Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst
The Senate's deep cuts to Medicaid in the tax and spending megabill are setting off alarm bells among some Republicans, complicating leadership's effort to get the legislation passed by July 4.
It seeks to clamp down on two tactics states use to boost Medicaid funding to hospitals: state-directed payments and Medicaid provider taxes. The restrictions are a major concern for rural hospitals, a key constituency for senators.
Republicans have set an ambitious July 4 deadline to pass the bill and send it to President Trump to be signed into law.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has been warning his colleagues about making cuts to Medicaid for weeks, said the changes took him by surprise.
'I had no idea that they were going to completely scrap the House framework with this. I mean, this totally caught me by surprise. And I've talked to other senators, and that's what I've heard consistently from everybody I've talked to, that no one was expecting this entirely new framework,' Hawley told reporters Tuesday.
States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then direct back to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements.
Critics argue it's a scheme for states to get more federal funding without spending any of their own money. But provider taxes have become ingrained into states' Medicaid financing systems. States and provider groups say the taxes provide a steady source of financing for hospitals that operate on thin margins and would otherwise face closure.
'The draconian Medicaid cuts contained in the Senate bill would devastate health care access for millions of Americans and hollow out the vital role essential hospitals play in their communities,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, an organization that represents hospitals that serve low-income patients.
The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027.
Nonexpansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities.
All states except for Alaska finance part of their share of Medicaid funding through health care provider taxes, and 38 states have at least one provider tax that exceeds 5.5 percent.
When asked if his concerns were enough to make him vote against the bill if it were brought to the floor as written, Hawley hedged.
'It needs a lot of work, so I would say maybe we could, I guess, try to fix it on the floor, but it'd be better to do it beforehand,' he told reporters.
Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate and still pass their bill if Democrats remain united in opposition.
Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.) said he was also surprised by the Senate's change. If provider tax changes are on the table, he said he wants leadership to keep the House version. Justice wouldn't say how he would vote if the provision was left unchanged but expressed some unease about the July 4 deadline.
'I promise you, I won't rubber-stamp anything,' Justice said. 'I want this thing to come out and come out quickly, but when it really boils right down to it, you may have to hold your nose on some things that you just absolutely don't like because we can't like everything.'
Similarly, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) indicated he would also prefer the House-passed freeze on provider taxes but was still analyzing the impact on his state. Louisiana expanded Medicaid in 2016.
Senate Republican leaders huddled with members Tuesday during a closed-door caucus lunch to talk through the details of the bill. Speaking to reporters afterward, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said leadership was listening to members' concerns, especially about provider taxes.
'We think [the changes] rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered,' Thune said. 'We continue to hear from members specifically on components or pieces of the bill they want to see modified or changed, and we are working through that.'
Members were also briefed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, who downplayed the impact of a lower provider tax cap.
'We do not believe that addressing the provider tax effort is going to influence the ability of hospitals to stay viable,' Oz told reporters.
Without weighing in on the exact details, Oz said some changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments should be included.
'The framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill, it should be in this bill,' Oz said.
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
Politico
33 minutes ago
- Politico
Thom Tillis denounces GOP megabill's Medicaid cuts in fiery speech
Hours after announcing his retirement, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis went to the Senate floor and slammed the GOP's plans for drastic Medicaid cuts — warning Republicans they are about to 'make a mistake on health care and betray a promise' if their sprawing domestic policy bill passes. 'It is inescapable this bill will betray the promise Donald Trump made,' Tillis said. 'I'm telling the president that you have been misinformed. You supporting the Senate mark will hurt people who are eligible and qualified for Medicaid.' Tillis, who opposed the bill on a procedural vote Saturday night and then announced Sunday he would not seek reelection, said he could not vote for the Senate's bill because provisions that he said would kick some 663,000 residents of his state off their health care plans. He called on the Senate GOP to jettison its 'artificial' July 4 deadline and rewrite the bill. 'I respect President Trump, I support the majority of his agenda, but I don't bow to anybody when the people of North Carolina are at risk, and this puts them at risk,' Tillis told reporters after he left the floor. The two-term senator who has been known for working across the aisle said he had done his own research on how changes to so-called state directed payments and a new cap on medical providers taxes would affect his state — contacting state legislative leaders, the state's Democratic governor, Josh Stein and hospital groups. Tillis said he also talked to CMS Director Mehmet Oz and presented his findings that showed the best-case scenario was a $26 billion cut in federal support. 'After three different attempts for them to discredit our estimates, the day before yesterday they admitted that we were right,' Tillis said on the floor. 'They can't find a hole in my estimate.' In his remarks to reporters, he said Trump is 'getting a lot of advice from people who have never governed and all they've done is written white papers,' adding that he has 'people from an ivory tower driving him into a box canyon.' Tillis, who was elected to the Senate in 2014, compared Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' to the Affordable Care Act: 'The effect of this bill is to break a promise. And you know, the last time I saw a promise broken around health care, with respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle is when somebody said, 'If you like your health care, you can keep it.'' The Senate is now working through up to 20 hours of debate, before a marathon voting series of amendments scheduled to start Monday morning. Tillis said he might return to the floor to speak against the bill. Trump lambasted Tillis Saturday night after he voted against opening debate on the megabill, and Tillis said he'd already told Trump at that point he was likely to retire. 'Pretty much what I said on the floor is what I said to the president last night and I stand by it,' Tillis told reporters after the speech, adding later that he told the President he 'probably needed to start looking for a replacement.' 'I told him I want to help him,' Tillis added. 'I hope that we get a good candidate that I can help and we can have a successful 2026.'
