logo
‘Having Medicaid keeps me alive': Illinois residents anxiously watch as Congress considers Medicaid cuts

‘Having Medicaid keeps me alive': Illinois residents anxiously watch as Congress considers Medicaid cuts

Chicago Tribune16 hours ago

Across Illinois, millions of people are anxiously awaiting the next move on a bill that would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid across the country.
The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' would slash the program, which provides health care coverage to people with low incomes, in order to help pay for tax cuts and border and national security. President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans say the bill would cut waste, fraud and abuse from Medicaid, providing coverage only to those who truly need it.
But Democrats, health care leaders and patients say it would devastate those who rely on the program, and the hospitals that serve all patients. Across Illinois, 3.4 million people are on Medicaid — about one-fourth of the state's population.
Depending on which proposals are adopted, Illinois could lose billions of dollars — a loss that could force the state to make difficult decisions about who gets coverage and what kind of coverage they get.
Though the bill was still in flux as of Friday afternoon, multiple proposals in recent weeks have included work requirements for some people who receive Medicaid, changes to rules surrounding so-called provider taxes, and have threatened coverage for more than 770,000 Illinois residents who receive Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act's expansion of the program.
'No state, including Illinois, can backfill cuts in federal funding for Medicaid,' said the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, in response to Tribune questions. 'Cuts in federal funding will lead to reduced services and enrollment, putting the full range of Medicaid services at risk.'
The Tribune spoke with three Illinois residents on Medicaid about what the cuts could mean to their lives.
It's difficult to survive on $1,077 a month.
That's how much Kristina Lewis receives in monthly Social Security disability payments. She gets disability payments from the federal government because she can't work due to mental health issues, heart failure and Type 1 diabetes, she said.
The 64-year-old Alsip woman, however, has been able to stretch her small income, largely because she receives rental assistance from a local charity and because Medicare and Medicaid pay for her health care needs. She's one of nearly 400,000 people in Illinois who receive both Medicare and Medicaid because of disability, low income and/or age, according to KFF, a nonprofit organization focused on health policy.
She's scared of what might happen if Medicaid, a state and federally funded program, is cut. She's on five different medications for heart failure alone.
'They do those cuts and I don't know how people like me on certain medications, how we're supposed to survive and live,' Lewis said. 'I know I'm not the only person out there that's terrified of what's going to happen.'
House and Senate versions of the bill have included provisions that could make it more difficult for people who are enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid to keep their Medicaid coverage, according to KFF.
Lewis is also one of millions of people in Illinois who may end up dealing with the fallout of Illinois receiving fewer federal dollars overall, if certain proposals become law. Both the House and Senate have proposed changes that could limit the amount of money Illinois and many other states collect in so-called provider taxes, which help boost the amount of money states receive from the federal government for Medicaid.
Proponents of provider taxes say they're a necessary way of funding Medicaid, while critics say provider taxes are a way for states to inflate how much money they receive from the federal government. Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas recently called provider taxes a 'Medicaid money laundering scam.'
Though the concept of provider taxes may seem obscure and bureaucratic, in Illinois, they account for about $11 billion a year spent on Medicaid — about 25% of the state's spending for medical services, according to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.
Senate Republicans' proposal to reduce provider taxes suffered a major setback Thursday, after the Senate parliamentarian shot it down, saying it didn't follow procedural rules, according to The Associated Press. It was not yet clear Friday afternoon if changes to provider taxes would still be part of the final bill.
Limiting provider taxes is a 'backdoor' way of cutting federal Medicaid funding for Illinois, said Kathy Waligora, a spokesperson for EverThrive Illinois, a nonprofit advocacy organization working to achieve reproductive justice.
'The provider tax is absolutely going to shrink the size of the Medicaid program in Illinois,' Waligora said of proposed cuts. 'Exactly what benefits are cut, what provider rates are cut, what eligibility will be cut remains to be seen, but it will be across Medicaid.'
Lewis is worried about any kind of reduction to her Medicaid benefits. She said she first got on Medicaid about 10 to 15 years ago when she was living in a nursing home because of health issues. Eventually, her health improved to the point where she could live independently.
She worries that if her health issues again become unmanageable, she might have to one day return to living in a nursing home.
'I would really, really struggle,' she said of if her Medicaid benefits were cut. 'My biggest fear is to end up in another nursing home. You lose your independence.'
If she did have to live in a nursing home again, Medicaid may end up footing the substantial bill. In Illinois, Medicaid pays for about 68% of all nursing home care, according to the state Department of Healthcare and Family Services.
