
What the Future of Medicaid and Medicare Could Look Like
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
On this day 60 years ago, the Medicaid and Medicare programs were signed into law by former President Lyndon B. Johnson. It was July 30, 1965, and both programs were established within the Social Security Act.
Designed as federal programs to assist the elderly, disabled individuals and those with low income, both have grown into the largest sources of health care coverage in the country.
Tens of millions of Americans rely on the programs, and they have protected the country's most vulnerable populations for over six decades now.
Before the programs were established, around half of all Americans over 65 had no means of medical insurance, forcing them to pay hefty prices or forgo care entirely. Nowadays, that figure has dropped significantly.
"Medicare and Medicaid have been enormous policy successes that have increased Americans' health and longevity while improving financial protections for older Americans," Lauren Nicholas, a health economist at University of Colorado, Denver, told Newsweek.
"These programs also support our medical workforce through stable funding and by underwriting graduate medical education," she added.
Inevitably, the programs have been shaped by different governmental administrations over the years, and as the programs turn 60, many more political changes are set to alter the course of Medicaid and Medicare's future.
In light of the programs' landmark anniversary, Newsweek has spoken to experts about what is in store for the programs in the coming years during the term of President Donald Trump.
Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva
Cutting Down on "Waste, Fraud and Abuse"
Starting with the appointment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a key focus of the Trump administration has been removing "waste, fraud and abuse" from the federal health care programs.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from 2024 found that in 2023, $100 billion was spent in "improper payments"––payments that "should not have been made or were made in the incorrect amount"––across the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
GAO said this represented 43 percent of the governmentwide total of estimated "improper payments" that agencies reported for that year.
In order to reduce the incidence of these "improper payments," the Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency proposed measures such as an initial validation of applicants' identities, eliminating self-certification, and monitoring the programs through improved technology.
Analysis of 2024 enrollment data also revealed there were 2.8 million Americans either enrolled in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in multiple states, or simultaneously enrolled in both Medicaid or CHIP and a subsidized Affordable Care Act (ACA) Exchange plan, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
As a result, CMS said it would take action to ensure individuals are only enrolled in one program, vowing to "continue to crush fraud, waste, and abuse in America's health care programs."
Although, while in principle boosting efficiency and transparency while reducing costs, these changes may also have less desirable impacts on beneficiaries in the future, experts have warned.
"Research suggests that the people who will lose coverage from this policy will mostly be working or have serious health problems and should still be in the program," Dr. Benjamin Sommers, a professor of health care economics at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told Newsweek.
"The 'savings' here are not from reducing fraud, but from kicking people off of Medicaid to become uninsured and struggle to afford medical care," he added.
"It's a perennial political motto and goal," Tim Westmoreland, a retired professor of health law and policy from Georgetown Law, told Newsweek.
"Politicians often say that they are making eligibility requirements more stringent in order to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, but research has shown repeatedly that this mostly disqualifies people who would be eligible if they could find their way through complex mazes of paperwork," he added.
He went on to say it saves "comparatively little money"—the real savings come from "investigating and prosecuting providers, for example, doctors who overcharge, or pharmaceutical companies that game their prices, or medical equipment suppliers who don't deliver, or managed care companies that underserve."
Newsweek has contacted CMS via email for comment.
"Big Beautiful Bill" Cuts and Requirements
Medicare and Medicaid's 60th birthday comes only a few weeks after the passing of Trump's major budget legislation—the "One Big Beautiful Bill."
The bill includes the largest funding cuts to the two federal programs in U.S. history, and Medicaid will bear the brunt of this with $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade.
The White House has said the bill "protects and strengthens Medicaid for those who rely on it—pregnant women, children, seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families—while eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse."
The Trump administration said that by "eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse" in the Medicaid program, resources can then be refocused on "providing better care for those whom the program was designed to serve: pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, low-income seniors, and other vulnerable low-income families."
Overall, the bill "protects Medicaid for the truly vulnerable," the White House added, and said that those with disabilities receiving Medicaid "will receive no loss or change in coverage."
On the subject of Medicare, the White House said the federal program "had not been touched in this bill—absolutely nothing in the bill reduces spending on Medicare benefits."
"This legislation does not make a single cut to welfare programs—it safeguards and protects these programs for all eligible Americans," the White House added.
In regard to Medicaid, the bill will see the introduction of work requirements, so those eligible for the program will have to work a total of 80 hours a month, unless exempt.