Forbes
33 minutes ago
- Forbes
Physician Perspectives On Prior Authorization Reform
Many physicians believe prior authorization gets in the way of sound patient care. New reforms from ... More the insurance industry aim to address these challenges. Will they make a difference? You learn a lot in medical school. About human biology, medical ethics and how to make a diagnosis. One thing they don't teach you about—but which rears its head all the time in the actual practice of medicine—is prior authorization. Prior authorization is what is known in healthcare as a utilization management tool. Physicians submit requests to insurers, who respond with determinations about whether they will cover the proposed procedures, services, or medications before the patient receives them. The goal is to steer customers toward modalities of care that have been demonstrated to produce the best outcomes at a reasonable cost. During office hours, between procedures, even in the middle of consults—prior authorization is something physicians have to deal with constantly. Last week, amid scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators as well as public outrage over the practice, health insurers working with the trade association AHIP (on whose board I sit as CEO of SCAN Health Plan, a not-for-profit health insurance company) announced a set of voluntary commitments aimed at simplifying prior authorization and 'connecting patients more quickly to the care they need while minimizing administrative burdens on providers.' The commitments include faster turnaround times, greater transparency, and reduced requirements for routinely approved services. These reforms are sensible and—let's be honest—probably overdue. But will they make a difference? 'Administrative Hurdles' Despite its daily impact on the practice of medicine, prior authorization isn't something physicians talk about very much. So, in order to gauge how prior authorization affects their work and their patients and what effect the voluntary reforms might have, I reached out to several colleagues in different specialties to hear their stories about prior authorization. What I heard were honest reflections on their experience with the practice—and an urgent call to reimagine a system that too often gets in the way of care. Jay Patel, an orthopedic surgeon in Orange County, CA, specializing in hip and knee replacements, describes a system that increasingly delays care for no clear reason by putting up 'administrative hurdles to surgeries that are appropriate.' Patel notes that some payers require that he submits imaging reports in separate documents that duplicate the information contained in previously submitted medical records. 'Most of the time there's some minor piece of information they need that's already in the record, and they reflexively approve it.' But not always. And when delays occur, he says, they disrupt care and diminish trust between patients and their doctors. 'Patients often don't understand how the process works,' he says. 'They usually think we dropped the ball because we're the person they can get ahold of.' Patel believes the system could be improved by reducing prior authorization requirements for physicians who consistently provide appropriate care. 'Good actors should be able to request surgery and have it approved.''Delays Matter' A Northern California interventional cardiologist I know sees firsthand how delays in care can lead to worse outcomes. 'For every test, you have to wait a week for authorization,' he says. 'And when it comes to cardiac conditions, delays matter.' He laments that the delays can push patients to seek emergency care when they experience shortness of breath or other symptoms. 'Put yourself in their shoes. When your heart hurts you may be afraid you will die.' He says that some of his patients have decided to go to the emergency room rather than wait for approvals. In these cases, the patients are admitted and treated as inpatients, which he notes is ultimately more expensive for the plan, the patient and the health system in general. The cardiologist also notes that in his field, denials are rare. Though he often has to pick up the phone to advocate for a patient, he says that in 11 years of practice, not once has a health plan denied a procedure that he's called about. Knowing this, he wonders if artificial intelligence or other technologies could offer ways to improve the system. 'There must be ways to optimize this. If they're authorizing the procedure 99% of the time, why can't there be instant authorization?' Internist Jonathan Dinh says insurers often use prior authorization as a 'delay tactic.' He says that in his experience, some payers intentionally make the practice burdensome, knowing that some percentage of physicians will become frustrated and give up on the time-consuming prior authorization process. 'If there's a poor clinical outcome, the health plan maintains plausible deniability. They'll say, 'We never said 'no.' We left the decision strictly up to our providers.'' As an internist and medical group leader in Southern California, Dinh believes that the efficiency of prior authorization reflects the quality of the organization itself. 'In a well-run group, 80% to 90% of requests should be auto approved,' he explains. "The primary function of prior authorization should be to ensure patients are referred to the correct in-network provider, helping them avoid unnecessary medical bills—not to act as a barrier to care." Dinh says delegated models in which payors assign certain administrative and clinical responsibilities—like utilization management, care coordination, and prior authorization decisions—to a provider organization or medical group can reduce the friction of prior authorization. However, he cautions that this model alone isn't enough. "Delegated entities can still improperly delay or deny care. There must be safeguards—such as expedited appeal processes—to protect patients.' Dinh also says that patients often mistakenly blame delays in seeing a specialist due to the prior authorization process when the real underlying issue is a shortage of physicians. "People often blame delays in seeing a specialist on the prior authorization process,' he says. 