Michigan organizations speak on possible impact of federal Medicaid cuts
House Republicans are debating a federal spending bill that would cut at least $880 billion over the next 10 years from energy and health care programs, like Medicaid.
Metro Detroit organizers, including Danielle Atkinson with Mothering Justice, say those decisions could have major local impacts.
"When we're talking about these cuts, these drastic cuts, we're talking about really the difference between thriving and surviving," said Atkinson.
The Trump administration's "big, beautiful bill" looks to offer nearly $4.5 trillion in tax breaks. If the law passes Congress, it could freeze the proposed provider tax that some states use to help pay for large portions of their Medicaid programs.
A Michigan Department of Health and Human Services report found that if the cuts go through, nearly 750,000 Michiganders could lose their healthcare coverage.
"Your access to healthcare in this country is facilitated by your insurance coverage, and your ability to have healthcare and be healthy completely affects your ability to participate in economic, social, and civic life, and have equal opportunity," said Merissa Kovach, political director at ACLU Michigan.
Organizers say the demographics most at risk with the cuts are already some of our most vulnerable: pregnant women, people with disabilities and seniors.
"We have to make sure that healthcare is affordable, accessible, and that there aren't barriers to entry," said Atkinson.
With one in four Michiganders on Medicaid, Kovach says a slash in government funds could place a massive strain on an already struggling health system.
"We will see hospitals close, and that is going to be many hundreds of thousands of Michiganders' direct line to being able to access healthcare," said Kovach.
"If we can't take care of ourselves, if we can't take care of our children, we're looking at just a really horrible future," said Atkinson.
While lawmakers are discussing the bill on the congressional floor, it is unknown if it will make it out of the House chamber before Speaker Mike Johnson's Memorial Day deadline.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
28 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Israel-Backed Gaza Aid Group Suspends Operations for Second Day
An Israel- and US-backed mechanism to distribute food in Gaza suspended operations for a second day following a series of deadly incidents near its sites that drew international criticism. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a Swiss-based nonprofit, launched in Gaza last week following a months-long Israeli blockade of the territory, and says it has handed out enough food staples for millions of meals. But the roll-out has been dogged by overcrowding and at least one incident in which Israeli forces, citing a security threat, fired toward Palestinians headed to a GHF aid center.
Medscape
32 minutes ago
- Medscape
Catching Resistance Early: Can New Breast Cancer Drug Help?
CHICAGO — Can spotting an emerging ESR1 mutation early and changing first-line drugs before progression improve outcomes in patients with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer? Interim findings from the SERENA-6 trial suggest that may be the case. Patients who switched from a first-line aromatase inhibitor to camizestrant, an investigational next-generation oral selective estrogen-receptor degrader, at the first signs of an emerging ESR1 mutation demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival compared with those who continued their initial regimen. Notably, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing allowed investigators to identify ESR1 mutations, which emerge at the time of disease progression in about 40% of patients on a first-line aromatase inhibitor and lead to treatment resistance. Camizestrant, which has shown activity in patients who develop ESR1 mutations, helped improve first-line outcomes and has 'potential to become a new treatment strategy,' according to co-principal investigator Nicholas Turner, MD, PhD, professor and honorary consultant in medical oncology at the Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England, who presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting. Results were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine . This trial also demonstrated 'the clinical utility of ctDNA monitoring to detect and treat emerging resistance in breast cancer,' said Turner. While praising the findings, others were not convinced that the SERENA-6 results warrant a change in practice yet. 'Based on first-line progression-free survival alone, this could represent a new regulatory approval path,' said invited discussant Angela DeMichele, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. But, DeMichele cautioned, 'I cannot recommend the SERENA-6 strategy at this time.' One key reason, DeMichele noted, is that it's too early to tell whether this strategy improves overall survival. If camizestrant is approved based on progression-free survival and quality of life, DeMichele wondered, is it worth going through the ctDNA testing process if the drug doesn't help patients live longer? Paolo Tarantino, MD, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School in Boston, echoed this sentiment in a tweet on X: 'Outstanding results, though not ready for clinical practice (yet),' adding that it will also be 'important to take into account financial, psychological, and systemic costs of the strategy.' Using ctDNA to Track Resistance In the study, 3256 patients who had received at least 6 months of treatment with aromatase inhibitors and CDK4/6 therapy (palbociclib, ribociclib, or abemaciclib) received ctDNA testing with Guardant360 CDx every 2-3 months at the time of routine staging exams. Overall, 315 patients who had an ESR1 mutation detected and had no radiologic evidence of disease progression were randomly assigned to either switch from the aromatase inhibitor to 75 mg of camizestrant daily (n = 157) or continue their aromatase inhibitor/CDK4/6 regimen (n = 158). (An additional 233 patients who had an ESR1 mutation detected were not included for a variety of reasons, including disease progression and consent withdrawal.) At the planned interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was 16.0 months in the camizestrant group and 9.2 months in the aromatase inhibitor group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.44; P < .00001). At 24 months, only 5.4% of patients who had continued their initial first-line treatment had not progressed compared with 30% of patients on camizestrant. The progression-free survival findings were consistent across clinically relevant patient subgroups. Patients who switched to camizestrant also showed improved time to deterioration in global health status and quality of life — a median of 23.0 months vs 6.4 months in the aromatase group (aHR, 0.53). At the time of the interim analysis, overall survival data were immature, with 20 deaths in the camizestrant group and 19 in the aromatase inhibitor group (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.48-1.73). As for time to second progression, there were 38 events in the camizestrant group and 47 events in the aromatase group, but the findings were also immature. As for adverse events, 60% of patients in the camizestrant group had a grade 3 or higher event, 10% of which were deemed serious compared with 46% in the aromatase group, 12% of which were serious. Neutropenia (45% vs 34%, respectively) and anemia (5% in both groups) were the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events. Only 1% of patients on camizestrant discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Overall, Turner concluded that 'for people with HR-positive advanced breast cancer, the results of SERENA-6 show that camizestrant plus CDK4/6 inhibitor could be a new treatment option to use at the point of ESR1 mutation detection during treatment with first-line aromatase inhibitor plus CDK4/6 inhibitor — but before the cancer grows.' Despite the promising findings, DeMichele highlighted several key unanswered questions and challenges. Notably, will this strategy lead to longer overall survival and demonstrate clinical utility? Overall survival and time to second progression are currently not known, DeMichele said. The trial did not address whether first-line treatment gains would be lost if camizestrant was given in the second-line setting after anatomic progression. DeMichele also noted the high cost and potential anxiety associated with serial ctDNA testing. Overall, 'the full complement of financial, psychological, and systemic costs is needed to fully assess utility and feasibility for implementation,' she added. SERENA-6 was supported by AstraZeneca. Turner disclosed consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Inivata Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Relay Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics, and Roche. DeMichele disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Pfizer.
