Report: Congressional cuts to Medicaid could cost Alabama $800 million
Alabama could lose over $800 million in federal Medicaid funding if U.S. House Republicans go through with a plan to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the health insurance program, according to a new report.
KFF, a national health policy research organization, said in an analysis released Monday that a House budget resolution currently under discussion in Congress targeting up to $880 billion in Medicaid spending could cost Alabama $824 million annually in Medicaid funding.
State officials and advocates warn the cuts could cut vulnerable Alabamians off from essential health care services and strain the state's already limited health care system.
'There's just no way to do those cuts in Alabama without significantly harming children, seniors, and people with disabilities,' Robyn Hyden, executive director of Alabama Arise, an advocacy group focused on poverty issues, said of the proposed cuts.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The Alabama Medicaid Agency's state allocation is expected to surpass $1 billion for the first time in the next fiscal year. If the agency has to make up over $800 million in federal funds, it could easily take the state's allocation to $2 billion.
Alabama relies heavily on federal funding to sustain its health care infrastructure. The federal government pays for about 73% of Alabama's Medicaid program, which currently covers more than one million residents, including nearly 57% of children and nearly 70% of nursing home residents.
If federal funding is reduced, the state would have to either find a new revenue stream, raise taxes or make cuts to Medicaid services.
Unlike most states, Alabama has not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, and it has one of the most restrictive eligibility criteria in the nation. Adults without dependent children do not qualify for Medicaid, and parents can only receive coverage if they earn less than 18% of the federal poverty level, or about $4,797 a year for a family of three.
Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Atmore, chair of the Senate Finance and Taxation General Fund committee, said in an interview Monday that if the cuts are enacted, Alabama could be forced to scale back services or reduce eligibility, saying 'that's the biggest' way to cut costs.
The state's ability to shift funding from other areas is limited. Unlike most states, Alabama maintains separate budgets for education and general government spending. That would make it nearly impossible to reallocate education funds to cover Medicaid shortfalls.
Albritton said that money could be shifted from other agencies, like the Department of Transportation, to avoid a significant reduction in Medicaid services. The Alabama Department of Corrections receives the second largest allocation after Medicaid out of the General Fund. But reallocation from the state's prison system — facing numerous lawsuits over violence and overcrowding — will not happen, at least 'not willingly,' he said.
Although Albritton said KFF's estimates are worst-case scenarios, calling it 'draconian,' he said 'something like that is going to happen.'
'Whatever degree, it's going to have an adverse effect on our budgetary process, and it's going to affect us hugely,' he said. 'We don't know what's going to happen.'
One policy consideration is implementing work requirements for Medicaid recipients. Although supporters of work requirements say that they encourage self-sufficiency, critics note that the vast majority of Medicaid recipients already work and say requirements create unnecessary hurdles that could push thousands of eligible people off Medicaid rolls.
'Even people who are eligible would get cut because of an inability to comply with a lot of red tape and bureaucracy,' Hyden said.
With a GOP-controlled Congress pushing for spending reductions, Alabama's lawmakers could face a balancing act. Albritton feels people are 'unaware' of what may be coming. The state has been flush with federal funds over the past few years, he said, with people living 'fat, dumb and happy for a long time.'
'But there is no way to get around the point that the federal candy-time is over with and how we're going to deal with that is questionable. And we're not dealing with it at this point,' Albritton said.
Hyden said she's had conversations with U.S. lawmakers and asking them to oppose the cuts. She said that they seem to hear the concerns 'loud and clear' and know that cuts to Medicaid are 'politically unacceptable, very unpopular.'
