logo
CBO Says Budget Reconciliation Bill May Add 11 Million Uninsured

CBO Says Budget Reconciliation Bill May Add 11 Million Uninsured

Forbes6 days ago

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 13: U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffires (D-NY) holds a press conference ... More at the U.S. Capitol. Jeffries spoke out against the Republican budget bill and the potential cuts to safety net programs including Medicaid, Social Security and veterans' services. (Photo by)
The House Republican budget reconciliation legislation, dubbed 'the big, beautiful bill,' could lead to nearly 11 million people losing health insurance over the next nine years, the Congressional Budget Office concluded this week. Approximately 7.8 million could lose Medicaid coverage if strict work requirements and more frequent eligibility checks are enforced, and several million more could lose coverage through changes to the Affordable Care Act exchanges.
The budget bill looks to cut $715 billion in Medicaid and $300 billion in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as Food Stamps). The plan calls for work requirements for able-bodied childless adults and co-payments for those above 100% of the federal poverty level. The proposal also includes a tightening of eligibility verification and institutes penalties for states that provide healthcare coverage to certain immigrants.
The work requirements apply to both Medicaid and SNAP and would begin in 2026. There isn't an especially large population of Medicaid beneficiaries who aren't currently working, in school, or a caregiver to a loved one. A 2023 KFF report found that 71% of working-age adults on Medicaid were working full or part time or in school, while an additional 12% were caregivers. Nonetheless, the bill is projected to reduce the Medicaid rolls by nearly eight million.
And then there are the changes in the ACA marketplace that would make coverage more expensive as enhanced tax credits expire, and harder to obtain as open enrollment windows shorten, the paperwork burden increases, and automatic re-enrollment ends. Americans who purchase health coverage through the ACA marketplace exchanges could also soon face higher out-of-pocket maximums in their coverage plans, which means higher cost-sharing. The CBO projects that the marketplace changes in the budget bill could increase the number of uninsured individuals by several million more by 2034, independent of Medicaid unenrollment.
GOP lawmakers frame the cuts as a way to root out 'waste, fraud, and abuse' and to strengthen the program for the 'truly vulnerable.' But voters from across the political spectrum oppose the austerity plans for Medicaid and the ACA.
The House bill still must pass the Senate before becoming law. It's likely that the Senate would alter or include 'mark-ups' in the legislation prior to passage, particularly given the vocal opposition to the bill from several Republican senators.
House Minority Leader, Democrat Hakeem Jefferies, claims the aggregate increase in numbers of uninsured would tally 13.7 million. The calculation he refers to appears to add a greater number of coverage losses due to the elimination of ACA premium subsidies that help people purchase coverage. Democrat Senator Chris Murphy's estimate of the total number of uninsured is even higher at 15 million.
Republicans such as Senator James Lankford have countered by saying that those losing Medicaid coverage would be able to obtain employer-based coverage in the private sector. He says the bill which is being considered in the Senate is 'not kicking people off Medicaid. It's transitioning from Medicaid to employer-provided healthcare. So yes, we've got 10 million people that are not going be on Medicaid, but they then are going be on employer-provided healthcare.' But not all employers in America offer health insurance. In fact, even among the largest employers, only around two-thirds provide health insurance options to their employees. The percentage offering health coverage among smaller employers is substantially less. Less than 50% of small employers offer insurance.
The reconciliation package that House Republicans propose would also trigger over $500 billion in automatic cuts to Medicare spending, according to the CBO. These cuts would not reduce benefits to most Medicare beneficiaries. However, they would eliminate Medicare eligibility for migrants with temporary protected status as well as refugees and asylum seekers. They would also terminate Medicare benefits for Medicaid beneficiaries who also have Medicare eligibility. In addition, there would be a mandatory 4% reduction in Medicare payments to hospitals, physicians, healthcare providers, Medicare Advantage plans and standalone prescription drug plans.
And the bill would limit the compensation pharmacy benefit managers receive in Medicare outpatient drug plans to flat 'bona fide service fees,' thereby prohibiting compensation based on a drug's price or rebate arrangements. Additionally, the legislation would establish PBM transparency and reporting requirements, including periodic data on utilization, pricing and revenues for drugs PBMs include on their formularies, as well as information on contracts with drug manufacturers and PBM-affiliated (specialty) pharmacies.
It's unclear if the newly established rules for PBMs would save Medicare beneficiaries money. Though the regulations appear to be aimed at disrupting the rebate system, which some policymakers and lawmakers have criticized as being disadvantageous to Medicare recipients, PBMs maintain that they use rebates they extract from drug makers to lower beneficiary premiums. So, while patients' out-of-pocket costs at the pharmacy counter for certain highly rebated drugs may go down, their premiums could increase.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Live Updates: Police Clear Protesters in Seattle, Las Vegas and L.A.
Live Updates: Police Clear Protesters in Seattle, Las Vegas and L.A.

