Cuts to Medicaid funding will send ‘tidal wave' through Oklahoma's health care system
A medical provider gives a child a vaccine. (Photo by Ariel Skelley/Getty Photos) (This image cannot be republished unless you have a Getty subscription.)
There's been a lot of talk lately in Congress about cutting Medicaid. Known in Oklahoma as SoonerCare and SoonerSelect, Medicaid provides health coverage to low-income Oklahomans, including pregnant women, children, elderly Oklahomans, people with disabilities, veterans and families in need.
More than 900,000 Oklahomans — nearly 1 in 4 — depend on Medicaid to access the medical and behavioral health care they need.
As an OB-GYN with decades of experience caring for women and families in Oklahoma, I've seen firsthand what these programs have provided for so many families.
Medicaid pays for 52% of Oklahoma births and covers 47% of all Oklahoma children. Thanks to Medicaid, I've seen expectant mothers receive access to critical prenatal care and postpartum support they couldn't have afforded otherwise, ensuring better health outcomes for both moms and babies.
Medicaid plays a vital role in supporting the health and future of Oklahoma children. Children enrolled in Medicaid miss fewer school days, are more likely to graduate high school and become healthier adults. In a state where nearly half of our children rely on Medicaid, this is a lifeline we can't afford to lose.
Every year, Oklahoma receives $7 billion from Medicaid, 68% of the federal funding sent to our state. Think of it as an investment that pays dividends through health care savings and continued reinvestment in the community through salaries, taxes and the purchase of goods and services. Patients on Medicaid who have access to primary and preventative care services are less likely to end up in the ER, where health care costs are far more expensive.
Losing even a fraction of Oklahoma's Medicaid funding would create a substantial gap for our state and send a tidal wave through our interconnected health care system. When one part of the system fails, the issue doesn't disappear — the burden is simply shifted elsewhere.
Cutting Medicaid wouldn't just hurt patients; it could be detrimental to access to care in our state. These funds are a vital lifeline for rural hospitals, many of which are struggling to keep their doors open. Further cuts could strike a fatal blow to these hospitals, negatively affecting not only the health of these communities but also their economy, as many potential employers consider health care resources when expanding into new areas.
We can't overlook the hardworking physicians who would take a hit if Medicaid is cut. Many of those who serve a larger number of Medicaid patients — such as pediatricians, OB-GYNS, psychiatrists and family doctors — work on slim margins, and if Medicaid is cut, doctors could be forced to close their practices altogether.
The health of our state is worth protecting. Continuing to invest in Medicaid is the best way to ensure Oklahomans receive the care they deserve.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Medicaid Expands Access for Tribes Across 6 States
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Native American tribal clinics in six states have been granted new powers to provide Medicaid clinic services, giving 89 new tribes more health care access. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded the powers of the clinics by approving Medicaid State Plan Amendments, which allow Indian Health Service (IHS) and tribal clinics to provide services beyond a specific clinic site. Why It Matters According to CMS, Native American and Alaska Native individuals are more susceptible to chronic illness than other groups in the U.S. population. The expansion of Medicaid services means that tribal clinic service providers in the affected states are better equipped to deliver care in areas other than their clinics, such as remote residential areas. What To Know The expansion, which was announced on Friday, has increased Medicaid access in six states: Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. Washington and Mexico saw the highest number of tribes gain better access, with 29 and 22 tribes, respectively—more than half of the entire program. Eleven tribes in Minnesota will benefit, while nine each where identified in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Oregon. Stock image of a Medicaid Accepted Here sign. Stock image of a Medicaid Accepted Here sign. Getty Images The expansion works by granting existing facilities managed by IHS and tribal clinics the authority to perform Medicaid care services outside their "four walls," a requirement usually imposed on the IHS. This means that the clinics are able to provide care beyond the physical site, in other important places in the community such as homes and schools. There are over 2.9 million Native Americans in the U.S., and medical research has indicated that they are more susceptible to chronic illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer than other groups. During the height of the Coronavirus pandemic, Native American communities were some of the hardest hit by the infection. For example, the Navajo Nation, the largest Native American territory in the U.S. with over 173,600 residents, had the highest per capita infection rate in the country by May 2020. What People Are Saying Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a statement announcing the expansion: "Until last year, federal rules prevented IHS and Tribal Medicaid clinic services providers from delivering Medicaid clinic services to vulnerable Tribal patients outside the four walls of the clinic. "These approvals help vulnerable Americans get care when and where they need it most." What Happens Next Each state has 90 days to implement the expansion, according to letters sent to state authorities by CMS.
Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
‘Expensive and complicated': Most rural hospitals no longer deliver babies
Nine months after Monroe County Hospital in rural South Alabama closed its labor and delivery department in October 2023, Grove Hill Memorial Hospital in neighboring Clarke County also stopped delivering babies. Both hospitals are located in an agricultural swath of the state that's home to most of its poorest counties. Many residents of the region don't even have a nearby emergency department. Stacey Gilchrist is a nurse and administrator who's spent her 40-year career in Thomasville, a small town about 20 minutes north of Grove Hill. Thomasville's hospital shut down entirely last September over financial difficulties. Thomasville Regional hadn't had a labor and delivery unit for years, but women in labor still showed up at its ER when they knew they wouldn't make it to the nearest delivering hospital. "We had several close calls where people could not make it even to Grove Hill when they were delivering there," Gilchrist told Stateline shortly after the Thomasville hospital closed. She recalled how Thomasville nurses worked to save the lives of a mother and baby who'd delivered early in their ER, as staff waited for neonatal specialists to arrive by ambulance from a distant delivering hospital. "It would give you chills to see what all they had to do. They had to get inventive," she said, but the mother and baby survived. Now many families must drive more than an hour to reach the nearest birthing hospital. Nationwide, most rural hospitals no longer offer obstetric services. Since the end of 2020, more than 100 rural hospitals have stopped delivering babies, according to a new report from the Center for Healthcare Quality & Payment Reform, a national policy center focused on solving health care issues through overhauling insurance payments. Fewer than 1,000 rural hospitals nationwide still have labor and delivery services. Across the nation, two rural labor and delivery departments shut their doors every month on average, said Harold Miller, the center's president and CEO. "It's the perfect storm," Miller told Stateline. "The number of births are going down, everything is more expensive in rural areas, health insurance plans don't cover the cost of births, and hospitals don't have the resources to offset those losses because they're losing money on other services, too." Staffing shortages, low Medicaid reimbursement payments and declining birth rates have contributed to the closures. Some states have responded by changing how Medicaid funds are spent, by allowing the opening of freestanding birth centers, or by encouraging urban-based obstetricians to open satellite clinics in rural areas. Yet the losses continue. Thirty-six states have lost at least one rural labor and delivery unit since the end of 2020, according to the report. Sixteen have lost three or more. Indiana has lost 12, accounting for a third of its rural hospital labor and delivery units. In rural counties the loss of hospital-based obstetric care is associated with increases in births in hospital emergency rooms, studies have found. The share of women without adequate prenatal care also increases in rural counties that lose hospital obstetric services. And researchers have seen an increase in preterm births - when a baby is born three or more weeks early - following rural labor and delivery closures. Babies born too early have higher rates of death and disability. Births are expensive The decline in hospital-based maternity care has been decades in the making. Traditionally, hospitals lose money on obstetrics. It costs more to maintain a labor and delivery department than a hospital gets paid by insurance to deliver a baby. This is especially true for rural hospitals, which see fewer births and therefore less revenue than urban areas. "It is expensive and complicated for any hospital to have labor and delivery because it's a 24/7 service," said Miller. A labor and delivery unit must always have certain staff available or on call, including a physician who can perform cesarean sections, nurses with obstetric training, and an anesthetist for C-sections and labor pain management. "There's a minimum fixed cost you incur (as a hospital) to have all of that, regardless of how many births there are," Miller said. In most cases, insurers don't pay hospitals to maintain that standby capacity; they're paid per birth. Hospitals cover their losses on obstetrics with revenue they get from more lucrative services. For a larger urban hospital with thousands of births a year, the fixed costs might be manageable. For smaller rural hospitals, they're much harder to justify. Some have had to jettison their obstetric services just to keep the doors open. "You can't subsidize a losing service when you don't have profit coming in from other services," Miller said. And staffing is a persistent problem. Harrison County Hospital in Corydon, Indiana, a small town on the border with Kentucky, ended its obstetric services in March after hospital leaders said they were unable to recruit an obstetric provider. It was the only delivering hospital in the county, averaging about 400 births a year. And most providers don't want to remain on call 24/7, a particular problem in rural regions that might have just one or two physicians trained in obstetrics. In many rural areas, family physicians with obstetrical training fill the role of both obstetricians and general practitioners. Ripple effects Even before Harrison County Hospital suspended its obstetrical services, some patients were already driving more than 30 minutes for care, the Indiana Capital Chronicle reported. The closure means the drive could be 50 minutes to reach a hospital with a labor and delivery department, or to see providers for prenatal visits. Longer drive times can be risky, resulting in more scheduled inductions and C-sections because families are scared to risk going into labor naturally and then facing a harrowing hourlong drive to the hospital. Having fewer labor and delivery units could further burden ambulance services already stretched thin in rural areas. And hospitals often serve as a hub for other maternity-related services that help keep mothers and babies healthy. "Other things we've seen in rural counties that have hospital-based OB care is that you're more likely to have other supportive things, like maternal mental health support, postpartum groups, lactation support, access to doula care and midwifery services," said Katy Kozhimannil, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, whose research focuses in part on maternal health policy with a focus on rural communities. State action Medicaid, the state-federal public insurance for people with low incomes, pays for nearly half of all births in rural areas nationwide. And women who live in rural communities and small towns are more likely to be covered by Medicaid than women in metro areas. Experts say one way to save rural labor and delivery in many places would be to bump up Medicaid payments. As congressional Republicans debate President Donald Trump's tax and spending plan, they're considering which portions of Medicaid to slash to help pay for the bill's tax cuts. Maternity services aren't on the chopping block. But if Congress reduces federal funding for some portions of Medicaid, states - and hospitals - will have to figure out how to offset that loss. The ripple effects could translate into less money for rural hospitals overall, meaning some may no longer be able to afford labor and delivery services. "Cuts to Medicaid are going to be felt disproportionately in rural areas where Medicaid makes up a higher proportion of labor and delivery and for services in general," Kozhimannil said. "It is a hugely important payer at rural hospitals, and for birth in particular." And though private insurers often pay more than Medicaid for birth services, Miller believes states shouldn't let companies off the hook. "The data shows that in many cases, commercial insurance plans operating in a state are not paying adequately for labor and delivery," Miller said. "Hospitals will tell you it's not just Medicaid; it's also commercial insurance." He'd like to see state insurance regulators pressure private insurance to pay more. More than 40% of births in rural communities are covered by private insurance. Yet there's no one magic bullet that will fix every rural hospital's bottom line, Miller said: "For every hospital I've talked to, it's been a different set of circumstances." _____ _____ Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Chicago Tribune
3 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program — would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Republicans have cited what they call the out-of-control spending in federal programs to explain their rationale for the changes proposed in the legislation. 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
