State officials, advocates fear impact of expected Medicaid cuts in House bill
The Maryland Department of Health oversees the state's 1.55 million Medicaid recipients. (Photo by Danielle E. Gaines/Maryland Matters)
State officials and health care advocates worry that many Marylanders on Medicaid could lose coverage under a recent proposal from congressional Republicans that aims to cut billions in federal dollars by tightening program eligibility and other administrative hurdles.
While state officials are still determining the full scope of the GOP proposal unveiled Sunday night, they anticipate that a 'significant' portion of Maryland's 1.55 million Medicaid recipients could lose coverage under the current proposal.
'No matter how you slice it, we're going to see the most vulnerable in our communities lose health coverage,' said U.S. Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-3rd).
In an attempt to find $880 billion in federal savings, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce released language for a budget reconciliation bill that would make hefty changes to the Medicaid eligibility process when people enroll or reenroll in the program.
Ryan Moran, the Maryland Department of Health deputy secretary who focuses on Medicaid, said the proposal gives the department a clearer idea of how the Trump administration plans to cut federal funding to Medicaid — but many questions remain on the total impact to Maryland's Medicaid population.
Report: Up to 100,000 Marylanders could lose coverage if Medicaid imposes work requirements
'This has been something that … has long been discussed since the election of the Trump administration,' Moran said. 'Now that … there is text to actually react to, that is the work that we will be going through over the next couple days to understand in more detail.'
Medicaid is a health care program that is jointly funded by state and federal dollars to help lower-income households and certain other populations receive health coverage. About 25% of Marylanders receive health care through Medicaid.
There are several components to the proposal that could affect Maryland's Medicaid operations, such as language to restrict federal Medicaid dollars from going to certain abortion providers or gender-affirming care for youths. The proposal also would restrict a state's ability to tax health care providers to help fund the state's share of Medicaid.
In addition, the proposal would cut federal funding from states that use their own money to help provide health care coverage for undocumented residents. Moran said that the department is evaluating how that language could affect some of Maryland's Medicaid programs that undocumented individuals could benefit from.
As for Medicaid recipients, the budget reconciliation proposal calls for work requirements for people to stay enrolled in the program. The proposal exempts students, family caregivers, people with disabilities and some other cases.
The budget reconciliation proposal also requires that recipients prove eligibility for Medicaid every six months opposed to the current annual redetermination process.
These two factors combined, plus other tightened eligibility requirements, would likely mean that many Marylanders would have to jump through hoops to get health care coverage through Medicaid, and some will likely fall through the cracks.
'Ultimately, what ends up happening is that individuals don't go through the red tape to actually enroll in coverage,' Moran said. 'So, it really does lead to a loss of coverage for individuals … who would otherwise be eligible.
'It's making it harder for people to enroll. Fewer people do enroll, and that has dramatic, significant impacts on the health care ecosystem,' he said. 'But it does, in the end, provide the federal savings that you were looking for — by having fewer enrollments into the program.'
U.S. House GOP mandates Medicaid work requirements in giant bill slashing spending
The proposed budget would also require significant state resources to conduct the increased eligibility checks for the 1.55 million Marylanders on Medicaid, which will likely 'put a burden on Maryland's system,' said Gene Ransom, CEO for MedChi, the Maryland State Medical Society.
Sen. Pamela Beidle (D-Anne Arundel), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, added that there could be additional downstream effects – such as additional strain on the state's already extended emergency room wait times, which are some of the highest in the nation. With more uninsured people, she said, there will be more Marylanders receiving health care in emergency rooms.
'Emergency rooms will be more crowded than they already are,' Beidle said.
While the state works through the details of Sunday's proposals, Moran noted that it is still early in the legislative process and there could be changes down the line – for better or worse for the state.
'This is the first take' Moran said. 'This is the start of a process that we will be watching over the course of the next few months. Just because things are included as proposals today, that doesn't mean there couldn't be other changes or amendments.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the Trump-Musk Feud Means for SpaceX and NASA
The U.S. government relies on SpaceX to support NASA and other agencies, and the company has received more $20 billion in federal contracts for it. As Musk and Trump threaten to cut ties, here's what that would mean for the U.S.'s space ambitions.


Business Insider
33 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump Ready to Ditch His Tesla Car amid Musk Fallout: 'I Might Just Get Rid of It'
WASHINGTON — June 7, 2025 President Donald Trump is distancing himself from Elon Musk—publicly and materially. According to The Washington Post, Trump has told aides in recent days that he is considering selling or giving away the red Tesla (TSLA) Model S he purchased in March, a gesture that once symbolized his support for Musk. Confident Investing Starts Here: 'I might just get rid of it,' Trump told aides, according to a senior White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The car, still parked near the White House as of this week, has become a visible casualty of the rapidly souring relationship between Trump and Musk. The split followed Musk's harsh criticism of the administration's latest domestic policy bill, which he publicly called a 'disgusting abomination.' That comment triggered a sharp response from the president, both publicly and privately. On Air Force One, when asked by a reporter about Musk's alleged drug use, Trump replied: 'I don't want to comment on his drug use. I don't know what his status is.' 'I read an article in The New York Times. I thought it was, frankly, it sounded very unfair to me.' But privately, Trump has reportedly told associates that Musk is 'crazy' and blamed his behavior on drug use, according to The New York Times. Musk Gave No Public Comment on the Car—But a Hint at Peace? As of Saturday afternoon, Elon Musk has not issued any public statement specifically addressing Trump's decision to unload the Tesla. However, he did respond to a suggestion from investor Bill Ackman on X that the two men should reconcile for the good of the country. 'You're not wrong,' Musk replied—his only recent public comment that could be interpreted as a gesture toward de-escalation. Beyond that, Musk has been active on X in recent days, directing criticisms at others, including Steve Bannon and critics of Tesla, but has avoided commenting directly on Trump's actions regarding the car or federal contracts. Trump Weighs Tesla Breakup The sale—or symbolic disposal—of the Tesla would mark a final, visual severing of a political and personal alliance that once had significant policy weight. Musk had been one of Trump's most prominent business backers, and the March purchase of the Model S was, at the time, framed by aides as a nod of approval to the entrepreneur's role in the administration. Now, according to officials, the car is being referred to inside the West Wing as a political relic. And while no final decision has been made, staff say it's become a quiet but pointed symbol of Trump's intent to distance himself from Musk for good. Trump himself, speaking about Musk during a press gaggle on June 6, said: 'I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.' Whether the car is sold, donated, or simply removed from view, it now stands as a monument to one of the most dramatic falling-outs in recent political history. Is Tesla Stock Still a Buy? Meanwhile, Wall Street isn't exactly bullish on Musk's flagship automaker. According to TipRanks, Tesla currently holds a 'Hold' rating based on 37 analyst reviews over the past three months. It's a split camp: 16 analysts rate it a Buy, 10 say Hold, and 11 recommend Sell — a clear reflection of the uncertainty swirling around the company. The market seems just as cautious. The average 12-month price target for TSLA is $284.37, suggesting a 3.7% downside from its current level.

42 minutes ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'