Cornelia Simms, 60, of Auburn Gresham, fears work requirements could make it difficult for her to stay on Medicaid — even though she has a job.
Under the bill, childless, able-bodied adults ages 19 to 64 would be required to spend at least 80 hours a month working, doing community service or going to school, in order to stay on Medicaid.
Simms already works about 80 hours a month as a home health care aide — a profession she got into after spending years caring for her ailing mother. She discovered that she enjoys helping elderly people and stuck with it after her mom passed away.
About 70% of Illinois residents on Medicaid already work, according to KFF.
But Simms worries about the paperwork, and the potential problems it could create if she's subject to work requirements. The bill would require states to verify at least twice a year that Medicaid beneficiaries are meeting work requirements. Simms is concerned about being asked to prove that she's eligible twice a year, especially because she said she prefers to verify her eligibility in person, which can require time away from work.
It can be tough for her to take days off from work because the person she cares for relies on her help, Simms said.
'I'm mainly her sole person to take her to the hospital, grocery stores and do all those things with her,' Simms said. 'If I have to take off work to see about my Medicaid then she will be lacking the daily things that she needs.'
The extra paperwork can also create administrative complications. Once, Simms said she forgot to submit paperwork to verify her continued eligibility for Medicaid. Simms lost her coverage, and it took more than six months to get it back, she said. During that time, she canceled doctor appointments and generally tried not to get medical care.
'I tried not to catch a cold,' Simms said. 'I just prayed and held out.'
In Illinois, anywhere from 270,000 to 500,000 people on Medicaid may end up losing coverage for administrative reasons, if work requirements proposed by House Republicans went into effect, according to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.
'What we see in other states where there are work requirements is that having the hoops to jump through, the red tape and the administrative burden keep people from accessing and enrolling in health care,' said Anusha Thotakura, executive director of Citizen Action/Illinois, a public interest coalition that's been working with partners across the state to hold events and drive action to fight Medicaid cuts.
'Many eligible people who are working will still lose access if these requirements are put into place,' Thotakura said.
Without Medicaid, Simms said it would be difficult for her to afford health care. She's in the process now of getting about $4,000 worth of dental work, most of which is being paid for by Medicaid, she said.
'No person, unless you've got some money, can afford it, not on a 9-5 (job), not the lower class or middle class,' Simms said of health care. 'It's impossible.'
Isaiah Rogers was up in a tree, wielding a chain saw when his vision began to blur.
He didn't know what was wrong with him, but he knew he couldn't continue his work trimming trees. Dizzy and in pain, Rogers went home, rested and popped ibuprofen.
Eventually, Rogers' son convinced him to go to the hospital. There, he was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes and told that if he had waited a couple of more days to seek care, he might have died. The hospital helped sign Rogers up for Medicaid, he said.
Since that scare several years ago, Rogers has faithfully been going to his doctor appointments and taking insulin and other medications, he said. He has not been able to return to his job trimming trees, and has been working small side jobs. He and his son have been staying with a friend to help them get by.
The 61-year-old West Pullman man relies on Medicaid to pay for his doctors' visits and the medications that 'keep me above water.'
Rogers is now worried about losing that lifeline. A recent version of the bill proposed work requirements not only for childless able-bodied Medicaid recipients, but also for adults with children older than 14.
Rogers' son is 12. The single father is concerned that there might come a point when he would be subject to the proposed requirement to work 80 hours a week or lose his Medicaid coverage.
Between his health issues and caring for his son, as well as his lack of a high school diploma, Rogers doesn't think it would be possible for him get a job working 80 hours a month. Rogers drops his son off and picks him up from school each day, taking city buses with him to and from the school.
He doesn't envision letting his son take the buses himself. 'At 14, no, not in Chicago,' Rogers said of his son taking the bus alone. 'People who don't ride the bus and don't live in our 'hood, they don't know what's going on. I'm not going to subject my son to that danger.'
He knows the dangers all too well. Rogers was incarcerated when he was younger, saying he was once a 'destroyer' of his community. He's since tried to turn his life around, working with Community Organizing and Family Issues to create positive change.
But his life now, as he knows it, depends on having Medicaid.
He's confident he'll lose Medicaid if he's required to work 80 hours a month. He worries that if he loses Medicaid, he'll no longer be able to afford insulin and his other medications, and he may slip into a diabetic coma or suffer a stroke.
'Having Medicaid keeps me alive,' Rogers said. 'It keeps me going, with the consistent doctors appointments, with the different types of medications.
'Having Medicaid helps me stay healthy to let me take care of my son,' Rogers said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senate Republicans' tax cuts now projected to cost $4.45T
Senate Republicans' tax cuts now projected to cost $4.45T

