How immigrants contribute to Arkansas' health care workforce
Why it matters: It's a pivotal moment for the nation's hospitals.
The health care industry is facing a double challenge — a White House immigration crackdown that could translate to worker shortages and the "big, beautiful bill," which pulls back federal health care spending.
Meanwhile, an aging population will require more care.
Zoom in: About 5% of health care workers in Arkansas are immigrants, and Northwest Arkansas has a growing need for health care workers to meet growing demand as the nation sees a shortage.
By the numbers: Nationwide, 16% of hospital workers are immigrants — roughly in the line with the share of the workforce that's foreign-born.
More populous states have higher numbers — 32% in California, 29% in New York and New Jersey, and 27% in Florida.
The intrigue: There are already shortages of doctors in certain areas and within certain specialities, as well as an overall workforce shortage. Reducing the number of immigrants in the U.S. could make that worse.
And it's not just physicians. Immigrants account for a high share of the cleaning and maintenance staff in hospitals — close to 30%.
"If there aren't enough workers, hospitals may need to limit services," says Scott Hulver, a policy analyst at KFF.
State of play: Hospitals are one of the big losers from the new spending bill, taking a major hit from Medicaid cuts and changes to the Affordable Care Act, report Axios' Peter Sullivan and Victoria Knight. Millions are likely to lose their health insurance.
The bottom line: Since the passage of the ACA in 2010, more people have had access to health care and the industry exploded, hiring surged, and more workers were in demand.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
This can be a ‘big, beautiful' win for Americans with disabilities
The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act's Medicaid reforms will not affect community-based programs for people with disabilities; instead, they address ineligible recipients, administrative fraud and able-bodied adults who choose not to work. But more must be done to strengthen incentives for people with disabilities to move to, remain in, and thrive within their communities. As an advocate who has fought for services to emancipate people with disabilities from institutional warehousing for nearly half a century, I can, without equivocation, write that large congregate care is less effective and significantly more expensive than any home- or community-based living arrangement. Funding can and should be allocated in a more humanitarian and utilitarian way when it comes to community programs. When President Ronald Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, the federal government recognized home- and community-based care as an alternative to costly institutions. Although the idea was to save money, the bill gave rise to the unexpected benefit of incentivizing states with innovative leadership to shift towards managing services rather than simply paying claims. This sea-change enabled states such as New Jersey and New York to close institutions and move people back into their communities. In addition, these reforms caused a multitude of lawsuits against institutional abuse, which enabled a more expeditious shift for community placements and allowed the disabled to thrive in small homes. I worked in New Jersey when it had several more institutions than it does now. In 1981, there were almost 9,000 people living in institutions. Today, there remain approximately 3,000 people living in the five remaining institutions and private nursing homes at a cost of nearly $450,000 per person per year in the state. Over the last few years, I have visited state-run institutions in Corpus Christi, El Paso, and Dallas, which house thousands of people with disabilities who could work and live in their communities. Most of the funding in Texas is used to house people in institutions, which can cost nearly half a million dollars per person each year. In comparison, a person receiving community services, such as host homes, costs Medicaid only about $54,000 per year. Deinstitutionalization is slowing in Texas, and in recent years, the number of people who have moved from institutions into the community has declined significantly. Unfortunately, without incentives to close institutions, local legislators are intent on keeping them open to protect what is often the largest employer in their districts. It's a tough decision, but it requires the political will to do the right thing. Stop keeping our most vulnerable in institutions, and allow them to live in their own communities and have better lives. Community-based programs that support parents in providing in-home care offer invaluable opportunities for people with disabilities to stay connected to the places they call home. We now need the federal government to work with states and providers and ensure quality care is given to our most vulnerable. We have made steps in this direction, but President Trump has a unique opportunity to lead the charge in ensuring our family, friends and neighbors aren't shut in institutions but rather allowed to receive the care they need and the opportunity for lives in the communities they live in. I am encouraged that Trump and Congress accomplished this legislation, and I hope to help them as they reform outdated methods of care for people with disabilities. Robert Stack is the founder, president, and CEO of Community Options, Inc., a national non-profit organization that develops housing and employment for 6,000 people with disabilities across 12 states. Stack has been a national leader in the continuing struggle to improve the lives of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Medicaid changes will hurt family caregivers, experts warn
