Surprise enrollments heat up MN Care for undocumented immigrants battle
The Brief
Legislators are battling over whether to continue budgeting for MN Care to include coverage for undocumented immigrants.
Newly released statistics show more than 17,000 undocumented immigrants enrolled in the first three months. Nonpartisan legislative analysts expected about 7,800, so the cost is now more than doubled to upwards of $100 million a year.
Republicans want to exclude undocumented immigrants and direct the money elsewhere. Democrats don't, and they have support from hospitals, religious organizations, labor unions, and insurers.
ST. PAUL, Minn. (FOX 9) - A battle is brewing in the legislature over funding healthcare for undocumented immigrants.
Double the cost
Newly released statistics show more than double the number of people have applied for MN Care than predicted last year.Republicans point to the direct cost of MN Care.
It's about $450 million coming from taxpayers over four years.
Democrats see savings on fewer emergency room visits, and they have support from groups that don't always see eye-to-eye.
Unexpected enrollment
Undocumented immigrants first got access to MN Care on Jan. 1, 2025.
The DFL trifecta gave it to them knowing it could cost $50 million a year based on the estimated enrollment numbers from nonpartisan legislative analysts.
They expected to insure about 7,800 undocumented immigrants.
More than 17,000 signed up in the first three months.
"We should not be surprised by this dramatic increase because this program creates an incentive for illegal immigrants to come here to Minnesota," said Sen. Jordan Rasmusson, (R-Fergus Falls).
A spokesperson for the Department of Human Services told us "all MN Care enrollees must meet all other requirements for the program, including income and residency requirements. Enrollees are subject to monthly premiums based on their income."
They say only 3.378 of the undocumented immigrants had any claims for healthcare services as of April 1.
Minnesotans First
House Republicans have proposed a bill, HF 10, to cut undocumented immigrants out of the system.
At current enrollment levels, it could save the state more than $100 million a year – money they say could instead go to other parts of the healthcare ecosystem.
"Let's prioritize Minnesotans first," said the bill's author, Rep. Isaac Schultz, (R-Elmdale Township). "And let's ensure that our budget is balanced here in Minnesota and that our priorities are with Minnesotans first."
Costs and compassion
Democrats oppose the change, and they have support from hospitals, religious organizations, labor unions, and insurers.
They say spending on MN Care actually saves money by keeping people away from the ER.
Hospital executives say they spent $460 million on charity care in 2023 alone.
"When people are covered and they have access to care, they can seek preventative care as well as vaccinations, which improves public health," said Dan Endreson of the Minnesota Council of Health Plans. "Having insurance coverage also mitigates the delivery of uncompensated care especially for hospitals who have a duty to care for those who show up in their emergency rooms. Uncompensated Care is a significant driver or a significant contributor to health care costs which we're all paying for."
The state's Catholic Church points to the words of the leader they lost Monday as guiding their opposition.
"We welcome immigrants when convenient and also punish them when doing so is advantageous," said Jason Adkins, executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference. "They are, as Pope Francis has said, pawns on the chessboard of humanity."
What's next
There are no compromises on the table right now, but Catholic leaders may have offered one.
They said, at the very least, the state should make sure all children get coverage.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
9 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Cuts to Fed Staff Pay, CFPB Funds Blocked from Trump Tax Bill
The Senate rules-keeper has decided that Republicans can't use President Donald Trump's multi-trillion dollar tax bill to strip all funding from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and to cut salaries for many Federal Reserve employees. The parliamentarian ruled that the GOP-backed policy provisions are outside the scope of the fast-track budget process Republicans are using to push Trump's legislative agenda through without any Democratic backing, Senate Democrats said. Republicans didn't respond to a request for comment.
Los Angeles Times
24 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Families of trans kids worry about what's next after Supreme Court rules on gender-affirming care
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors is leaving transgender children and their parents uncertain and anxious about the future. The court on Wednesday handed President Trump's administration and Republican-led states a significant victory by effectively protecting them from at least some of the legal challenges against many efforts to repeal safeguards for transgender people. The case stems from a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors. Opponents of gender-affirming care say people who transition when they're young could later regret it. Families of transgender children argue the ban amounts to unlawful sex discrimination and violates the constitutional rights of vulnerable Americans. Eli Givens, who is transgender and testified against Tennessee's gender-affirming care bill in 2023, said it's devastating that lawmakers 'who have called us degenerates, have told us that we're living in fiction' are celebrating the court's ruling. The nonbinary college student from Spring Hill received mastectomy surgery in 2022 at age 17. They said the legislation inspired their advocacy, and they attended the Supreme Court arguments in the case last December, on their 20th birthday. 'We're not making a world that trans youth are welcomed or allowed to be a part of,' Givens said. 'And so, it's just a really scary kind of future we might have.' Jennifer Solomon, who supports parents and families at the LGBTQ+ rights group Equality Florida, called the ruling a decision 'that one day will embarrass the courts.' 'This is a decision that every parent should be concerned about,' she said. 'When politicians are able to make a decision that overrides your ability to medically make decisions for your children, every family should worry.' Chloe Cole, a conservative activist known for speaking about her gender-transition reversal, posted on social media after the court's decision that 'every child in America is now safer.' Cole was cited as an example by Tennessee Republicans as one of the reasons the law was needed. Matt Walsh, an activist who was one of the early backers of Tennessee's law, applauded the high court. Three years ago, Walsh shared videos on social media of a doctor saying gender-affirming procedures are 'huge moneymakers' for hospitals and a staffer saying anyone with a religious objection should quit. 