New York Times

time34 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Live Updates: Police Clear Protesters in Seattle, Las Vegas and L.A.

California liberals welcomed Gov. Gavin Newsom's speech condemning President Trump, but some remained skeptical of the governor. Republicans, meanwhile, saw his address as opportunistic and blamed him for the state's turmoil. For months, Californians weren't sure what to make of Gov. Gavin Newsom. There was the new podcast on which he interviewed right-wing influencers and said he felt trans athletes shouldn't participate in women's sports. There was the meeting in February with President Trump in the White House. And there were occasional snipes at Republicans, but nothing like those Mr. Newsom had dished out in years past. Then came a blistering nine-minute speech on Tuesday in which Mr. Newsom warned Americans that Mr. Trump was destroying democracy and acting as an authoritarian who would eventually send the military to states across the country. Many liberals in California cheered Mr. Newsom, finally seeing in him the leader of the resistance that they had been missing. Those feeling confused and fearful since Mr. Trump started his second term were looking for someone to stick up for them and said they appreciated Mr. Newsom's forcefulness. 'In a time of rising fear and growing threats to democracy, he spoke not just as a governor, but as a moral leader,' said Representative Lateefah Simon, Democrat of California. 'He named the danger plainly.' But others, while supportive of his message, were not entirely convinced. They said testing the political climate ahead of a potential run for president. 'Even if you're late to the party, you know, welcome to the fight,' said Hugo Soto-Martinez, a progressive City Council member in Los Angeles, who appreciated what Mr. Newsom said but wished the governor had stood up to the president sooner. Adrian Tirtanadi, executive director of Open Door Legal, a nonprofit which provides free legal representation for immigrants and others, said he liked all of the words in Mr. Newsom's speech. But, he said, he wondered why the governor was not backing up the rhetoric with more financial support for immigration lawyers who could fight deportation. Big talk without much action, Mr. Tirtanadi said, is often the California way. Still, others appreciated that Mr. Newsom had demanded that Mr. Trump stop workplace raids and filed lawsuits seeking to block the deployment of National Guard troops and Marines in Southern California. That has given some hope to immigrants who have felt powerless. When David Campos was 14, he and his family traveled by foot and by bus, across deserts and over mountains, to California from their home in Guatemala. They scurried under a border fence and settled in South Central Los Angeles without legal papers. The family eventually obtained citizenship through his father's carpentry job. Mr. Campos went on to Stanford University and Harvard Law School, served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is now the vice chairman of the California Democratic Party. Mr. Campos said he was glad that Mr. Newsom, the former San Francisco mayor with whom he sometimes clashed, took a defiant stance toward Mr. Trump. 'I'm glad he's rising to this moment,' Mr. Campos, 54, said in an interview. 'The governor reminded us that if the president can do this in California, he can do it anywhere in this country. That's how a democracy can die.' Republicans in California, many of whom have aligned with President Trump, said they were decidedly unimpressed with the governor's speech. Senator Brian Jones, the State Senate minority leader, said that the governor seemed to have been filming an early campaign commercial with his speech, from the way the flags were set in his backdrop to the suit he was wearing. 'It doesn't do anything to lower tensions in L.A.,' Mr. Jones said. 'When he says we all need to stand up, is he encouraging more people to show up to the riots and participate?' James Gallagher, the Republican leader of the California State Assembly, called the governor's address 'self-righteous political posturing.' Mr. Gallagher said California's policy of preventing local law enforcement from working with federal immigration officials created the current tension. He said he found it funny that Mr. Newsom was accusing Mr. Trump of being authoritarian when the governor ordered Californians to close their businesses, stay home from church, attend school on Zoom, wear masks and get vaccinated during the Covid-19 pandemic. 'He was a total tyrant, and he has no business talking about authoritarianism because he is exhibit A,' Mr. Gallagher said. Mr. Newsom's speech, as well as his sharp-tongued retorts to Republicans on social media this week, won some plaudits from younger influencers. Dwayne Murphy, Jr., a 34-year-old content creator who lives in Downey, Calif., and said he votes Democrat, said he appreciated that the governor 'seems to be hyper-focused on standing up for this state at a time like this, and I feel like that's what people are very encouraged by.' Inkiad Kabir, 20, a pop culture content creator who lives in the Inland Empire region of California, said that Mr. Newsom was the rare Democrat willing to go on the attack, calling him 'basically liberal Trump, in a way.' Mr. Kabir created a popular TikTok video this week in which he called the governor 'Daddy Newsom' and likened the governor to a 'toxic ex that you promise you're not going to go back to, but you always go back to.' For now, it seems, Mr. Kabir has gone back.