Politico

time25 minutes ago

  • Politico

Senate Republicans' tax cuts now projected to cost $4.45T

Senate Republicans released updated megabill text late Friday that would make sharp cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act's solar and wind tax credits after a late-stage push by President Donald Trump to crack down further on the incentives. The text would require solar and wind generation projects seeking to qualify for the law's clean electricity production and investment tax credits to be placed in service by the end of 2027 — significantly more restrictive than an earlier proposal by the Senate Finance Committee that tied eligibility to when a project begins construction. The changes came after Trump urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to crack down on the wind and solar credits and align the measure more closely with reconciliation text, H.R.1, that passed the House, as POLITICO reported earlier on Friday. The changes are likely to put some moderate GOP senators, who have backed a slower schedule for sunsetting those incentives, in a tough position. They'll be forced to choose between rejecting Trump's agenda or allowing the gutting of tax credits that could lead to canceled projects and job losses in their states — something renewable energy advocates are also warning about. 'We are literally going to have not enough electricity because Trump is killing solar. It's that serious,' Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) responded on X early Saturday. 'We need a bunch of new power on the grid, and nothing is as available as solar. Everything else takes a while. Meantime, expect shortages and high prices. Stupid.' The revised text would retain the investment and production tax credits for baseload sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower or energy storage, as proposed in the Finance Committee's earlier proposal. But it would make other significant changes, including extending a tax credit for clean hydrogen production until 2028. The panel's earlier proposal would have eliminated the credit after this year. And despite vocal lobbying by the solar industry, the proposal would maintain an abrupt cut to the tax incentive supporting residential solar power. The committee's earlier proposal would have eliminated that credit six months after the enactment of the bill; now the updated draft proposes repealing it at the end of this year. It would also deny certain wind and solar leasing arrangements from accessing the climate law's clean electricity investment and production tax credits, but, in a notable change, removed earlier language specifically disallowing rooftop solar. And it would move up the timeline for certain rules barring foreign entities of concern from accessing those credits. The bill would move up the termination date for electric vehicle tax credits to Sept. 30, compared to six months after enactment in the earlier Finance text. The credit for EV chargers would extend through June 2026. The new text also provides a bonus incentive for advanced nuclear facilities built in communities with high levels of employment in the nuclear industry. And the bill makes metallurgical coal eligible for the advanced manufacturing production tax credit through 2029. Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, a clean energy policy consulting group, said the new draft is going to 'screw' ratepayers, kill jobs and undermine U.S. economic competitiveness. 'All just to give fossil fuel executives more profits,' he said. 'Or to own the libs. Insanity.' Josh Siegel contributed to this report.

Trump says he wants interest rate cut to 1%, would 'love' if Powell resigned
Trump says he wants interest rate cut to 1%, would 'love' if Powell resigned

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump says he wants interest rate cut to 1%, would 'love' if Powell resigned

By Trevor Hunnicutt and Kanishka Singh WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he would "love" if Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell were to resign, and the president also said he wanted interest rates cut to 1%. KEY QUOTES "I'd love him to resign if he wanted to, he's done a lousy job," Trump said, also labeling the Fed chair as "stupid." "I think we should be paying 1% right now, and we're paying more because we have a guy who suffers from, I think, Trump Derangement Syndrome," Trump added. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT Trump has long attacked the Federal Reserve chair over interest rates that the U.S. president wants lowered. Fed chairs have long been seen as insulated from presidential dismissal for reasons other than malfeasance or misconduct, but Trump has threatened to test that legal premise with frequent threats to fire Powell. Powell's term ends in May 2026, and Trump is expected to nominate a successor in the coming months. CONTEXT Trump said he will name as successor to Powell someone who will lower rates. Last week, the Fed decided to leave short-term borrowing costs in the 4.25%-4.50% range.

