could be sustained, the moments we wouldn't miss. Imagine the peace of mind, the paychecks kept, the lives saved. Opinion: Trump's $5,000 'baby bonus' isn't what new moms like me need What Musk, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and beyond are suggesting isn't about any of that ‒ it's not about affording working families the security and dignity of being able to take care of themselves and each other. It's simply code for hatred and bigotry, driven less by concern for families than by a desire to preserve a demographic majority. But the good news? They're still at odds with supermajorities of Americans. They're overplaying their hand, ignoring the desperate real needs of working families and missing a political opportunity. In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson went to great lengths to try to kill a bipartisan measure to simply allow new parents in Congress to vote by proxy ‒ a pro-family protocol that would cost nothing. A lot of people had never heard of it, but message testing found that when you told people even a little bit about it and Johnson's unprecedented moves to kill it, their support for the measure jumped up to 23 points. This was true across every demographic group tested, across gender, race, age and ideology. What's more, their support for broader federal policies like paid family and medical leave shot up as well. Your Turn: Are you planning to have children? Why or why not? Here's what USA TODAY readers told us. | Opinion Forum In polling done in battleground states just before the 2024 election, there was record-high support for paid leave across party lines and walks of life, however you sliced it. That included 90% of independents, 96% of suburban women and 97% of low turnout Democrats. Commentary and post-election analyses have pointed to the family policies like paid leave and affordable care that would have offered tangible improvements in people's daily lives and stress, and could have changed the political landscape and outcomes. 'We didn't deliver what people wanted ‒ help with child care, help with elder care, more security in their lives,' said Ron Klain, a former chief of staff for Joe Biden. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. And that's the task ahead ‒ not just to respond to dangerous and very real threats to our families and communities, but to also counter with a vision of how much better our lives could be, and a plan to achieve it. To outline the damage they're doing to people's wallets and freedoms, and opportunities, and then to contrast with the policies that enable us to hold onto jobs and care for our own families. The desire to succeed in life, to be able to afford one, to be able to support your loved ones, is universal. It's not a liberal fantasy, it's an idea of strength and dignity. Making more babies by threat, faux incentives or even force is not a goal or a solution. But the idea of supporting families and allowing all of us to live healthier and richer lives is one we should be restoring front and center, and a conversation we should be having. This is the project facing all of us who actually care about the survival of civilization. Dawn Huckelbridge is the founding director of Paid Leave for All. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Musk is wrong: Birth rate isn't the crisis. Child care is | Opinion

Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.

Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion

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