'But in many cases, referrals are issued promptly—the real bottleneck is a shortage of physicians. Specialists are overwhelmed and simply don't have the capacity to see patients quickly. Of course, any delay in prior authorization only makes the situation worse.' To address the broader issue of physician shortages, Dinh and his colleagues launched a new internal medicine residency program focusing on training more primary care internists. The initiative aims to expand access to care and improve outcomes, particularly in underserved communities. 'A well-trained internist can help offset the shortage of specialists by managing complex conditions at a high level. The true value of a primary care physician emerges when a patient's care requires coordination across multiple specialties. The ability to lead multidisciplinary care while keeping the patient and their family informed is what ultimately drives the best clinical outcomes and enhances patient satisfaction.' A Starting Point When a draft of AHIP's plan initially crossed my desk, I was skeptical. Voluntary reform isn't something that necessarily has a great track record in healthcare. And yet more than 50 plans (including my own) that provide coverage to tens of millions of Americans have signed on and made a public commitment to reform. After speaking to my physician colleagues and hearing their earnest frustrations, there's no doubt in my mind that the system needs reform and the association's proposals—which are not insubstantial and would address many of the problems —are a great place to start. After all, none of the physicians I spoke to are asking for a blank check. They're asking for a system that trusts their judgment, respects their time, and puts patients first. Reforming prior authorization isn't just about efficiency. It's about dignity—restoring it to the people who give care, and the people who need it—and AHIP's plan, acknowledging some of the challenges my physician colleagues face every day, is a meaningful step in the right direction.
Politico
38 minutes ago
- Politico
No overnight vote-a-rama
Senate Republicans are on the cusp of formally adopting a controversial accounting tactic to zero out much of the cost of their massive domestic policy bill. The matter came to a head on the Senate floor Sunday afternoon, when Democrats sought to prevent the use of the current policy baseline, as the tactic is known. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer objected to the maneuver and accused Republicans of setting a new precedent with the 'budgetary gimmick.' The Senate is set to vote on Schumer's objection later Sunday or Monday, but Republicans believe their members will back up Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). That's in part because they were able to sidestep a situation where senators would be asked to overrule Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough on the baseline question. Instead, Republicans are asserting that Graham has the ability to establish which baseline is used under the 1974 law governing the budget process, rather than having MacDonough issue a formal ruling. 'There is nothing to debate and we consider this matter settled,' Graham spokesperson Taylor Reidy said. The revised baseline allows Republicans to essentially write off the $3.8 trillion cost of extending tax cuts passed in 2017 that are set to expire at the end of the year. The effect on the megabill's bottom line is profound as a pair of new Congressional Budget Office reports show. One, released late Saturday night using the current policy baseline, showed the legislation would reduce the deficit by $508 billion. The other, released Sunday morning using the traditional method accounting for expiring provisions, showed the megabill would increase the deficit by $3.25 trillion. 'Things have never, never worked this way where one party so egregiously ignores precedent, process and the parliamentarian, and does that all in order to wipe away trillions of dollars in costs,' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said during a speech on the Senate floor Sunday. The maneuver came as little surprise. The GOP plan has been quietly in the works for months, and Thune had suggested they would reprise the no-formal-ruling strategy they'd used earlier in the process of passing the megabill. 'As we did on the budget resolution, we believe the law is clear that the budget committee chairman can determine the baseline we use,' Thune told reporters. Graham on Sunday embraced the CBO ruling showing the deficit savings — and his own authority to make the accounting change: 'I've decided to use current policy when it comes to cutting taxes,' he said. 'If you use current policy, they never expire.' The baseline change is crucial for Senate Republicans because under the budget blueprint they adopted earlier this year, the Finance Committee provisions in the bill can only increase the deficit by a maximum of $1.5 trillion. The bill now under consideration wouldn't comply under the old accounting method. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden , the top Finance Democrat, called it 'budget math as fake as Donald Trump's tan,' and said the GOP amounted to a 'nuclear' choice that would weaken the chamber's 60-vote filibuster. 'We're now operating in a world where the filibuster applies to Democrats but not to Republicans, and that's simply unsustainable given the triage that'll be required whenever the Trump era finally ends,' he said.