Senate's ‘big, beautiful bill' faces serious headwinds in the House
Senate's ‘big, beautiful bill' faces serious headwinds in the House

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Senate's ‘big, beautiful bill' faces serious headwinds in the House

The Senate's version of the 'big, beautiful bill' is facing serious headwinds in the House with The Hill learning that at least six House Republicans are currently a 'no' on the framework, a daunting sign for GOP leadership as the Senate races towards a vote. Those six House Republicans, some of whom requested anonymity, are enough opposition to tank the package, as GOP leaders grapple with a razor-thin majority. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who was one of two GOP lawmakers to oppose the House version of the bill last month, is also likely to oppose the Senate's edition, deepening the pocket of resistance in the lower chamber. Republicans can only afford to lose three votes and still clear the legislation, assuming full attendance and united Democratic opposition. 'I support the reasonable provisions in H.R. 1 that protect Medicaid's long-term viability and ensure the program continues to serve our most vulnerable, but I will not support a final bill that eliminates vital funding streams our hospitals rely on, including provider taxes and state directed payments, or any provisions that punish expansion states,' Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) wrote in a statement on Saturday. 'President Trump was clear when he said to root out our waste, fraud, and abuse without cutting Medicaid and I wholeheartedly agree,' he continued. 'I urge my Senate colleagues to stick to the Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1 — otherwise I will vote no.' Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) told The Hill that he is also opposed to the bill because of the Medicaid provider tax provision. Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.) is currently a 'no' on the measure because of the Medicaid language, rollback of solar energy credits and public lands provisions, a source familiar with the matter told The Hill. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), meanwhile, told The Hill that he is against the current version of the package because of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap proposal. The legislation would increase the currently $10,000 SALT cap to $40,000 for individuals making $500,000 or less for five years, then snap back to the original number. 'While I support the President's broader agenda, how could I support the same unfair $10k SALT cap I've spent years criticizing?' LaLota said. 'A permanent $40k deduction cap with income thresholds of $225k for single filers and $450k for joint filers would earn my vote.' It is not, however, just moderates who are signaling issues with the Senate bill: Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, posted an ominous message on X that suggested he was not pleased with the package. 'I will not negotiate via X. But it's important to know that jamming us with a bill before we've had any chance to review the implications of major changes & re-writes, fluid scores, a high likelihood of violating the house framework (deficits) , & tons of swamp buy-offs is bad,' he wrote. The opposition is rising to the surface as Senate Republicans inch closer to holding an initial vote on the 'big, beautiful bill,' which would officially kick off the consideration process and eventually tee up a final vote in the House. It remains unclear, however, if Senate GOP leaders have the votes to move forward. If the motion to proceed passes by a simple majority, the chamber would hold a series of unlimited amendment votes called a vote-a-rama, which could result in changes to the measure. Senate GOP leaders are also still talking to holdouts and could make changes to the bill as written. In the meantime, House Republicans — beginning to review the revised Senate text unveiled overnight — are expressing resistance to the measure, prompting serious questions about whether top GOP lawmakers will be able to enact the legislation by their self-imposed July 4 deadline. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) convened a call with the House Republican Conference Saturday afternoon and urged lawmakers to keep their concerns with the Senate bill private, and instead speak directly with their senators and the White House, two sources told The Hill. Senate Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told members that it is unlikely they will have to return to Washington on Monday, the sources said. Tuesday or Wednesday is more realistic, he told lawmakers. One source told The Hill that the call was brief and leadership did not take questions. The main qualm among House Republicans appears to be the Medicaid language in the bill. The Senate's legislation includes a proposal that would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The decrease was initially supposed to begin in 2027, with a 0.5 percent phase down annually, but Senate Republicans overnight changed the text to delay the implementation to 2028. The upper chamber also inserted a provision to create a $25 billion rural hospital relief fund that would be distributed over five years to assuage those concerns. The changes, however, do not seem to be solving all of the GOP's problems, with House Republicans still voicing opposition to the language. Aside from Medicaid, the Senate bill's rollback of green-energy tax credits is an issue for some House Republicans. The revised legislation for the upper chamber slashes tax incentives for wind and solar energy and adds a new tax on future wind and solar projects. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) would not say how he plans to vote on the bill, but signaled that he is not happy with the Medicaid provisions and green-energy tax credit language. 'Instead of improving the Medicaid and energy portions of [the] House bill it appears the Senate went backwards,' he told The Hill. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

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