logo
Illinois mulls ending a health program for some immigrants living in the US illegally

Illinois mulls ending a health program for some immigrants living in the US illegally

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — Gov. JB Pritzker's positioning of Illinois as a sanctuary state, a welcoming port for immigrants from across the globe, hit the hard reality of state budgeting this spring.
The Democrat is a leading critic of President Donald Trump's administration, especially its immigration policies. But facing a budget shortfall for the upcoming fiscal year, Pritzker's proposed $55.2 billion fiscal plan would cut part of a four-year-old program providing health coverage to some adults regardless of immigration status. Illinois is one of seven states and the District of Columbia to offer such a program.
California, which last year one-upped Illinois by offering health care to all adult immigrants, has run into a similar revenue problem and plans to halt enrollment in its program.
Rep. Barbara Hernandez, a suburban Chicago Democrat, said the program helps many families.
'There's a huge need in the undocumented community that cannot get health care otherwise,' she said.
If Democrats, who control the Illinois General Assembly, can't find money to continue the plan — estimated to cost $404 million this year — tens of thousands of migrants will be left without Medicaid-style health coverage.
It might not be just a question of revenue, but of will, given threats by congressional Republicans. As the GOP attempts to cut spending, including Medicaid, to make Trump's hoped-for tax cuts affordable, states' immigrant health programs will be in the crosshairs.
What is the program?
In 2020, Illinois became the first state to offer needs-based health insurance to all older adults, including low-income migrants who entered the country illegally, when it introduced Health Benefits for Immigrant Seniors, covering those 65 and older. In 2021, it introduced a second program which became Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults, for immigrants aged 42 to 64.
Enrollment in both programs has been halted, but the seniors' program will continue for current enrollees after June 30, while the program for those younger than 65 will end.
What's happening elsewhere?
California, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington, D.C. also provide public health insurance to adults, regardless of immigration status, according to the Los Angeles-based National Immigration Law Center. Colorado and Washington provide insurance obtained via the private market with state financial support. Like Illinois, New York covers older migrants with a public program.
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who like Pritzker has presidential ambitions, last week announced a freeze on enrollment in that state's immigrant health care program. Costs ran $2.7 billion over forecast for 1.6 million participants.
How big — and costly — is the Illinois program?
There are about 31,500 program participants in the under-65 crowd and the cost to cover them this year is estimated at $404 million. The two programs together enroll over 43,300 at an estimated cost of $538 million this year. With an estimated 400,000 immigrants without legal permission to live in Illinois, supporters point out that participation is likely far below eligibility.
Why is free health care available to migrants?
Supporters say the programs ensure a healthier state. People are more able to work. They're more likely to visit doctors and catch small problems before they become catastrophes. They can manage chronic illnesses such as diabetes and stave off new health concerns.
And they're not exactly getting it for free, proponents maintain. Immigrant-led households in Illinois pay $8.6 billion a year in state and local taxes, according to a 2024 University of Illinois at Chicago study.
'This argument of immigrants leeching or taking resources — they're actually more likely to be working and additionally are absolutely paying taxes for which they are not receiving benefits in return,' said Tovia Siegel of The Resurrection Project, a Chicago-based immigrant justice advocacy group.
Illinois Republicans aren't on board. Rep. Ryan Spain, a deputy House minority leader from Peoria, points out that Congressional Republicans are wondering why states complaining about federal cuts to Medicaid somehow have enough in state coffers to cover the immigrant programs.
'The high cost of the program outweighs some of the arguments proponents make,' Spain said. 'It's an unaffordable beacon to attract additional illegal immigrants to the state of Illinois.'
Are there tangible cost savings?
The programs have saved Illinois hospitals considerable sums, according to a study released this month.
People without insurance often treat the emergency room, where costs can by sky-high, as their doctor's office. Hospitals often eat those bills.
Winnipeg Jets Game Days
On Winnipeg Jets game days, hockey writers Mike McIntyre and Ken Wiebe send news, notes and quotes from the morning skate, as well as injury updates and lineup decisions. Arrives a few hours prior to puck drop.
A study by the Embodying Racism Lab at the University of Chicago found that since the Health Benefits for Immigrants programs started, hospitals' bad debt — payment owed for services which administrators consider 'unlikely or unattainable' — fell by 15%, the equivalent of $1.5 million per year per hospital.
'Our findings suggest these programs have the potential to both improve equity in healthcare access and ease the financial burden on hospitals that serve all residents of Illinois,' the study reported.
What are lawmakers doing?
Talks about putting together a state budget are just warming up, even though the Legislature's spring session ends May 31. Sen. Elgie Sims of Chicago, the Senate Democrats' appropriations leader, said the health program is one of many worthy endeavors vying for a place in the spending column.
Matthew Lopas, director of state advocacy for the National Immigration Law Center, issued a challenge to Pritzker and the General Assembly to 'hold the line and remain committed' during 'a time of extremist politicians who are out there scapegoating immigrants.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US pediatricians' new COVID-19 shot recommendations differ from CDC advice
US pediatricians' new COVID-19 shot recommendations differ from CDC advice