Home Is the New Hospital: Nurses Rethink Where Patients Heal
Home Is the New Hospital: Nurses Rethink Where Patients Heal

Medscape

time35 minutes ago

  • Medscape

Home Is the New Hospital: Nurses Rethink Where Patients Heal

Hospitals are struggling with long emergency room (ER) wait times, capacity issues, and staffing shortages. A growing number of patients with cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, pneumonia, and other chronic conditions are being asked to skip hospital stays and return home. Hospital at Home models may be the answer. The explosion of Hospital at Home programs now makes it possible to provide acute level care at home. Today, 378 hospitals in 140 health systems and 39 states have been approved to provide healthcare at home. And a recent report found that 71% of health systems planned to launch Hospital at Home models. 'Digital care is the way of the future,' said Melissa Meier, MSN, RN, manager of Digital Care for OSF OnCall, the Digital Health Division for OSF HealthCare in Peoria, Illinois. 'We're always looking at ways to help reach more patients [and] always being on the cutting edge to reach our patients wherever they are is super important…[Hospital at Home] is certainly an answer for that.' About Medscape Data Medscape continually surveys physicians and other medical professionals about key practice challenges and current issues, creating high-impact analyses. For example, Medscape's Nurse Career Satisfaction Report 2024 found that Only 3% of surveyed nurses work in a home health/visiting nurse capacity. Advanced Practice Registered Nurses are more likely to work for medical groups. About 9% of nurses said the worst part of the job was not enough time with patients. A New Model of Care In 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the Acute Hospital Care at Home initiative that made it possible for Medicare-certified hospitals to provide inpatient-level care at home. The COVID-era waiver was designed to address capacity issues during the pandemic but has proven popular as a long-term solution. Mass General Brigham is among the hospitals that launched programs to offer inpatient care in patient homes. Since the 2017 pilot, the Boston-based hospital has served more than 6000 patients and unlocked 30,000 bed days through its Healthcare at Home program. 'Patients absolutely love this service,' said Stephen Dorner, MD, MPH, emergency physician and chief clinical and innovation officer at Mass General Brigham Healthcare at Home. 'The experience is unmatched.' Hospital at Home is best suited to patients with infectious diseases or respiratory, circulatory, or renal conditions. Patients receive in-home visits from providers at least twice a day, continuous monitoring of vital signs, portable ultrasounds, blood work, and other diagnostics, and access to medications and other therapeutics. The programs also include 24-hour access to virtual care teams. Mass General Brigham begins screening for eligibility for Healthcare at Home in the emergency room based on clinical criteria, distance from the hospital, and payer coverage. In Renton, Washington, Providence takes a similar approach to screening patients who are eligible for its Hospital at Home program before initiating a conversation with patients to assess their interest in receiving care at home. 'Unsurprisingly, it's not right for everyone,' explains Christopher Dale, MD, MPH, medical director, Clinical Innovation at Providence. 'It could be that they [patients] don't want other people in their home…and there's a segment of people who feel more comfortable getting care in the hospital, thinking that the nurses and doctors are right there all the time…and they feel safer that way.' However, there can be significant benefits for patients who receive acute care at home. Studies have linked Hospital at Home programs to reduced hospital-acquired infections, less time spent in skilled nursing facilities, fewer hospital readmissions, and lower mortality rates; there are revenue benefits, too. Hospital at Home programs at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, saved 19%-30% compared to in-hospital care. 'It's a way to create capacity in the system,' said Dale. 'We all know about [issues with] boarding in the emergency department and how long it takes to get a bed…and we don't want that…and this creates capacity so that hospitals can stay available for the sickest of the sick.' Providers have embraced the model. Physicians and registered nurses providing acute in-home care reported lower burnout, higher job satisfaction, healthier work environments, and a feeling that their professional values were well-aligned with the program in a home hospital pilot program. 'We know that healthcare is hard, and this has provided another model of care for nurses, physicians…to still have that in-person care component and be able to provide hands-on care in a different setting that really helps them to focus on one patient at a time,' Meier added. 'It really has helped to remind them [nurses] why they got into healthcare in the first place.' Charting the Challenges The model might be successful, but Hospital at Home is not without its challenges. The logistics are complicated. Mass General Brigham manages a dedicated Healthcare at Home team, schedules home visits, provides access to 24-hour virtual patient care, and ensures that healthcare providers have the right supplies to provide patient care. To facilitate communication, OSF HealthCare does (virtual) interdisciplinary rounds every morning to bring the whole care team together. 'The coordination of ensuring you've got the right people with the right supplies at the right place in a remote location gets very complicated very quickly,' Dorner said. Launching a successful Hospital at Home program requires a strong commitment from leadership. It touches multiple hospital departments, from providers to revenue, accreditation, and food services, and, as an initiative still in its adolescence, Dale cites the importance of working with leadership to adjust as needed. Health systems are always concerned about navigating the logistics; they are considering the long-term viability of Hospital at Home. CMS has extended the Acute Hospital Care at Home waiver, initially set to expire at the end of 2024 and now extended through 2026 — but the future is uncertain. Reimbursement remains challenging. Under the waiver, Medicare-certified hospitals can provide inpatient-level care at home, but most private payers have not followed suit. The lack of reimbursement coupled with uncertainty about waiver extensions has made some hospitals reluctant to launch Hospital at Home programs. Dorner believes that making Hospital at Home a permanent option for patients is critical to the future of healthcare and plays a critical role in alleviating burnout, reducing wait times, and providing safe, effective, value-based care. 'We're not going to be able to exclusively build our way out of the capacity crisis…and so we have to find new ways to support that growing demand,' he said. 'It's hard to look at the landscape of what can be afforded through home hospital care delivery from a quality perspective, an experience perspective, a capacity perspective, a financial perspective and think, 'No, we don't want to do that.''

