How Medicaid cuts could affect Washington state
Potential cuts to Medicaid could worsen Washington state's multibillion-dollar budget shortfall and threaten health benefits for nearly 2 million Washingtonians, state officials warn.
Why it matters: A budget resolution that the Republican-controlled U.S. House passed last week looks to cut up to $2 trillion from the federal budget over 10 years, with Medicaid a likely target for up to $880 billion of those cuts.
The big picture: The safety net program serves nearly 73 million Americans who could face coverage and benefit losses, Axios' April Rubin reports.
More than one-fifth of state residents rely on Medicaid for their health coverage.
What they're saying: Democrat Joe Fitzgibbon, Washington state's House majority leader, told reporters the cuts "would put at risk the lives of our constituents, particularly our poorest constituents."
If Congress follows through with such a plan, Washington state would have to either cut health care services or find state money to cover the loss, he told Axios.
That could prove difficult when the state faces its own estimated budget deficit of at least $10 billion.
Washington's members of Congress also sounded the alarm. U.S. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington) warned that seniors could be forced out of long-term care facilities, among other impacts.
"Hospitals will close their doors as this funding drops. Moms and babies will lose health care coverage," Murray said at a press conference Thursday.
Between the lines: The specific cuts that House Republicans would make to achieve their budget reduction targets — designed to help offset about $4.5 trillion in proposed tax cuts — remain unclear.
The resolution the House passed last week says $880 billion in savings would have to be found by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which oversees Medicaid, leaving few other options than cutting the health care program, the New York Times reported.
House GOP leaders have said they'd focus on weeding out fraud, waste and abuse in Medicaid, a sentiment echoed by President Trump.
What we're watching: Members of the GOP-controlled U.S. Senate have their own priorities, having advanced a narrower budget bill than what the U.S. House passed last week.
Both chambers would have to pass any budget plan before it could take effect.
State of play: The Washington state Health Care Authority, which runs the state's Medicaid program, told Axios it is "closely monitoring federal developments" — but "at this time, Washingtonians on Medicaid are not at risk of losing their coverage."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Used 'Disinformation' to Defend Change to Vaccine Schedule, Expert Says: Reports
The Department of Health and Human Services sent Congress a document that cited disputed studies and misrepresented other findings, according to NPR and KFF Health News The document was written in support of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change federal COVID vaccine recommendations for healthy kids and pregnant women 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' said Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of PediatricsThe Department of Health and Human Services sent Congress a document to support Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change federal vaccine recommendations that cited unpublished or disputed studies and misrepresented other findings, according to NPR and KFF Health News. In late May, Kennedy, who has a history of vaccine skepticism, announced on X that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) removed the COVID vaccine from the recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, while touting President Trump's Make America Healthy Again agenda. "It is so far out of left field that I find it insulting to our members of Congress that they would actually give them something like this. Congress members are relying on these agencies to provide them with valid information, and it's just not there," Dr. Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, told KFF Health News, the outlet that obtained the FAQ document. The outlet also reported that the document suggests a link between heart conditions like myocarditis or pericarditis and the COVID vaccine, but updated research suggests that connection has decreased with newer vaccine procedures. The document also left out multiple other peer-reviewed studies that show the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis is greater after getting sick with COVID for both vaccinated and non-vaccinated people than the risk of the same complications after vaccination alone, per KFF Health News. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. "There is no distortion of the studies in this document. The underlying data speaks for itself, and it raises legitimate safety concerns. HHS will not ignore that evidence or downplay it. We will follow the data and the science," a HHS spokesperson told KFF Health News. 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told KFF Health News. 'Either cherry-pick from good science or take junk science to support his premise — this has been his playbook for 20 years.' Read the original article on People
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump gives Homeland Security access to immigrant Medicaid data in Washington, AP reports
The Trump administration gave federal immigration authorities access to personal data on millions of Medicaid enrollees this week, including information from Washington, according to internal documents obtained by the Associated Press. Washington is one of a handful of states that allow undocumented immigrants to receive health benefits. The data transfer was ordered by two top advisers to U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., despite opposition from Medicaid officials who warned it may violate federal privacy laws. Records show that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) were given less than an hour on Tuesday to comply with the directive from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Emails and a memo obtained by the AP show that CMS officials tried to block the request, citing concerns under the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. However, Trump appointees overruled those objections. The information shared with DHS included names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and Medicaid claims data from enrollees in California, Washington, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. All of these areas offer state-funded Medicaid programs for non-U.S. citizens and have committed not to bill the federal government for those services. The timing of the transfer coincided with a ramp-up of federal immigration enforcement in Southern California, including raids involving National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles. The move is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to give immigration authorities access to more data on undocumented immigrants. In May, a federal judge declined to stop the IRS from sharing immigrant tax records with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). CMS announced last month it would begin reviewing Medicaid enrollment data from several states to ensure that federal funds were not being used to support coverage for individuals with 'unsatisfactory immigration status.' The review was triggered by Trump's February 19 executive order, 'Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders.' In response to the AP's reporting, California Gov. Gavin Newsom's office issued a statement calling the data transfer 'extremely concerning' and potentially unlawful. 