The bill eliminates enhanced federal matching funds for Medicaid services provided to undocumented immigrants—a measure that affects states offering such coverage, including California, New York, Illinois, Washington, New Jersey, Oregon, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, Rhode Island, Maine, and Vermont.
All 40 states that expanded the Medicaid service under the ACA will also be affected by the bill. They will face a reduced federal match rate, requiring states to shoulder a greater share of the costs.
A number of other changes to the Medicaid program include a restriction in funding for Medicaid-covered family planning services that offer abortions, like Planned Parenthood, and a requirement for eligibility to be redetermined every 6 months instead of every 12 months.
Fewer changes have been made to Medicare. These include a narrowing of eligibility to exclude undocumented immigrants and anticipated reductions in federal reimbursements to health care providers, which could affect which prescription drugs are covered by the program.
How these changes will shape the future of the programs is not overly positive, according to experts that spoke to Newsweek, and there have been frequent warnings that millions of Americans will lose their health coverage as a result.
Paul Shafer, a professor in health law, policy and management at Boston University, deemed the changes to Medicaid "potentially dramatic," telling Newsweek "millions of Americans will lose Medicaid and, with it, their access to health care."
"Millions of people will likely lose coverage due to increasing red tape from work requirements and more frequent eligibility checks," Sommers added.
"States will lose one of the ways they currently pay for their share of the Medicaid expansion, so we will likely see additional cuts from states that may lead to fewer people covered and reduced benefits."
Lower income people will be most impacted, Mark Pauly, a professor of health care management at Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, told Newsweek.
"They will have to jump more hoops to keep Medicaid insurance—some who are not sick may decide it is not worth the trouble," he added.
On the subject of work requirements, Dr. Susan Goold, a professor of internal medicine and health management and policy at the University of Michigan, told Newsweek evidence has shown that, under work requirement programs, "employment does not increase, people who are eligible are nonetheless dropped, and administering the program costs states money."
"Changes to the federal share of Medicaid spending will cause states to either cut enrollment, cut benefits, cut payments to providers or greatly increase their spending," she said.
While Medicaid is more directly affected by the bill than Medicare, Pauly said that "Medicare's time will come when provider reimbursements are cut so much that fewer doctors will accept it."
Goold added that Medicare will also be indirectly affected by the bill, such as via increases in income tax deductions, including for seniors on social security, which "means less revenue to both Medicare and Social Security."
"That speeds up the trajectory toward insolvency, unless future cuts are made to benefits," she said.
Also, provider payment rate changes may "make it more difficult for Medicare enrollees to find providers," Goold added.
At a time when Medicaid and Medicare popularity is at all-time high, the new tax bill was found to be somewhat unfavorable throughout the county, according to a KFF study, suggesting the federal health programs could have a rocky future as public opinion and policy decision clash.
Shafer said: "This bill has been described as 'the biggest rollback in federal support for health coverage ever,' when families are still struggling to bounce back from years of higher inflation and the economy is showing signs of slowing down."
Hospital Closures
As Medicaid cuts will reduce the number of Americans with insurance, there will be "fewer people who can pay for health care, making it harder for hospitals, nursing homes, and other practices to stay in business," Nicholas said.
"We are already starting to see facilities cut back service lines and staffing that they don't think that they can maintain," she added.
Shafer warned that "stopping the enforcement of minimum staffing levels in nursing homes means that we won't see patient safety and care improve in ways it could have, keeping seniors at risk in understaffed facilities."
Nicholas said that 25 percent of nursing homes are expected to close as a result, which could "leave frail older adults who need a lot of care with nowhere to go."
"I worry that Americans will see the first signs of these changes through their pocketbooks and their own health, having to wait longer to get doctor appointments and losing access to local hospitals and providers," she added.
Estimates from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has suggested that over 300 rural hospitals could close with all but four states affected.
The White House said that rural hospitals comprise 7 percent of all hospital spending on Medicaid, "illustrating that they have not benefited from the massive increase in waste, fraud, and abuse under the Biden administration."
"By strengthening Medicaid, we are making more resources available for vulnerable populations and safety net providers, like rural hospitals," the White House said. "We are expanding rural hospital protection, providing targeted funds for rural care, and giving states flexibility to support local providers."
While $50 billion has been allocated in Trump's bill over five years to all states for a variety of purposes, including payments to rural facilities, the options states have to protect rural health care are not without their complexities, experts previously told Newsweek.