Republicans clobber Democrats in Congressional Baseball Game for fifth straight year
Republicans clobber Democrats in Congressional Baseball Game for fifth straight year

New York Post

time35 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Republicans clobber Democrats in Congressional Baseball Game for fifth straight year

Republican lawmakers crushed their Democratic counterparts Wednesday at the annual Congressional Baseball Game in Washington, DC. The GOP's 13-2 win over the Dems in Nationals Park marks the fifth straight year Republicans have defeated their political rivals on the diamond. Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.), who was seriously injured in a ladder fall two years ago, pitched five innings for the GOP, striking out seven Democrats. 9 The Democratic team stood on the field during the national anthem at the annual Congressional baseball game. Getty Images 9 Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA) pitched for his party on Wednesday. Getty Images 9 Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) sported his red uniform as he hit a ball during the event. Getty Images 'I am going to take an ice bath tomorrow,' Steube quipped after the game. The MVP award went to Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), who made a spectacular diving catch to end the first inning after Democrats loaded the bases. Pfluger's close play went viral on social media. 'Proud to have been selected MVP for this year's Congressional Baseball Game!' the Texas Republican wrote on X. 'Couldn't have asked for a better support team here in DC! Another huge win for Republicans.' The game was far more subdued than last year's edition, which saw anti-Israel protesters disrupt the national anthem and climate change activists rush the field. 9 U.S. House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) fist bumps Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX). Getty Images 9 Scalise holds the trophy after the Republicans win the annual Congressional baseball game at Nationals Park. Getty Images 9 U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) reacts during the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C. on June 11, 2025. REUTERS Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) greeted her colleagues in the Democratic dugout at one point during the game and received cheers from the blue team's fans. More than 30,000 tickets were sold for the game, which raised $2.8 million for dozens of charities. 'Team GOP takes the WIN!! 🏆🇺🇸 Proud to take the field with my Republican colleagues tonight and bring home the win,' House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) wrote on X. 'We raised $2.8 million for local charities. We're not tired of winning!' 9 U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson was spotted in the crowd during the game. REUTERS 9 U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) celebrates after running to home plate. Getty Images 9 Both teams celebrate on the field after the Republicans defeated the Democrats. REUTERS In 2017, Scalise was shot by a left-wing extremist during a GOP team practice in Alexandria, Va., a day before that year's edition of the game. Republicans hold an overall edge over Democrats in the series by five games, with 47-42 record.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store