'This is a truly historic victory and I'm grateful to be a part of it, along with so many others who have fought relentlessly for years,' Walsh posted on social media. Rosie Emrich is worried the court decision will embolden legislators in New Hampshire, where legislation banning hormone treatments and puberty blockers for children is expected to reach the governor's desk. Lawmakers are weighing whether to block the treatments from minors already receiving them, like Emrich's 9-year-old child. 'It's definitely disappointing, and I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to talk to my kid about it,' Emrich said. Emrich said she and her husband have considered moving from New Hampshire and are waiting to see what will happen. 'The hard part is, like, I've grown up here, my husband has grown up here, we very much want to raise our family here,' she said. 'And we don't want to leave if we don t have to.' Erica Barker and her family moved from Jackson, Mississippi, to North Las Vegas, Nevada, a little over two years ago so one of her children could start receiving gender-affirming care. Barker's transgender daughter, then 12, had been in therapy for three years, and the family agreed it was time for medical treatments. Mississippi passed a ban on gender-affirming care for minors the next year, which Barker said she saw coming. Barker said the move was complicated, involving a new job for her husband and two mortgages when their Mississippi home was slow to sell, but it also brought access to care for her daughter, now 14. 'Our hearts are hurting for folks who are not having the same experience,' Barker said. In another state with a ban on gender-affirming care for minors, Oklahoma resident Erika Dubose said finding care for her 17-year-old nonbinary child, Sydney Gebhardt, involves a four-hour drive to Kansas and getting prescriptions filled in Oregon and mailed to their home. 'I just wish the younger folks wouldn't have to go through this,' Gebhardt said. 'These folks deserve to be focusing on their academics and hanging out with their friends and making memories with their families and planning out a safe and happy future.' Sarah Moskanos, who lives near Milwaukee, said her 14-year-old transgender daughter went through nearly a decade of counseling before she started medical gender-affirming care but has been sure since the age of 4 that she identified as a girl. 'I would say that there is decades of research on this very thing,' she said. 'And we know what works and we know what will save trans kids' lives is gender-affirming care.' Wisconsin doesn't have a gender-affirming care ban, but Moskanos said getting her daughter that care has not been easy. She now worries about what the future holds. 'We are but one election cycle away from disaster for my kid,' she said. Mo Jenkins, a 26-year-old transgender Texas native and legislative staffer at the state Capitol, said she began taking hormone therapy at 16 years old and has been on and off treatment since then. 'My transition was out of survival,' Jenkins said. Texas outlawed gender-affirming care for minors two years ago, and in May, the Legislature passed a bill tightly defining a man and a woman by their sex characteristics. 'I'm not surprised at the ruling. I am disheartened,' Jenkins said. 'Trans people are not going to disappear.' Mattise, Mulvihill and Seewer write for the Associated Press. Mulvihill reported from Cherry Hill, N.J., and Seewer reported from Toledo, Ohio. AP journalists Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn.; Kenya Hunter in Atlanta; Laura Bargfeld in Chicago; Nadia Lathan in Austin, Texas; and Daniel Kozin in Pinecrest, Fla., contributed to this report.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate parliamentarian knocks pieces out of Trump's megabill
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has ruled that several key pieces of the massive bill to implement President Trump's agenda run afoul of the Byrd Rule and must be taken out of the package to allow it to pass with a simple majority vote on a special procedural fast-track. The parliamentarian ruled against several provisions under the jurisdictions of the Senate Banking, Environment and Public Works and Armed Services Committees. These included a provision that would have placed a funding cap on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which would have cut $6.4 billion from the agency by reducing its maximum funding to zero percent of the Federal Reserve's operating expenses. The creation of the CFPB was one of the central reforms of the Dodd-Frank Act that Democrats passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. She also ruled against language cutting $1.4 billion in costs by reducing the pay of Federal Reserve staff, cutting $293 million by reducing the Office of Financial Research funding and cutting $771 million by eliminating the Public Company Accounting Oversight board. Sen. Jeff Merkley (Ore.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, touted the parliamentary rulings. 'The Senate Parliamentarian advised that certain provisions in the Republicans' One Big, Beautiful Betrayal will be subject to the Byrd Rule – ultimately meaning they will need to be stripped from the bill to ensure it complies with the rules of reconciliation,' Merkley said. 'As much as Senate Republicans would prefer to throw out the rule book and advance their families lose and billionaires win agenda, there are rules that must be followed and Democrats are making sure those rules are enforced,' he added. Senate Republicans will need to remove the provisions from the bill or otherwise would have to muster 60 voters to overcome a point of order against the bill. Senate Republicans hold a 53-47 seat majority. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) could opt to override the parliamentarian's ruling with a simple majority vote on the floor establishing a new Senate precedent, but he has indicated he does not plan to do that. The parliamentarian ruled that several sections of the bill under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee also violated the Byrd Rule. She ruled against the repeal of funding authorizations in the Inflation Reduction Act and the repeal of the Environmental Protection Agency's multipollutant emissions standards for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles for model years 2027 and later. She also ruled against a provision under the Armed Services panel's jurisdiction that would reduce appropriations to the Department of Defense if spending plans are not submitted on time.