'We've been told by members of Congress they don't want to see widespread coverage loss,' Hyden said. 'But I'm unsure how they can do funding cuts without having that impact.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

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


New York Post
a minute ago
- New York Post
Little Sisters of the Poor are still fighting ObamaCare— as states force nuns to violate their faith
It's enraging. More than a decade after the Obama administration first tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to buy contraception including abortifacient drugs for employees, states are still hounding the nuns in court. At its heart, ObamaCare was a massive welfare program meant to redistribute health-care costs to the middle class. But it was also a social engineering project aimed at coercing religious organizations and businesses to adopt progressive values. The Affordable Care Act mandated employers, including nonprofits such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, to pay for contraceptives in their worker-provided health insurance as an 'essential health benefit' under the euphemistic category of 'preventative and wellness services.' There was no 'religious exemption.' It's worth taking a step back and thinking about that term: The very idea that an American citizen should be impelled to ask the state for an 'exemption' to practice their faith is an assault on the fundamental idea of liberty. Imagine having to ask the state for an exemption to exercise your free speech? What makes the case even more unsettling, of course, is that the state is demanding citizens engage in activity that is explicitly against their faith. Now, there may well be numerous theological disputes within the Catholic Church. The use of contraception and abortion aren't among them. There is absolutely no question that nuns hold genuine, long-standing religious convictions. And there is no question that liberals want to smash them. Nevertheless, the Little Sisters spent years in court, working their way up to the Supreme Court and winning protections against the federal government (twice). In 2017, the Trump administration exempted religious groups like the Little Sisters from the ObamaCare mandate entirely. The government, however, bolstered with unlimited taxpayer funds, can hunt its prey in perpetuity. So states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania began their own lawsuits against the Little Sisters. This week, in a nationwide ruling, Judge Wendy Beetlestone, chief judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that the Trump administration's expansion of religious exemptions from the contraception mandate was 'arbitrary and capricious.' Religious nonprofit groups and businesses will again have to ask for special accommodations from the Department of Health and Human Services to avoid buying abortifacients. Even if the Trump administration grants every one of them, one day there will be authoritarians in charge who won't — and nonprofit employees will still be guaranteed contraception through health plans paid for by employers. Beetlestone, incidentally, was the same judge who issued a nationwide injunction against the contraception exemption back in 2017, arguing it was 'difficult' to think of any rule that 'intrudes more into the lives of women.' The Supreme Court overturned it in 2020 by a 7-2 majority. Because no one has a right to free condoms. Indeed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act holds that the state must have a 'compelling interest' and use the least restrictive means when burdening religious practice. Free birth control isn't a compelling interest. And fining religious organizations millions of dollars to pressure them into abandoning their beliefs is perhaps the most restrictive means of action, short of throwing nuns in prison. You'd think attacking a group of nuns who offer end-of-life care for the elderly would be a public relations nightmare for Democrats. Yet they've never really shied away from it. Because the point is to intimidate others. In many ways, the Little Sisters' struggle is reminiscent of the travails of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refuses to create unique message cakes for gay weddings. Phillips is now embroiled in his umpteenth court case over his crimes. The message: Dissent from those who practice their faith will be punished. Take the Catholic Charities adoption agencies, which shuttered in numerous states due to laws and policies compelling them to place children with same-sex couples. The attacks will continue until the Supreme Court upholds the clear language and intent of the First Amendment and religious liberty. It's already punted once: In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 7-2 Supreme Court decision in favor of Jack Phillips, the court barred the state's attacks only if state officials openly demeaned their target's faith — a ruling so narrow as to be largely useless. But it shouldn't matter why the state is steamrolling the religious liberty of nuns, or anyone else for that matter. The problem is that the ObamaCare mandate is authoritarian and unconstitutional. And the only way to fix that problem is to overturn it. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Twitter @davidharsanyi


Chicago Tribune
a minute ago
- Chicago Tribune
California pushes partisan plan for new Democratic districts to counter Texas in fight for US House
LOS ANGELES — California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday his state will hold a Nov. 4 special election to seek approval of redrawn districts intended to give Democrats five more U.S. House seats in the fight for control of Congress. The move is a direct response to a similar Republican-led effort in Texas, pushed by President Donald Trump as his party seeks to maintain its slim House majority in the midterm elections. The nation's two most populous states have emerged as the center of a partisan turf war in the House that could spiral into other states — as well as the courts — in what amounts to a proxy war ahead of the 2026 elections. Texas lawmakers are considering a new map that could help them send five more Republicans to Washington. Democrats who so far have halted a vote by leaving the state announced Thursday that they will return home if Texas Republicans end their current special session and California releases its own recast map proposal. Both were expected to happen Friday. However, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is expected to call another special session to push through new maps. Texas House Democrats planning their departure from Illinois and back to AustinIn Los Angeles, Newsom staged what amounted to a campaign kickoff rally for the as-yet unreleased new maps with the state's Democratic leadership in a downtown auditorium packed with union members, legislators and abortion rights supporters. Newsom and other speakers veered from discussing the technical grist of reshaping districts — known as redistricting — and instead depicted the looming battle as a conflict with all things Trump, tying it explicitly to the fate of American democracy. 