Toronto Star

time2 hours ago

  • Toronto Star

US pediatricians' new COVID-19 shot recommendations differ from CDC advice

NEW YORK (AP) — For the first time in 30 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics is substantially diverging from U.S. government vaccine recommendations. The group's new COVID-19 recommendations — released Tuesday — come amid a tumultuous year for public health, as vaccine skeptics have come into power in the new Trump administration and government guidance has become increasingly confusing.

US pediatricians' new COVID-19 shot recommendations differ from CDC advice
US pediatricians' new COVID-19 shot recommendations differ from CDC advice

Winnipeg Free Press

time2 hours ago

  • Winnipeg Free Press

US pediatricians' new COVID-19 shot recommendations differ from CDC advice

NEW YORK (AP) — For the first time in 30 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics is substantially diverging from U.S. government vaccine recommendations. The group's new COVID-19 recommendations — released Tuesday — come amid a tumultuous year for public health, as vaccine skeptics have come into power in the new Trump administration and government guidance has become increasingly confusing. This isn't going to help, acknowledged Dr. James Campbell, vice chair of the AAP infectious diseases committee. 'It is going to be somewhat confusing. But our opinion is we need to make the right choices for children to protect them,' he added. The AAP is strongly recommending COVID-19 shots for children ages 6 months to 2 years. Shots also are advised for older children if parents want their kids vaccinated, the AAP said. That differs from guidance established under U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which doesn't recommend the shots for healthy children of any age but says kids may get the shots in consultation with physicians. Children ages 6 months to 2 years are at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19, and it was important that recommendations continue to emphasize the need for them to get vaccinated, said Campbell, a University of Maryland infectious diseases expert. Vaccinations also are recommended for older children who have chronic lung diseases or other conditions that put them at higher risk for severe disease, the AAP said. In a statement, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said 'the AAP is undermining national immunization policymaking with baseless political attacks.' He accused the group of putting commercial interests ahead of public health, noting that vaccine manufacturers have been donors to the AAP's Friends of Children Fund. The fund is currently paying for projects on a range of topics, including health equity and prevention of injuries and deaths from firearms. The 95-year-old Itasca, Illinois-based organization has issued vaccination recommendations for children since the 1930s. In 1995, it synced its advice with recommendations made by the federal government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There have been a few small differences between AAP and CDC recommendations since then. For example, the AAP has advised that children get HPV vaccinations starting at age 9; the CDC says that's OK but has emphasized vaccinations at ages 11 and 12. But in 30 years, this is the first time the recommendations have differed 'in a significant or substantial way,' Campbell said. Until recently, the CDC — following recommendations by infectious disease experts — has been urging annual COVID-19 boosters for all Americans ages 6 months and older. But in May, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that COVID-19 vaccines are no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. A few days later, the CDC issued language that healthy children may get the shots, but that there was no longer a 'should' recommendation. The idea that healthy older kids may be able to skip COVID-19 boosters has been brewing for some time among public health experts. As the COVID-19 pandemic has waned, experts have increasingly discussed the possibility of focusing vaccination efforts on people 65 and older — who are among those most as risk for death and hospitalization. A CDC expert panel in June was set to make recommendations about the fall shots. Among the options the panel was considering was whether suggest shots for high-risk groups but still giving lower-risk people the choice to get vaccinated. But Kennedy bypassed the group, and also decided to dismiss the 17-member panel and appoint his own, smaller panel, that included vaccine skeptics. Kennedy also later excluded the AAP, the American Medical Association and other top medical organizations from working with the advisers to establish vaccination recommendations. Kennedy's new vaccine panel has yet to vote on COVID-19 shot recommendations. The panel did endorse continuing to recommend fall flu vaccinations, but also made a decision that led to another notable difference with the AAP. The new advisory panel voted that people should only get flu vaccines that are packaged as single doses and do not contain the preservative thimerosal. The AAP said there is no evidence of harm from the preservative, and recommended doctors use any licensed flu vaccine product that's appropriate for the patient. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store