Business Insider
33 minutes ago
- Business Insider
You're not Elon Musk: Here's how normal people should critique their superiors
Disagree with the boss? Badmouthing a higher-up publicly, like how Elon Musk this week called President Trump's signature bill "a disgusting abomination" on X, won't make sense for most people. But career experts said there are other, more practical ways to deliver negative feedback to a superior. "No one recommends taking to social media to criticize your boss," said organizational psychologist Alison Fragale, especially if your name is attached and you're seriously looking to drive change. "Though you might get a lot of thumbs up, it also comes with a lot of risky downside," Fragale told Business Insider. Getting loud generally isn't the best strategy As one of the world's richest men, Musk is uniquely insulated when airing grievances. The CEO of Tesla, Space X, and several other companies wields exceptional power and status, and being outspoken is part of his personal brand. For the rest of us, taking an offline, confidential approach to voicing discontent is generally best since it avoids embarrassing the recipient and inviting backlash, said Yale University management professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld. That's a lesson many big-company CEOs have used in recent weeks to push back against the president's significant tariff hikes. "They've managed through private collective action to get him to move considerably," said Sonnenfeld. "They went in with the facts. They didn't try to publicly humiliate him." Musk didn't call out Trump by name in his social-media posts criticizing the president's bill, which includes cuts to Medicaid and an extension of the tax cuts that Trump and Republicans enacted in 2017. His messages, though, land as a personal attack because Trump has been aggressively touting the bill, calling it "beautiful" and pushing for Congress to pass it. "It will be the biggest Tax Cut for Middle and Working Class Americans by far," Trump wrote on Truth Social last month. Musk has said that the bill will increase the nation's already bloated deficit, undermining the months of work he put in at the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency. On Wednesday, Musk asked Americans to take action to try to stop the bill from passing. "Call your Senator, Call your Congressman, bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL," he said on X. When and how to raise concerns In the workplace, career gurus generally advise people to only pipe up about concerns that impact multiple workers or a company at large. Personal grievances are best handled through a direct manager, human resources, or an employer's complaint hotline. "Not every truth needs to be said out loud," said Fragale. A collective voice creates legitimacy, which is why she also recommends gathering allies and having at least one by your side when you're ready to speak out. Consider whether you're the best person to raise the matter to someone at the top of the corporate ladder if you lack status or haven't earned the person's respect. "I have outsourced almost every aspect of my kids' education, not because I don't know how to swim or ride a bike, but because they won't listen to me," Fragale said. Meanwhile, keep in mind that you may not have all the facts as to why a superior made whatever decision you have beef with, said Bill George, an executive fellow at Harvard Business School. It's possible your criticism is unwarranted, so he recommends couching your critique as being based on what you know. "Sometimes CEOs have to make decisions for reasons that aren't apparent," George, who was CEO of the health-technology company Medtronic earlier in his career, said. "You have to understand the whole context." Only speak up to a superior when you have something meaningful to point out, said Candice Pokk, a senior consultant at human-resources consulting firm Segal. "It needs to rise to the level of their position," she said. Some business leaders say they are receptive to negative feedback as long as it's conveyed respectfully. When George was Medtronic's CEO, a manager privately told him that he'd hurt several employees' feelings during a group meeting. Though he stood by the substance of his remarks, he apologized for how he relayed them and said the feedback made him think differently about his communication style. "It caused me to reflect on it," he said. To share negative feedback, start with something positive and authentic about the individual before launching into critisicm, and keep it brief, Pokk said. "Executives want information that's bite-sized and easy to understand," she said. Dishing criticism to someone in a more powerful position can be nerve-racking, no matter how prepared and confident you are. "Couriers of bad tidings are often fearful that the messenger will get shot," said Sonnenfeld. Yet being forthcoming can pay off.
