logo
Medicaid shortfall forces California to borrow $3.44B

Medicaid shortfall forces California to borrow $3.44B

Yahoo13-03-2025

SACRAMENTO, California — California will need to borrow $3.44 billion to close a budget gap in the state's Medicaid program, Newsom administration officials told lawmakers Wednesday in a letter obtained by POLITICO.
The budget pressure will bring fresh scrutiny to the state's coverage of undocumented immigrants, which is costing more than first budgeted.
Originally, the state estimated it would cost around $3 billion per year to insure that population. But one year after the program has been fully implemented, it's turning out to be more expensive than anticipated.
Gov. Gavin Newsom's current budget proposal estimates the state will shell out $8.4 billion to cover undocumented immigrants in Medi-Cal in 2024-2025, and $7.4 billion in 2025-2026.
The budget pressure could force hard choices, like capping enrollment or limiting benefits.
In a joint statement, Senate Leader Mike McGuire, Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez and Budget Chair Scott Wiener said they would be working with the Assembly and with Newsom's office on "responsible and long-term solutions."
"Here in the Golden State, we remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring millions of Californians have the healthcare coverage they need to thrive," the statement said. "That access to healthcare is being threatened by skyrocketing healthcare costs across the nation, and even more by the dangerous cuts threatened by President Trump and Congressional Republicans that will impact the lives of tens of millions across this country.'
California has been covering undocumented children on Medi-Cal since 2016. Under Newsom, the program has slowly expanded, to young adults in 2020, older adults in 2022 and then all ages in 2024.
The program has never been a favorite in conservative circles, and now Congress is eyeing potentially dramatic cuts to Medicaid. State Republicans like Assemblymember Carl DeMaio and Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones have been hammering the $8.4 billion price tag for being far higher than the original estimate, critiques that made it all the way to Elon Musk's posts on X.
In a post on X, Jones demanded a full hearing.
"Typical of the secretive Newsom Administration, they just quietly dropped a damning notification that they are taking a $3.44 BILLION loan to fund free healthcare for illegal immigrants," he wrote. "The loan is being taken from tax dollars meant for healthcare providers."
A variety of factors have pushed up Medi-Cal costs over the past few years. The state anticipates spending around $42 billion on the program in 2025-26, a $4.5 billion increase over the last budget.
Pharmacy costs have been rising across the board, and they're starting to weigh down the Medi-Cal budget for citizens and immigrants alike. In January, Newsom's budget included an extra $1.3 billion in state funds for pharmacy costs in 2024-25 and an extra $1.2 billion for 2025-26 to account for the extra Medi-Cal pharmacy expenses. High-cost drugs like those for obesity and diabetes have especially hit the budget.
There are also more seniors in the program than there were previously. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, there are 225,000 more seniors in Medi-Cal than there were before the pandemic, a roughly 40 percent increase.
Some of that is because of eligibility expansions — like for undocumented seniors — and some is because fewer people were kicked off Medi-Cal during the pandemic. Seniors make up a small percentage of the program, about 10 percent, but come with some of the highest costs. The LAO estimates seniors each cost the Medi-Cal around $15,000 per year, on average, where the rest of the population costs around $8,000.
Eric He contributed to this report.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Democratic governors will defend immigration policies before Republican-led House panel
Democratic governors will defend immigration policies before Republican-led House panel

Associated Press

time31 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Democratic governors will defend immigration policies before Republican-led House panel

WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump spars with California's governor over immigration enforcement, Republicans in Congress are calling other Democratic governors to the Capitol on Thursday to question them over policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform posted a video ahead of the hearing highlighting crimes allegedly committed by immigrants in the U.S. illegally and pledging that 'sanctuary state governors will answer to the American people.' The hearing is to include testimony from Govs. JB Pritzker of Illinois, Tim Walz of Minnesota and Kathy Hochul of New York. There's no legal definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction, but the term generally refers to governments with policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Courts previously have upheld the legality of such laws. But Trump's administration has sued Colorado, Illinois, New York and several cities — including Chicago and Rochester, New York — asserting their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal law. Illinois, Minnesota and New York also were among 14 states and hundreds of cities and counties recently listed by the Department of Homeland Security as 'sanctuary jurisdictions defying federal immigration law.' 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. As Trump steps up immigration enforcement, some Democratic-led states have intensified their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting cooperation with immigration agents. Following clashes between crowds of protesters and immigration agents in Los Angeles, Trump deployed the National Guard to protect federal buildings and agents, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom accused Trump of declaring 'a war' on the underpinnings of American democracy. The House Oversight Committee has long been a partisan battleground, and in recent months it has turned its focus to immigration policy. Thursday's hearing follows a similar one in March in which the Republican-led committee questioned the Democratic mayors of Chicago, Boston, Denver and New York about sanctuary policies. Heavily Democratic Chicago has been a sanctuary city for decades. In 2017, then-Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed legislation creating statewide protections for immigrants. The Illinois Trust Act prohibits police from searching, arresting or detaining people solely because of their immigration status. But it allows local authorities to hold people for federal immigration authorities if there's a valid criminal warrant. Pritzker, who succeeded Rauner in 2019, said in remarks prepared for the House committee that violent criminals 'have no place on our streets, and if they are undocumented, I want them out of Illinois and out of our country.' 'But we will not divert our limited resources and officers to do the job of the federal government when it is not in the best interest of our state, our local communities, or the safety of our residents,' he said. Pritzker has been among Trump's most outspoken opponents and is considered a potential 2028 presidential candidate. He said Illinois has provided shelter and services to more than 50,000 immigrants who were sent there from other states. A Department of Justice lawsuit against New York challenges a 2019 law that allows immigrants illegally in the U.S. to receive New York driver's licenses and shields driver's license data from federal immigration authorities. That built upon a 2017 executive order by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo that prohibited New York officials from inquiring about or disclosing a person's immigration status to federal authorities, unless required by law. Hochul's office said law enforcement officers still can cooperate with federal immigration authorities when people are convicted of or under investigation for crimes. Since Hochul took office in 2021, her office said, the state has transferred more than 1,300 incarcerated noncitizens to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the completion of their state sentences. Minnesota doesn't have a statewide sanctuary law protecting immigrants in the U.S. illegally, though Minneapolis and St. Paul both restrict the extent to which police and city employees can cooperate with immigration enforcement. Some laws signed by Walz have secured benefits for people regardless of immigration status. But at least one of those is getting rolled back. The Minnesota Legislature, meeting in a special session, passed legislation Monday to repeal a 2023 law that allowed adults in the U.S. illegally to be covered under a state-run health care program for the working poor. Walz insisted on maintaining eligibility for children who aren't in the country legally, ___ Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo. Also contributing were Associated Press writers Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, N.Y.; Steve Karnowski in St. Paul, Minn.; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago.

The $11 trillion gap between White House and economists on Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill
The $11 trillion gap between White House and economists on Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The $11 trillion gap between White House and economists on Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill

An array of economists — from the Congressional Budget Office to the Tax Foundation to the Penn-Wharton Budget Model — have reached a similar conclusion: Trump's signature legislation comes with a price tag in the neighborhood of $3 trillion over the next decade. They're all wrong, the White House says. And not just by a little. President Trump and his aides have instead offered claims that the bill will make money and that the final tally for both the tax-cutting legislation and other parts of the Trump agenda will usher in a new golden age not just for the US economy but also for government debt. The claims from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue go as high as $8 trillion in black ink (an $11 trillion chasm with the experts) in claims that go beyond what even Capitol Hill Republicans are projecting. As for reconciling the two, some economists essentially throw up their hands. "You can't square it because it's ridiculous," Erica York of the Tax Foundation said. "The bill unambiguously will increase deficits, it will not contribute that much to economic growth," she added, noting that the bill is largely focused on extending current tax rates that would not be expected to push the economy significantly upward from current levels. Yet the White House has remained steadfast even as this gap has led to increased tensions as the bill goes through another round of adjustments on Capitol Hill. A Wednesday appearance before Congress by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was marked by lawmakers — mostly Democratic, but some Republicans as well — raising the debt issue. In one colorful moment, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson of California asked Bessent to point to an independent expert "not on the payroll of this administration" who says this bill will not add to our debt. Bessent then cited Arthur Laffer, the former Reagan official and longtime Trump supporter who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the president's first term. The comment led to laughter in the chamber, with Thompson shooting back, "I don't think that one counts." It was a hearing where Bessent declined to repeat some of the administration's most aggressive claims, saying instead that "it remains to be seen" whether the bill will add to the national debt. Others have not been so restrained about the impact of Trump's overall agenda. "We're going to cut the deficit by $8 trillion over the next 10 years," press secretary Karoline Leavitt offered recently on Fox News. And a recent White House memo offered a slightly lower figure of about $6.7 trillion to $6.9 trillion in deficit reductions over the coming decade. One issue is that White House projections rely on a set of assumptions that are often internally contradictory, such as taking credit for taxes spurring economic growth while simultaneously saying they have no cost. Other parts of the bill would enact temporary tax cuts — and then take credit for lower costs there — while also claiming other permanent cuts are free. That's in addition to an overriding assumption at the White House that, essentially, things break historically right for the US economy and sustained 3% economic growth is in the offing. That's above even what House Republicans are projecting, as lawmakers there have rallied behind a lower (but still very aggressive) assumption of 2.6% growth. Both projections are unlikely, Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said. "Some people are at 2%, some people are at 1.6% ... that is the neighborhood," he said of a series of projections for growth that hover around 1.8%. He added in an interview that even if sustained 3% growth were to happen, "it would have very little to do with this tax bill." Yet the White House has repeatedly dismissed the experts. Trump budget chief Russ Vought recently told reporters that everything "is part of a coherent fiscal agenda" and that the combination of tax cuts, tariffs, additional promised spending cuts, and "reforms we can do ourselves" to programs like Medicaid will lead to good outcomes for the US bottom line. White House projections also fully embrace recent CBO projections of $2.8 trillion in tariff revenues over the coming decade. But that embrace appears to ignore a prediction in the same report that tariffs will "reduce the size of the U.S. economy" and also lead to a potential inflation increase of 0.4 percentage points in 2025 and 2026. York has calculated that even two seemingly minor adjustments — taking the slightly lower but still very aggressive House estimate of 2.6% economic growth and factoring in the economic costs of tariffs — means the bill "is basically a wash or even negative for GDP." "They're picking and choosing," she added. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet And few are expecting tariffs to stay steady in the coming months, not to mention the coming years. Tariff levels are under active negotiation — two fronts this week are duties on goods from China and India — as the CBO report assumed rates remain steady not just during Trump's term, but also years after he is scheduled to leave office. The tariffs are also under a considerable cloud of legal uncertainty, with an appeals court ruling on Tuesday that Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs could stay in force for now while it considers whether they are legal. "Even if they are upheld by the courts, it still seems like the Trump administration is willing to negotiate them down somewhat," York noted, "and then what happens in four years when a new administration comes in?" Ben Werschkul is Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. David Foster is a graphic artist for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Newsom v. Trump heads to court as protests against ICE raids spread: Updates
Newsom v. Trump heads to court as protests against ICE raids spread: Updates

