NC Health Secretary warns of impact from potential federal cuts to SNAP, Medicaid
RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) — North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Dev Sangvai raised concerns Thursday about how the proposed federal funding cuts could impact residents who rely on critical assistance programs, specifically SNAP and Medicaid.
According to the North Carolina Department of Health, approximately 1.4 million North Carolinians currently benefit from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps lower-income individuals and families purchase food.
Currently, the federal government funds 100% of SNAP benefits and 50% of administrative costs to administer it, according to the NCDHHS. The proposed federal cuts would significantly alter this funding structure, potentially putting assistance at risk for many recipients.
'Right now, as I mentioned, the program is federally funded,' Dr. Sangvai explained. 'Some of the proposals that are coming out shifts that federal burden to the state level, and our state is already in a pretty tight situation financially. Depending on how the program plays out, it could cost North Carolina anywhere from $140 million to $700 million more per year.'
The Health Secretary also expressed concerns about proposed Medicaid changes, which include implementing work requirements and increasing the frequency of eligibility determinations beyond the current annual review.
These changes could result in coverage disruptions for North Carolina residents who rely on Medicaid for healthcare coverage.
While Dr. Sangvai acknowledged that program improvements are necessary, he advocated for a more methodical approach to implementing changes.
'What's going to happen is individuals are going to have to balance: do I pay the heating bill, do I pay rent, or do I eat? It's a pretty precarious situation if these benefits go away,' he warned.
The NC Department of Health and Human Services is monitoring the federal proposals closely as they move through the legislative process.
For more information on SNAP benefits or Medicaid in North Carolina, visit the NCDHHS website here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca sues Utah Attorney General over discount medication law
SALT LAKE CITY () — The pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca has filed a federal lawsuit against Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike over a recent law that is intended to allow more pharmacies to have access to drug discount programs. In a lawsuit filed May 23, AstraZeneca alleges that Utah SB 69 is unconstitutional. The law was introduced and passed in the 2025 General Assembly, and it went into effect on May 7. The law prohibits drug manufacturers from restricting pharmacies from working with 340B entities, which help pharmacies and patients access medications at a discounted price. Senator Lee responds to the Trump-Musk feud The 340B Drug Pricing Program is a that 'enables covered entities to stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services,' according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) website. It means that drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid agree to provide 'outpatient drugs to covered entities at significantly reduced prices.' All organizations need to be registered and enrolled in the 340B program in order to purchase discounted medications. The law that established the 340B Program, Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act, specified certain types of for the program, such as medical centers that serve rural and other underserved communities and clinics that specialize in particular diseases like HIV/AIDS. SB 69 expands the scope, requiring drug manufacturers to provide the discounts to third-party pharmacies that are contracting with 340B entities, and this is what AstraZeneca is claiming is unconstitutional in its lawsuit. Utah House Republicans elect new leadership members The lawsuit states that because price controls 'disincentivize innovation and destabilize markets,' Congress chose to specifically limit the types of organizations that are eligible in Section 340B. The suit notes that for-profit pharmacies like Walgreens or CVS were not included as eligible, and there have already been several federal court cases ruling that block efforts to require drug manufacturers to provide discounts to contracted pharmacies. AstraZeneca claims in its suit that SB 69 'requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B-discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies,' expanding 340B discounts to 'an entirely new category of transactions not covered by Section 340B itself.' The suit alleges that SB 69 directly conflicts with federal law requirements, and therefore, it cannot be enforced against Astrazeneca or other drug manufacturers. AstraZeneca is asking the court to declare SB 69 unconstitutional and to order that Utah AG Derek Brown and Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike not enforce the law against AstraZeneca. Musk floats 'The American Party' after Trump tiff Myths VS Facts: What health officials want you to know about the MMR vaccine Good4Utah Road Tour: Willard Bay State Park Lori Vallow Daybell back in court, charged with conspiracy to murder ex nephew-in-law Man charged with assault for allegedly attacking and strangling neighbor Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Activists protest possible Medicaid cuts outside KS Rep. Derek Schmidt's Topeka office