The Future For Medicare and Medicaid
In light of the significant, even historic, changes being made to the programs under the Trump administration, the future of Medicaid and Medicare remains uncertain.
Aside from major government changes, CMS has also been announcing further changes to both programs in recent weeks, largely focused on reducing federal taxpayer costs and clamping down on issues that fall under the umbrella of "waste, fraud and abuse."
This includes an end to expanded continuous eligibility for Medicaid, which allowed some people to remain enrolled for a period of time, even if they were no longer qualified, as CMS vowed to "restore accountability and safeguard the long-term integrity of Medicaid and CHIP."
CMS also said in May it would "close a Medicaid tax loophole exploited by states to inflate federal payments to states, and free up state funds for non-Medicaid purposes," as well as launching a "significant expansion of its auditing efforts for Medicare Advantage (MA) plans."
The impact of all of these changes remains to be seen, but one thing that appears to be quite clear is that, while less Americans may have access to the programs in the years to come, Medicaid and Medicare will continue to remain critical to many.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Most adults do not plan on getting COVID-19 shot amid vaccine policy changes
More than half of American adults — 59 percent — say they do not expect to get the COVID-19 booster shot this autumn, according to new poll findings from healthcare policy group KFF. Poll results show that 23 percent of U.S. adults say they will 'probably not' get the vaccine, while 37 percent will 'definitely not' get the shot. Americans who said they will 'probably' or 'definitely' not get the shot were also more likely to say they think changes to U.S. vaccine policy are 'major' and will make people less safe. The data comes as the Trump administration makes drastic changes to the country's vaccine policy. Secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced earlier this year that the COVID-19 shot will no longer be recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. Kennedy also abruptly fired all 17 members of an independent vaccine advisory panel for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in June. He then replaced the panel with eight hand-picked appointees, many of whom have expressed vaccine skepticism in the past. Adults who identify as Republicans are far less likely to plan on getting the vaccine compared to those who identify as Democrats. About six out of 10 Republicans said they would 'definitely not' get the shot compared to about one out of 10 Democrats, according to the poll. White adults are the most likely to say that they are against getting the vaccine once the colder months arrive with about four out of 10 admitting they will 'definitely not' get the shot. Meanwhile, 32 percent of Black adults say they will 'definitely not' get the COVID-19 vaccine this fall, along with 30 percent of adults who identify as Hispanic. Adults between the ages of 30 and 49 are the most likely to say that they do not plan on getting the vaccine, with 42 percent of that age group saying they will 'definitely not' get the shot in the fall. The U.S. appears to be experiencing another summer wave of COVID-19 cases. As of July 29, COVID-19 infections are growing or likely growing in 40 states, including Florida, Texas, and New York, according to the CDC. The KFF poll was conducted via a national representative survey of about 1,300 people between July 8-14.


Fast Company
30 minutes ago
- Fast Company
A Medicare experiment could change who gets Ozempic
If a new experiment pans out, Medicaid and Medicare could begin covering the costly weight loss drugs that price out many Americans who might want to try them. After killing a Biden-era plan with the same goal, the Trump administration is working on a five-year pilot program that would allow state Medicaid programs and Medicare's prescription plan to opt into covering drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy, Zepbound and Mounjaro for 'weight management,' The Washington Post reports. In its final months, the Biden administration proposed expanding Medicaid and Medicare coverage for popular weight loss drugs, extending it to roughly 7.5 million people enrolled in those programs. In April, the Trump administration tossed that plan – a move that was somewhat expected given Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s vocal opposition to the weight loss drugs that have taken America by storm. Now, something very similar appears to be back on the table. Differences of opinion Kennedy's view is at odds with other members of the Trump administration, including Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Oz, a former surgeon best known as a daytime television personality prior to joining the federal government, has long boosted weight loss drugs like Ozempic. 'I'll respect you no matter what your weight might be, but for those who want to lose a few pounds, Ozempic and other semaglutide medications can be a big help,' Oz said in a social media post in 2023. 'We need to make it as easy as possible for people to meet their health goals, period.' Oz has also been paid to promote the drugs in the past. In 2019, Ozempic maker Novo Nordisk sponsored a nine-minute long infomercial on Oz's daytime talk show praising the benefits of using Ozempic for Type 2 diabetes. On the other side of the coin, Kennedy at HHS is staunchly opposed to weight loss drugs like Ozempic and has made misleading claims about the class of drugs in the past. 'They're counting on selling it to Americans because we're so stupid and so addicted to drugs,' Kennedy said in an interview he shared on Instagram last year. Kennedy, a prominent figure in anti-vaccine circles before joining the Trump administration, has a long track record of elevating health conspiracy theories, even while promoting other common sense ideas around health and wellness. Kennedy, who opposes the use of many prescription medications, believes that the prominence of processed foods in the American diet is a root cause of many of the country's health woes. What is the status now? While Medicaid and Medicare don't evenly cover GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic for weight loss, 13 state Medicaid programs do offer coverage to treat obesity. For people on Medicaid and Medicare, coverage is much more widely available when GLP-1 drugs are prescribed to Type 2 diabetes. The Washington Post reports that the trial program is slated to start in April 2026 for Medicaid and in January 2027 for Medicare. The program is connected to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, which experiments with new ways to lower costs and deliver coverage for people enrolled in those subsidized insurance programs. According to documents viewed by the Post, the program has yet to be finalized. Whether it goes into effect or not, the experimental plan to extend coverage shows that the anti-Ozempic faction of the Trump administration might find itself overruled when it comes to the weight loss drug.


Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
UI Health ends gender-affirming pediatric surgery as Illinois joins federal lawsuit against Trump administration
Another Chicago hospital has ended gender-affirming pediatric surgery amid threats to its federal funding. But Illinois and 15 other states are fighting back in a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration for 'intimidating providers' into denying such care. On Friday, UI Health became the latest hospital to suspend gender-affirming surgical procedures for adolescents effective immediately, according to an announcement posted on the hospital's website. 'After careful review of recent federal government actions, UI Health has made the following changes to its gender-affirming surgical services,' the health system posted. 'Effective Aug. 1, 2025, UI Health has suspended gender-affirming surgical procedures for patients under age 19. Any patient working toward or scheduled for surgery will need to postpone surgery until they reach age 19.' UI Health is an academic health system associated with the University of Illinois Chicago. Its main facility is the 438-bed University of Illinois Hospital – the state's only public general hospital – which is located on Taylor Street at the center of the Illinois Medical District. In response to a request for comment Friday, UI Health forwarded its posted announcement and added a clarifying statement, leaving the door open to gender-affirming adolescent surgery in the future — if allowed by federal policy. 'We recognize the importance of gender-affirming care in supporting the health and well-being of our patients,' UI Health said in the statement. 'We are committed to working closely with affected individuals and families to ensure continuity of care and support. UI Health remains steadfast in its mission to provide compassionate, inclusive, and patient-centered care for all. We are closely monitoring federal updates to determine if or when to resume these services to patients under age 19.' The move by UI Health to suspend gender-affirming pediatric surgeries follows similar recent actions by other major Chicago hospitals. On July 18, UChicago Medicine announced it was discontinuing all gender-affirming pediatric care, while Rush University System for Health 'paused' hormonal care to new patients under the age of 18 beginning July 1. A January 28 executive action by President Donald Trump precipitated the gender-affirming care policy changes for hospitals across the U.S. Trump's order to prevent children under 19 from undergoing 'chemical and surgical mutilation' threatened to withhold federal research grants as well as Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement for institutions that provide such pediatric gender care services. The impact was immediate for some hospitals, with Lurie Children's Hospital pausing gender-affirming surgeries for patients younger than 19 in February, a policy which remains in place. Meanwhile, UI Health allegedly canceled an Illinois teenager's gender-affirming chest surgery, according to a February filing in a Maryland federal court. In the case, which is ongoing, the teen's mother said in a declaration the UI Health surgeon called her the day after Trump's executive order was issued to say the hospital 'was worried about losing millions of dollars in funding' and would not allow them to proceed with the scheduled surgery. On Friday, Illinois joined 15 other states in suing Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Justice Department for denying access to gender-affirming care for patients under 19. The Trump administration is 'intimidating providers into ceasing care through threats of civil and criminal prosecution,' according to the lawsuit filed in Massachusetts federal court. 'These threats have no basis in law,' the lawsuit states. 'No federal law prohibits, much less criminalizes, the provision or receipt of gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents. In fact, federal healthcare programs have reimbursed the provision of such care for years.' The lawsuit is seeking to declare Trump's order unconstitutional and unlawful, and to set aside subsequent federal actions targeting doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies that provide 'medically necessary' gender-affirming care to adolescents. rchannick@