logo
Idaho House introduces bill to cut Medicaid expansion costs — without repeal trigger

Idaho House introduces bill to cut Medicaid expansion costs — without repeal trigger

Yahoo25-02-2025

A person stands in front of the Liberty Bell replica at the Idaho State Capitol building in Boise on Jan. 11, 2023. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun)
A North Idaho lawmaker pushing for Medicaid expansion reform introduced a new bill meant to contain expansion's costs — without the threat of repealing the voter-approved law.
The Idaho House Health and Welfare Committee on Tuesday introduced the new bill, House Bill 328, by Rep. Jordan Redman, R-Coeur d'Alene.
Dubbed the 'Medicaid Reform and Cost-Containment Act,' the bill doesn't include many of the 11 policy changes a previous Medicaid expansion reform-or repeal bill by Redman demands to avoid triggering the repeal of Idaho Medicaid expansion. That bill narrowly passed the full Idaho House last week.
But the new bill proposes Idaho submit to the federal government a plan for 'comprehensive medicaid managed care,' which is when private companies manage Medicaid benefits, and end Idaho's use of doctor-managed care, which is commonly called value based care.
Introducing the new bill in committee, Redman said the bill is based on feedback to Redman's previous Medicaid expansion reform-or-repeal bill and has been worked on since that other legislation passed the Idaho House.
'This is part of a negotiation between myself, the good chairman, and Senate leadership to bring forward a path for meaningful Medicaid reforms,' Redman told the House Health and Welfare Committee.
He also told the committee that the bill was not responding to any threats. On Saturday, the Coeur d'Alene Press reported that local police were investigating a threat against Redman's office that originated on social media.
The new bill is cosponsored by the chairs of the Legislature's Health and Welfare committees, Rep. John Vander Woude, R-Nampa, and Sen. Julie VanOrden, R-Pingree, along with Sen. Carl Bjerke, R-Coeur d'Alene.
The bill could save Idaho $15.9 million in fiscal year 2026 and even more in the future, the bill's fiscal note estimates. But the timing depends on federal approval, the fiscal note says.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Redman told the committee the new bill doesn't include several of the policy changes from his reform-or-repeal bill, like the three-year cap on Medicaid expansion enrollment, capping expansion enrollment at potentially less than half of the current almost 90,000 enrollees — and the Medicaid expansion repeal trigger if all 11 policy changes were not implemented.
Redman's new, complex Medicaid cost-containment bill proposes a range of other program policy changes — including work requirements for able-bodied adults enrolled in Medicaid expansion, which is also in his reform-or-repeal bill. The new bill also calls for Idaho to seek federal approval for 'participant cost-sharing,' submit a plan for 'comprehensive Medicaid managed care,' and stop contracting with and reimbursing Idaho's value care program by Jan. 1, 2026.
Similar to a provision in Redman's previous bill, the new bill has a provision to address if the federal government reduces its financial matching rate for Medicaid expansion, which is 90% compared to Idaho's typical federal Medicaid match rate of 70%.
If the federal financial participation rate in Medicaid expansion reduces outside of a state legislative session, the bill directs the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to 'take any action necessary to offset the increase in state funding,' such as by cutting optional benefits or reducing provider payment rates.
In an interview after the committee meeting, Redman told the Idaho Capital Sun his Medicaid expansion reform-or-repeal bill, House Bill 138, is still active this legislative session.
'It's still sitting over in the Senate. However, meeting with the Senate leadership … it's going to be a hard lift for them, so we decided to bring this bill' so they can have a choice, Redman told the Sun.
He said he believes House Bill 138 is awaiting scheduling for a committee hearing in the Senate while lawmakers wait 'to see what happens with this one.'
Redman said he thinks the expansion repeal trigger in his previous bill was the biggest concern to Senate leadership, but he said they were also concerned about the enrollment cap and lifetime limit.
In a text message Tuesday, Senate Health and Welfare Committee Chairwoman VanOrden told the Sun that the Medicaid reform-or-repeal bill 'will be staying at my desk for now.'
'I appreciate the work my colleagues in the House have done to contain costs and protect Idahoans from the growing burden of abuse and fraud. I also have heard the concerns from many of you about the full repeal of Medicaid expansion,' she said. 'Working closely with Chairman Vander Woude and Representative Redman, as well as Vice Chair Bjerke, we have introduced a new bill that will ensure access to healthcare in rural Idaho and implement reforms that Medicaid desperately needs.'
In a statement, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network Government Relations Director Randy Johnson celebrated 'the defeat' of the Medicaid expansion reform-or-repeal bill, but expressed concern about the new bill.
'The defeat of HB 138 is a critical victory for Idahoans who rely on Medicaid Expansion for life-saving care, including cancer patients and those with chronic illnesses,' Johnson said in a statement. 'However, we remain deeply concerned about the remaining waiver proposals in (the new bill) that would impose unnecessary red tape and bureaucratic hurdles, ultimately leading to health coverage losses for hard-working families.'
The Idaho House Health and Welfare introduced Redman's new bill with little discussion. Introducing the bill tees it up for a full committee hearing, with public testimony and a possible vote to advance it to the House floor.
To become law, Idaho bills must pass the House and Senate, and avoid the governor's veto.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Take it from this retired Kansas judge: An independent bench reinforces justice
Take it from this retired Kansas judge: An independent bench reinforces justice