TOPEKA (KSNT) — Kansans are speaking out against lawmakers who are voting to cut Medicaid. The GOP-led One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed the US House by a razor thin margin. 215 House members voted to pass it, while 214 voted against it. Local Kansas activists are calling out Rep. Derek Schmidt, a Republican who voted to pass the bill. A group of protesters gathered outside of Schmidt's office in Topeka Thursday afternoon and expressed concerns about cuts to Medicaid. 'Today is life or death,' protester Dillon Warren said. 'We voted someone in there that we shouldn't have. He doesn't support us.' The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the bill passes, at least 7 million people will lose Medicaid coverage. For that reason, many Kansas voters are making their voices heard. Chiefs and Royals stadium bill deadline approaching as Kansas and Missouri fight for the teams 'We need Medicaid for medical equipment,' protester Rick Macias said. 'These chairs are $200,000 if not more. So, it's very important that Medicaid sticks around.' 27 News reached out to Schmidt, who was unavailable for comment. A spokesperson for the congressman provided 27 News with a written statement. 'Congressman Schmidt is a strong supporter of Medicaid for people the program is designed to help: those who are disabled, in nursing homes, pregnant, raising small children, or otherwise in need. Unfortunately, some states have abused the program by providing benefits to illegal aliens, millions of healthy young adults who choose not to work, or people who are not eligible to receive taxpayer-funded benefits from the program. That is the main reason why Medicaid spending has exploded by more than 50 percent since just 2019: an unsustainable rate of growth that puts benefits for Americans who need them most at risk. By addressing this abuse of the program, Congressman Schmidt is protecting both the traditional Medicaid recipients who rely on benefits and the taxpayers who pay the bills.' Spokesman for Rep. Derek Schmidt For more Capitol Bureau news, click here. Keep up with the latest breaking news in northeast Kansas by downloading our mobile app and by signing up for our news email alerts. Sign up for our Storm Track Weather app by clicking here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
46 State Medical Associations Urge Senate to Reject Medicaid Cuts in H.R. 1
The House Budget Reconciliation bill will cause at least 7.8 million Medicaid enrollees to lose their health care coverage. SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Just days ahead of an expected Senate vote on H.R. 1, 46 state medical associations, as part of Physicians for Medicaid have sent a letter to the United States Senate urging them to reject the dangerous cuts to Medicaid proposed in H.R. 1 that will cause millions of patients to lose coverage and even more to lose access to care - children, pregnant women, seniors, veterans, the disabled and working families. Statewide hospital associations have also weighed in, as proposed cuts impact all providers, including physicians and hospitals. The bill, which includes $200 billion in cuts to the existing and longstanding provider taxes, would have a catastrophic effect on state budgets and the country's entire health care delivery system and would impact 49 state Medicaid programs. Provider taxes have been authorized under federal law, approved by both Republican and Democratic administrations, and affirmed by state legislatures in 49 states for decades. They are a legitimate financing mechanism used by states in partnership with the federal government to fund essential health services and have kept rural hospitals, maternity wards, nursing homes, and physician practices open. The bill also imposes damaging changes to federal student loan programs making it harder for students to pursue medical careers at a time of critical physician shortages. We urge the Senate to pursue more balanced solutions that expand the physician workforce and preserve Medicaid for our patients. "If these provider tax cuts are enacted, it will create significant gaps in State budgets, forcing states to raise taxes, or reduce benefits, coverage, and provider payments. These reductions will lead to even more crowding of emergency departments and as the uncompensated care burdens grow from patients losing coverage, many rural hospitals, nursing homes, and community physician practices will be forced to close to all patients," the letter says. There are three main provisions in H.R. 1 (as passed by the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025) that will drastically limit or eliminate existing provider taxes nationwide. These provisions below apply to all provider taxes, including hospitals, nursing homes, managed care organizations, and other provider categories. Moratorium on New or Increased Provider Taxes (SEC. 44132) – Under the provisions of H.R. 1, none of these taxes could be increased after the passage and enactment of the law nor can any new taxes be adopted by the state Legislatures (there are 19 categories of provider taxes). This provision would freeze taxes and not keep pace with increasing health care costs over time. It is also not equitable between states. Revising Payments for Certain State Directed Payments (SEC. 44133) – Once a provider tax is established, state Medicaid programs can fund supplemental or enhanced payments to providers using a variety of rate methodologies. Under H.R. 1, any future directed payments would be limited to the Medicare payment rate. Medicare physician payment rates are already 33% behind the costs to provide health care. These rates will not keep pace for public hospitals and physician specialists that care for the sickest patients nationwide. Requirements Regarding Waiver of Uniform Tax Requirement for Medicaid Provider Tax (SEC. 44134) – The language in H.R. 1 requires provider taxes in multiple states to uniformly tax hospitals, nursing homes, and managed care organizations within each category of provider tax. The uniformity requirement will be extremely difficult for most states to meet and therefore, it eliminates multiple provider taxes in many states. The HHS Secretary has discretion to allow for a transition period, which is not something upon which states can rely. "These provisions will destabilize state health systems, reduce access to care, and worsen physician shortages. Instead, we encourage you to protect Medicaid – a proven, cost-effective safety net that serves 80 million vulnerable Americans," the letter concluded. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE California Medical Association; Physicians for Medicaid Sign in to access your portfolio