'We deeply value the privacy of all Californians,' the statement read. Democratic U.S. Rep. Laura Friedman also voiced alarm, writing on X, 'We should never use a person's need to go to the doctor against them.' ACLU of Washington sent KIRO 7 News the following statement: 'We are still waiting for complete and detailed information, but it's clear that great harm has been done. That this data was shared with the federal government and with ICE is a gross violation of Washington residents' privacy, a violation of the promises HCA made to enrollees, and a flagrant misuse of this data. Washington immigrants enrolled in the Apple Health expansion program with the expectation they would receive critical services that we all need to thrive and that their personal data would be protected – and the state promised as such, publicly and on its website. That promise was not kept. The community and advocates have long demanded a risk analysis and mitigation plan to protect the privacy and well-being of enrollees, and the state has not taken meaningful action responsive to the request. The state must treat this moment with the urgency it deserves and protect communities who put their faith and trust in a system that promised to protect them.' In contrast, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Andrew Nixon, defended the action. 'HHS acted entirely within its legal authority,' he said, describing the data transfer as necessary to ensure only lawful residents receive Medicaid. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the department is working with CMS to 'ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits that are meant for law-abiding Americans.' Critics say the decision could have far-reaching consequences for both immigrant communities and the states that provide them with health coverage. Sara Vitolo, deputy director of Medicaid, authored a June 6 memo warning that sharing personal data with DHS could deter states from cooperating with future federal requests and expose them to legal risk. Vitolo also wrote that sharing the data would violate long-standing policy and federal law, which restricts CMS from distributing personal health information for non-Medicaid administration purposes. Despite those concerns, HHS leadership directed the data to be transferred by June 10. Former CMS officials described the decision as highly unusual. 'DHS has no role in anything related to Medicaid,' said Jeffrey Grant, a former CMS career employee. California, Illinois, and Washington provided CMS with the requested data. Other states that allow undocumented immigrants to access full Medicaid coverage — New York, Oregon, Minnesota, and Colorado — had not yet submitted information as of this week, according to a public health official familiar with the process. Newsom, whose state plans to freeze new enrollment into its immigrant health care program due to budget constraints, later said the data handover 'will jeopardize the safety, health, and security of those who will undoubtedly be targeted by this abuse.' Illinois is also planning to shut down its program next month for approximately 30,000 undocumented enrollees. Health officials in Illinois, Washington, and D.C. did not respond to AP's request for comment.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
After Trump restores fort names, it's time to end the silly renaming wars
After President Donald Trump restores the names of military bases that once honored Confederates, the left and the right need to call a name-change truce. During Tuesday's speech at Fort Bragg (formerly Liberty, and before that, Bragg again), Trump announced that his administration would be reviving the names of Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill and Fort Lee. Those forts were renamed during the left's crazed push, in the aftermath of the George Floyd protests in 2020, to purge public-property references to any figure it deemed controversial. Advertisement Much of the frenzy was a ridiculous exercise in woke revisionism: The hysteria got so bad that not even Teddy Roosevelt, a once-hero of progressivism, was safe. Trump has made his disdain for the whole gambit clear: One of his first acts as president was giving Mount McKinley its name back. But both the left and the right made the argument for nixing the names of traitorous Confederates from public property, especially in cases where the names were picked during the 1950s and '60s, purely out of hostility toward the Civil Rights movement. Advertisement So both sides should be happy to learn that the restored fort names technically won't honor Confederates. During Trump's first term, Congress passed the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act, which required the Pentagon's newly established Naming Commission to remove Confederate-linked names from Defense Department-owned property. So in order to give the forts their names back, the DOD is nodding to service members with identical surnames. That silly trick doesn't might go a bit too far: For instance, Fort Bragg is now named after a relatively unknown World War II private, Roland Bragg, instead of Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg. Advertisement Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters But many of the new honorees do merit the recognition: Fort Rucker will now be named after heroic World War I Capt. Edward W. Rucker, instead of Confederate brigade commander Col. Edmund Rucker; Fort Robert E. Lee will now be simply 'Fort Lee,' paying tribute to Army Private Fitz Lee, a black Medal of Honor recipient who served in the Spanish-American War. This seems a fair compromise: The bases no longer reference men who fought against the Union, but locals will be able to call the forts by their long-held names. And Trump's move makes a point — the ever-escalating, Orwellian push to scrub flawed men from the history books needs to stop. Advertisement Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were shelled out to change the fort names once, and a similar amount will presumably be spent changing them back. 'Round and 'round we go. In fact, every time any publicly owned building, street or base goes through this process, it's a costly, divisive mess. Without a cease-fire, it'll never stop; any man or woman deemed worthy of honoring today could be vilified tomorrow, as the standards and values of the time change. Enough is enough: By finding a solution that should satisfy both sides, Trump is offering an opportunity to end the expensive, renaming war the left started. An opportunity neither side should miss.