USA Today

time39 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Newsom v. Trump heads to court as protests against ICE raids spread: Updates

Newsom v. Trump heads to court as protests against ICE raids spread: Updates Show Caption Hide Caption See how Los Angeles protests intensified over one weekend What started as a small protest over immigration raids on Friday ballooned into large demonstrations throughout the weekend. Here's what happened. Nearly a week after protests over federal immigration enforcement raids first broke out in Los Angeles, a showdown between federal and state officials is expected to land in court on Thursday over whether President Donald Trump can use the military to assist the raids against California leaders' wishes. In the hearing, scheduled for Thursday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco will hear Gov. Gavin Newsom's motion for a temporary restraining order limiting the activities of the 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines Trump deployed in Los Angeles. Newsom has decried the military intervention as an illegal waste of resources and is asking the court to block the troops' participation in law enforcement activities. He ultimately wants the National Guard returned to state control and Trump's actions declared illegal. Downtown Los Angeles remained under a curfew after days of demonstrations against the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement led to hundreds of arrests. The protests broke out on June 6 in response to ongoing ICE raids that have sparked fear among immigrant communities. While many protests have been relatively peaceful, some have turned into scenes of chaos as police fired with less lethal munitions, tear gas and flash-bangs to disperse crowds. "If I didn't act quickly on that, Los Angeles would be burning to the ground right now," Trump said at an event at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Wednesday. State and local leaders have disputed Trump's claims, saying the decision has only provoked the unrest, likening the president's actions to "authoritarian regimes." U.S. Northern Command announced on Wednesday that the 700 active-duty Marines had completed their training for the Los Angeles mission, which included de-escalation and crowd control. The Marines were expected to be deployed within 48 hours to protect federal officers and property. National Guard commander Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman said on Wednesday that the troops wouldn't conduct arrests or searches and seizures, but would be authorized to detain protesters temporarily. Protests are planned for 1,800 communities across the country on June 14, the same day Trump holds a military parade in Washington, D.C. For decades, the GOP has claimed most of the symbols of patriotism, including the American flag, but the people protesting Trump, a Republican, say they are the true patriots now. The rallies, named "No Kings Day" to oppose what they see as Trump's power grab, are expected to be the largest and most numerous protests since Trump's second term began, dwarfing the Hands Off protests in early April that drew as many as 1 million Americans to the streets at more than 1,000 rallies. No Kings Day was organized by grassroots groups in cities and towns of all sizes to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary celebration, which is also Trump's 79th birthday and Flag Day. Administration officials insist it is a coincidence that the parade falls on Trump's birthday. Read more here. Contributing: Reuters

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