Medicaid cuts under President Trump's sweeping tax and spending package will harm family caregivers, experts warn, by reducing access to health care for themselves and the people they care for, which could then lead to more caregiving responsibilities. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the package will reduce Medicaid spending by roughly $911 billion over the next 10 years and increase the number of uninsured Americans by up to 10 million. Some of those who could lose coverage are among the 8 million — or 13 percent — of family caregivers in the United States who receive their health insurance coverage through Medicaid, according to the National Alliance of Caregiving. 'We are very concerned of the impact of the just finalized Medicaid cuts on the community of family caregivers,' Jason Resendez, president and CEO of the alliance, said during a call with reporters earlier this week. Medicaid recipients will be subject to more frequent eligibility checks, in part, due to revised work requirements for the joint state and federal program. Now, adults between the ages of 19 and 64 will need to work or participate in community service activities for at least 80 hours a month to be eligible for health care coverage under Medicaid. There are some exceptions for parents with dependents as well as for those deemed 'medically frail' or who are pregnant or postpartum, according to the health care policy nonprofit KFF. Many caregivers cannot work outside the home because of the intense care their family members need, or can only work limited hours, which can make fulfilling Medicaid work requirements difficult to impossible. This was the case for Lisa Tschudi, host of caregiving podcast 'Love Doesn't Pay the Bills,' who stayed home full time to take care of her daughter who has ataxic cerebral palsy and epilepsy. 'We really did not have other options,' she said. 'I, many times, tried to line up some non-me care for her during the workday and a job for myself, and I never really got my start in a paid job in that way.' Her daughter's epilepsy was poorly controlled for years as a child and teen, which required her to travel for frequent doctors' appointments on top of taking care of her younger daughter. 'It was a lot to manage,' she said. Work requirements might force some family caregivers to look for outside help, if that is an option, which represents a new expense and, potentially, a new challenge to navigate. 'Even if you can find outside providers to come in … families often find that they are not reliable,' said Elizabeth Edwards, senior attorney at the National Health Law Program. 'Some of that inconsistency of how people show up as providers can mean it's very hard to hold a job.' Family caregivers also already spend huge amounts of time navigating numerous bureaucratic hurdles, and new work requirements will add to the paperwork they have to fill out to prove they are eligible for health care under Medicaid. This extra administrative work also increases the likelihood of errors occurring in the eligibility system, which could delay coverage or prevent some from being enrolled altogether, according to Edwards. That is what happened to many Medicaid recipients in Arkansas and Georgia when the two states implemented work requirements in 2018 and 2023, respectively. More than 18,000 people in Arkansas lost Medicaid coverage over the 10-month period the state rolled out work requirements without increasing employment, according to a KFF analysis. Georgia still has one of the highest uninsured rates in the country at 12 percent, according to the Commonwealth Fund. 'We anticipate [them] not just being faced with these eligibility issues, but family caregivers losing Medicaid coverage because of these additional hurdles that they'll be forced to traverse,' Resendez said. About 11 million family caregivers in the U.S. receive payment for the care they provide, according to Resendez. Those payments primarily come through home and community-based services and consumer-directed programs at the state level. But those programs will likely start to lose funding as states are forced to decide what to fund with fewer Medicaid dollars, experts told The Hill. 'When states have less money and are forced to make decisions, home and community-based services are the first optional benefits to get cut,' Resendez said. Tschudi, as well as her husband and second daughter, are all paid family caregivers under a home and community-based service their home state of Oregon's Medicaid program provides. Without that program, her family would likely have to go back to unpaid caregiving, which would not be financially possible at this time. 'I don't wish it on anyone,' Tschudi said about the struggles that come with unpaid caregiving. 'I really think you leave families in an impossible situation when you don't pay for caregiving.'