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Take it from this retired Kansas judge: An independent bench reinforces justice

A statue representing justice stands at the Kansas Judicial Center, where the Kansas Supreme Court is located, on Feb. 4, 2022. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector) This session, the Kansas Legislature voted to send Senate Concurrent Resolution 1611 to voters. This proposed constitutional amendment creates the direct partisan political election of Kansas Supreme Court justices. Such elections would be the death knell of an independent judiciary. I was fortunate to serve as a trial district court judge for two and a half decades. I was faced with making difficult decisions, but also very unpopular ones. The majority of the Legislature sadly confuses the court of law with the court of public opinion. Partisan election of judges conflicts with the very essence of the role of the judiciary. A judge has no constituency. A judge must not be influenced by popular opinion. A judge must not be beholden to a political party or a financial campaign contributor. Surely we can all agree we want our judiciary to be fair, impartial and insulated from outside influence. This distinction of judicial office from legislative and executive positions is recognized by the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct, canon 4. It addresses political activity by a judicial candidate that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity or impartiality of the judiciary. Rule 4.1 (A)(6) states '(A) judge or judicial candidate shall not, in connection with cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the court.' A judge has no constituency. A judge must not be influenced by popular opinion. A judge must not be beholden to a political party or a financial campaign contributor. – Steven Becker This means no pledges, promises or commitments on gun control, abortion, Medicaid expansion or legalization of cannabis. The Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct explains further the importance of keeping our judiciary above the fray of political campaigns and rhetoric. 'A judge plays a role different from that of a legislator or executive branch official. Rather than making decisions based upon the expressed views or preferences of the electorate, a judge makes decisions based upon the law and the facts of every case. In furtherance of this interest, judges and judicial candidates, must, to the greatest extent possible, be free and appear to be free from political influence and political pressure. … Public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary is eroded if judges or judicial candidates are perceived to be subject to political influence.' I suggest the ethical veil distinguishing a judicial candidate from a candidate for legislative or executive office is extremely important but extremely thin. While serving as a district court judge, I applied twice for a vacancy on the Kansas Court of Appeals. At the time, the selection process was the merit-based system that we currently have for selecting our Supreme Court justices. My efforts were unsuccessful. After going through the interview process and an aggressive background investigation, I willingly admit that candidates better than I were chosen to be considered for appointment by the governor. The merit-based selection system works and has worked for more than 50 years. The only reason a change to our state constitution is being sought is because the Kansas Supreme Court issued opinions that conflict with the court of public opinion — or the opinion of lawmakers in Topeka. If court decisions are to align with public opinions, I suggest that our public schools would still be segregated. The independence of our judiciary, free from outside political and ideological influence, is a bedrock to our democracy. An independent judiciary is vital to our government's balance of power with checks and balances. Steve Becker served as Reno County district judge for 26 years and served as state representative for the 104th District for three terms. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi: Budget debate in Washington ignores the human cost in Illinois
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi: Budget debate in Washington ignores the human cost in Illinois

Chicago Tribune

timean hour ago

  • Chicago Tribune

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi: Budget debate in Washington ignores the human cost in Illinois

The latest political fight over President Donald Trump's self-described 'big, beautiful bill' might seem pretty remote — unless you happen to be one of the millions of individuals who could be affected. Take one of my constituents who contacted my office just a few weeks ago. She was diagnosed with breast cancer and had been receiving Medicaid. But the cost of treatment was too high, and her family had to sell their home and move into temporary housing to pay for it. As a result of that move, this person missed her annual redetermination notice to confirm her continued eligibility and was dropped from the Medicaid program. For the past few months, she has been desperately trying to get back on the program but hasn't received a response from federal officials. Now, she is running dangerously low on her lifesaving medications. After she contacted us, my office reached out to the Social Security Administration to find out why her address wasn't updated and why her appeal for reinstatement wasn't processed more quickly given the nature of her illness. We will continue to press the SSA for answers and quick action. Multiply this person's experience by 13.7 million. That's the number of Americans who could lose Medicaid under Trump's budget bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In Illinois alone, Medicaid supports the health and economic security of 3.4 million people. Cuts or caps to federal Medicaid funding would force Illinois taxpayers to fill the gap or result in service reductions for everyone. The Trump budget plan, recently approved by the House on a party-line vote of 215-214, would cut at least $625 billion from Medicaid. But this doesn't nearly pay for the budget's additional tax cuts, which go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest Americans and large corporations. Instead, the bill adds trillions more to the national debt — possibly raising interest rates and bringing on a recession. Three changes account for most of the Medicaid cuts in the bill: requiring states to implement onerous, unnecessary paperwork and administrative requirements for many recipients; increasing barriers to enrolling in and renewing Medicaid coverage; and limiting states' ability to raise their share of Medicaid revenues through provider taxes. The bill's supporters say these new paperwork hurdles will reduce waste and fraud in the program. But 58% of Illinois Medicaid recipients already are working, and most of the rest are not able to work due to their own disability or caring for a close family member. Overall, the bill is projected to strip nearly a million Illinoisans on Medicaid of their health care. These cuts would take a particularly devastating toll on our state's rural residents, whose hospitals and health systems rely heavily on Medicaid patients. Already, eight Illinois rural hospitals are at risk of immediate closure, which will be worsened by the Medicaid cuts in the Trump budget. Those closures would affect the health care of all local residents, regardless of whether they receive their care under Medicaid or private plans. Already, we are seeing people such as my constituent struggling to keep their eligibility for Medicaid. If the Senate passes Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' there will be a lot more losing their eligibility and being kicked off the program. With the Senate about to take up the Trump plan, there's still time to remember the faces and families behind the numbers and ask ourselves whether this bill truly reflects our values as Americans. U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat, has represented Illinois' 8th Congressional District since 2017.