'We can't stand back and watch this democracy disappear district by district all across the country,' Newsom said. 'We are not bystanders in this world. We can shape the future.' An overarching theme was the willingness to stand up to Trump, a cheer-inducing line for Democrats as the party looks to regroup from its 2024 losses. 'Donald Trump, you have poked the bear and we will punch back,' said Newsom, a possible 2028 presidential contender. Thursday's announcement marks the first time any state beyond Texas has officially waded into the mid-decade redistricting fight. The Texas plan was stalled when minority Democrats fled to Illinois, New York and Massachusetts on Aug. 3 to stop the Legislature from passing any bills. Elsewhere, leaders from red Florida to blue New York are threatening to write new maps. In Missouri, a document obtained by The Associated Press shows the state Senate received a $46,000 invoice to activate six redistricting software licenses and provide training for up to 10 staff members. In California, lawmakers must officially declare the special election, which they plan to do next week after voting on the new maps. Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers — enough to act without any Republican votes — and Newsom said he's not worried about winning the required support from two-thirds of lawmakers to advance the maps. Newsom encouraged other Democratic-led states to get involved. 'We need to stand up — not just California. Other blue states need to stand up,' Newsom said. Republicans hold a 219-212 majority in the U.S. House, with four vacancies. New maps are typically drawn once a decade after the census is conducted. Many states, including Texas, give legislators the power to draw maps. California is among states that rely on an independent commission that is supposed to be nonpartisan. The California map would take effect only if a Republican state moves forward, and it would remain through the 2030 elections. After that, Democrats say they would return mapmaking power to the independent commission approved by voters more than a decade ago. Some people already have said they would sue to block the effort, and influential voices including former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may campaign against it. 'Gavin Newsom's latest stunt has nothing to do with Californians and everything to do with consolidating radical Democrat power, silencing California voters, and propping up his pathetic 2028 presidential pipe dream,' National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said in a statement. 'Newsom's made it clear: he'll shred California's Constitution and trample over democracy — running a cynical, self-serving playbook where Californians are an afterthought and power is the only priority.' California Democrats hold 43 of the state's 52 House seats, and the state has some of the most competitive House seats. Outside Newsom's news conference Thursday, U.S. Border Patrol agents conducted patrols, drawing condemnation from the governor and others. 'We're here making Los Angeles a safer place since we don't have politicians that will do that,' Gregory Bovino, chief of the patrol's El Centro, California, sector, told a reporter with KTTV in Los Angeles. He said he didn't know Newsom was inside nearby.


Newsweek
2 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Over Half of Americans Don't Trust Trump on Ukraine, Russia War: Poll
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. Over half of U.S. adults are not confident that President Donald Trump can make "wise decisions" when it comes to the Ukraine and Russia war, a new survey from the Pew Research Center shows on Thursday. Newsweek reached out to the White House via email for additional comment. Why It Matters The poll's findings frame public expectations ahead of a high-profile bilateral meeting on Friday between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, aimed at discussing a potential ceasefire in Ukraine and broader U.S.-Russia issues, including Arctic cooperation. What To Know The Pew Research Center survey found 59 percent of U.S. adults were either "not too confident" or "not at all confident" that President Trump could make wise decisions about the Russia-Ukraine war; 40 percent expressed at least some confidence. The poll interviewed 3,554 U.S. adults between August 4 and August 10 with a margin of error of 1.8 percent. The survey also shows key partisan differences: a substantial majority of Democrats say that the U.S. has a responsibility to help Ukraine, with 66 percent, compared to 35 percent of Republicans. This number is up from 23 percent in a March survey, however. The public also expressed views on U.S. assistance: Pew found 29 percent said the U.S. was not providing enough support to Ukraine, and 18 percent said it was providing too much, while 50 percent of Americans said the U.S. had a responsibility to help Ukraine defend itself, and 47 percent said it did not. President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy can be seen meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., February 28, 2025. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo by SAUL... President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy can be seen meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., February 28, 2025. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images) More What People Are Saying Democratic Representative Jason Crow of Colorado on X this week: "Everyone wants Russia to stop its aggression & for an end to the war in Ukraine. But Trump keeps handing Vladimir Putin victories. Meeting in the U.S., without Ukraine at the table, is exactly what a dictator like Putin wants." Trump on Truth Social on Wednesday: "Very unfair media is at work on my meeting with Putin. Constantly quoting fired losers and really dumb people like John Bolton, who just said that, even though the meeting is on American soil, 'Putin has already won.' What's that all about? We are winning on EVERYTHING. The Fake News is working overtime (No tax on overtime!)." The president continued: "If I got Moscow and Leningrad free, as part of the deal with Russia, the Fake News would say that I made a bad deal! But now they've been caught. Look at all of the real news that's coming out about their CORRUPTION. They are sick and dishonest people, who probably hate our Country. But it doesn't matter because we are winning on everything!!! MAGA" What Happens Next Trump and Putin are scheduled to meet on Friday at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage. Observers said the outcome could influence U.S. relationships with allies, Kyiv's negotiating position and congressional appetite for future assistance to Ukraine.