Forbes
7 hours ago
- Forbes
How Healthcare Is Becoming Less Affordable Under The Trump Administration
Ryan Chelsea-Clinton Community Health Center located in the Hell's Kitchen, New York City, provides ... More high-quality, affordable, and comprehensive healthcare services to children, adults, and seniors. (Photo by: Deb Cohn-Orbach/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images) It has been just six months since President Trump has started his second term as Commander-in-Chief, and there have been profound changes in the healthcare landscape across America. His legislative and regulatory agenda could accelerate the decline in healthcare affordability across the United States. Here's how health services and accessibility could be compromised for millions of Americans. Medicaid Cuts More than 10 million Americans will lose healthcare insurance coverage through Medicaid over the next decade as part of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill', according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. These millions of Americans are among the most vulnerable population in dire need of healthcare, as Medicaid supports children, the elderly, pregnant women and those with disabilities. Without health insurance, individuals may be reluctant to seek care when sick, they may not go to the doctor's office for routine checkups, and they may not be able to fill drug prescriptions to curb serious diseases. When getting emergent care, these individuals will not be able to afford the large health bills they receive since they are uninsured as Medicaid will not contribute to picking up the tab. Rollback Of Affordable Care Act Subsidies President Joe Biden allowed for federal subsidies and premium tax credits for middle- and low-income families who bought state health coverage on state insurance marketplaces as part of the Affordable Care Act. This aid decreased medical bills and lowered insurance premiums for the 24 million Americans that benefit from this plan. These subsidies are in jeopardy and could expire in December if congress does not renew them. If congress does not act, millions of Americans could be forced to lose healthcare coverage altogether or be pushed to switch to higher deductible health plans that would require them to pay more out of pocket costs before receiving financial support. These changes will not just affect low-income families. The cost to middle-class and working families will be stark- some households earning around $65,000 could see annual health costs rise by over $2,300, and approximately 4.2 million people could lose health insurance altogether, according to the Washington Post. Rising Out-Of-Pocket Costs Healthcare costs that were once paid by health insurers could be shifted increasingly to individuals. As an example, consider COVID-19 vaccines that have traditionally been covered by the federal government or health insurers at no cost to the consumer. New federal guidelines for COVID-19 vaccines will allow health insurers to halt coverage of the vaccines, so patients themselves will have to cover the cost. As an example, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the CDC have stated that COVID-19 vaccines will no longer be recommended for pregnant females. Health insurers are usually obliged to cover vaccines that are recommended by federal regulatory bodies. However, with the new federal recommendations, health insurers will be exempt from covering this service to select individuals, which will effectively shift the cost to Americans if they want to stay protected from COVID-19. Increased Drug Costs President Trump has announced an intent to impose tariffs in the range of 25-200% on pharmaceuticals to incentivize drug production in the United States. If implemented, this policy would be problematic since 80 percent of generic tablets consumed by Americans are manufactured outside the U.S. according to The Hill. Even a 25% tariff would increase U.S. drug prices by nearly $51 billion. This, of course, would have devastating consequences for millions of Americans. Not only would this make healthcare even less affordable than it already is, but health outcomes would deteriorate. Many Americans would forego buying medicines, thereby exacerbating sickness and illness. Nine out of 10 people over the age of 65 rely on prescription drugs to maintain their well-being, according to the American Association of Retired Persons. Although the Trump administration has touted executive actions that seek to improve health transparency and reduce drug costs, the broader legislative and regulatory agenda being imposed will make healthcare significantly less affordable to the average American. Many American families could lose health insurance, face higher premiums and pay greater out-of-pocket costs in the years to come.