Trump's Pentagon Parade Will Cost Lives and Livelihoods
Trump's Pentagon Parade Will Cost Lives and Livelihoods

Newsweek

timean hour ago

  • Newsweek

Trump's Pentagon Parade Will Cost Lives and Livelihoods

Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump wants to spend tens of millions on a military parade that happens to be on his birthday. At the same time, he's pushing cuts to food stamps, Medicaid, child labor enforcement, and more. This country needs many things—like cheaper groceries and housing and better jobs, health care, and schools. Instead of taking care of any of that, this parade will cost taxpayers an estimated $45 million. The street repairs post-parade alone are projected to cost about $16 million, since ordinary city streets aren't designed to handle heavy military traffic. Trump's military parade will not accomplish a single thing. It's a microcosm of this administration's bigger budget priorities. A U.S. soldier crawls out from under a M1 Abrams tank taking part in the Army's 250th birthday celebration parade during a preview at West Potomac Park in Washington, D.C., on June 11, 2025. A U.S. soldier crawls out from under a M1 Abrams tank taking part in the Army's 250th birthday celebration parade during a preview at West Potomac Park in Washington, D.C., on June 11, 2025. MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images President Trump and his followers in Congress are in the process of gutting Medicaid and food stamps to slash taxes for the wealthy, triple the budget for separating immigrant families, and pass the first-ever $1 trillion Pentagon budget. The president's budget proposal also promises cuts to a host of other programs, from public schools to medical research. And despite the president's falling out with Elon Musk, the president still stands by Musk's brainchild DOGE, which has cut billions of dollars in government services—often illegally. Many of those programs improve or even save lives for a lot less than the cost of the parade. In a new fact sheet, my colleagues and I at the National Priorities Project of the Institute for Policy Studies laid out just a few of them. For instance, Trump and DOGE seem to have it out for HIV programs. DOGE cut off a grant to Florida State University to prevent HIV among U.S. adolescents—and another grant to develop an HIV vaccine in South Africa. Either could be reinstated for less than the cost of Trump's single-day parade. Farmers and rural communities were targets too. Among other things, DOGE cut a program to help farmers in the Chickasaw nation and Oklahoma develop climate-smart farming practices—a necessity in a world where climate change is an undeniable reality. And among many other states, Wyoming lost a grant to help expand broadband internet access. Those grants cost less than a few hours' worth of creeping tanks and soldiers in period costume. The cuts to programs for kids are especially brutal. President Trump gave the OK to cut a program that provided lawyers to kids who experienced abuse and neglect, another program to reduce maternal and child deaths from malaria and other causes in Malawi, and another still to reduce the use of child labor worldwide. Each of those programs cost less than the estimate for street repairs from Trump's parade. And for about the cost of the parade, the Department of Education's civil rights division could hear and investigate reports of discrimination in schools for an entire year. When the Trump administration essentially stopped their work earlier this year, the office had 10,000 outstanding complaints, most of them from students with disabilities. We don't need a parade. But kids who experience discrimination, abuse, or forced labor need someone to stand up for them. Farmers need new approaches to adapt to our changing weather. Rural communities need access to the same internet that more urban places take for granted. And children and adults at risk of HIV, malaria, and other diseases deserve medical treatment and prevention to save their lives. If we could do all that for the cost of a parade, just imagine what we could do instead with $1 trillion for the Pentagon. For that amount, we could totally fill the national nursing shortage, help uninsured people with opioid use disorder get treatment, insure all uninsured kids in this country, expand affordable housing, create 350,000 clean energy jobs, send every household a $1,000 check, and much, much more. We don't need more money for weapons and war, and we certainly don't need to line the pockets of CEOs at the for-profit contractors that do dirty work for the Pentagon and ICE. What we need instead is help to survive and thrive—and many of those programs cost less than a single day of Pentagon pageantry. Lindsay Koshgarian, a federal budgeting expert, directs the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

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