logo
Potential $880B cut to Medicaid could have big impacts on Wyoming hospitals, nursing homes

Potential $880B cut to Medicaid could have big impacts on Wyoming hospitals, nursing homes

Yahoo03-05-2025

CHEYENNE — Should Congress follow through with a proposed $880 billion cut to Medicaid, Wyoming hospitals and nursing homes stand to lose significant funding on top of an already fragile health care system, stakeholders told the Wyoming Tribune Eagle this week.
Congress is having ongoing discussions about how to cut $880 billion in program spending. There is a current deadline of May 9 for congressional committees to make their budget recommendations, but this deadline is not set in stone, according to reporting by Politico.
'To get to that number, Medicaid would have to take a pretty big hit,' said Wyoming Hospital Association Vice President Josh Hannes.
States with expanded Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act are going to feel the brunt of these cuts. Although Wyoming is one of a handful of states that didn't opt in to Medicaid expansion, the Cowboy State is far from being in the clear, according to sources.
'Wyoming didn't expand Medicaid, so that wouldn't touch us. But that also doesn't get them to $880 billion,' Hannes said. 'So, what else are they gonna do?'
One potential area that has health care officials concerned is the looming expiration date of premium tax credits. These are a federal subsidy that makes insurance policies more affordable on the health insurance marketplace. Around 42,000 Wyomingites depend on these tax credits, Hannes said.
'If those go away … rates on the marketplace are going to jump dramatically,' he said.
This is a 'significant concern' for Cheyenne Regional Medical Center, said Cheyenne Regional Health System Chief Financial Officer Yvonne Wigington. First and foremost, hospital associates are worried about the impact the loss of these credits will have on patients, she said.
People will either have to forgo their health insurance or choose a plan that doesn't fully meet their health care needs. More people will be at risk of losing their health coverage and delaying treatment, Wigington said.
'We really don't ever want patients to feel like they have to delay their care,' she said.
On the financial side, CRMC would lose between $9 million and $18 million in annual revenue if the tax credits were to expire.
'We care for any patient, regardless of their ability to pay for their services,' Wigington said. 'If those individuals did not have health care insurance and did not have a way to pay for their health care, that would be $9-18 million that we don't get paid for.'
Hospital officials are currently evaluating 'many different scenarios for potential cuts' at CRMC, Wigington said. However, it's difficult to pinpoint what the actual impact would be, with so many cuts being proposed at the federal level.
'We're not sure exactly which cuts may actually be implemented,' Wigington said.
In addition, the hospital is facing stress from another major federal action — increased tariffs. Wigington said President Donald Trump's tariffs affect the hospital's vendor contracts, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals and the information technology area. However, with the percentage of these tariffs constantly changing, preparing for financial impacts has been a moving target.
'We're in the preliminary stages, but we definitely have seen price escalations,' Wigington said. 'Some of our vendors have notified us that they're not able to honor quotes that they've given us previously until they are better able to evaluate the impact of tariffs.'
Wigington said tariffs have not impacted services or employment at CRMC so far.
'The (tariffs') percentages have changed a few different times,' Wigington said. 'We, like probably every other hospital, are really just trying to plan with what we know now and anticipate those things that are being proposed.'
Uninsured rates in Wyoming
The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) reported that 59,400 Wyomingites, or 10.5% of the state's population, were uninsured in 2023. By comparison, 8% of the entire U.S. population was uninsured that same year.
'We already have struggling hospitals and nursing homes, and Medicaid is a lifeline for a lot of those facilities,' Hannes said. 'Medicare and Medicaid together represent way over half of total revenue for our hospitals in the state.'
A 2022 contribution analysis conducted by the Center for Business and Economic Analysis at the University of Wyoming found that Wyoming's hospitals and nursing homes directly contribute a combined $47.5 billion to the gross state product.
The hospital and nursing home industry made up 3.5% of Wyoming's total economic contribution, as well as provided 19,370 jobs, according to the analysis.
'If you're not investing in our health care infrastructure, you're doing harm, and if you're going to pull away investment, that's even worse,' Hannes said. 'So it's certainly concerning, the discussions that are going on at the federal level.'
Adding to the number of uninsured patients increases cost of care, Hannes said. When a patient is unable to pay for services, 'hospitals eat that.'
'Our industry is different from so many others, because we don't get to decide what we get paid, and we have to serve everyone who comes in through the door,' he said.
About 7% of CRMC's total patient population is on Medicaid, Wigington said. The potential $880 billion cut in funding to Medicaid, equivalent to about an 11% spending reduction for the program, would expand the local hospital's funding gap by $1.8 million.
'The payments already that we receive for caring for our Medicaid patients don't cover our cost to care for those patients,' Wigington said. In the 2024 fiscal year, there was a $10 million shortfall in Medicaid payments, which the hospital tries to alleviate through other funding sources, she said.
'That is a lot of money,' Wiggington said.
In January, U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., brought up Wyoming's challenges with rural health care to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is now U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services. Barrasso said six Wyoming hospitals are at risk of closing, two are in immediate risk of closing in the next two years, and 10 have had to cut available services, according to a news release from his office.
'We have 33 hospitals in Wyoming. Twenty-six are located in various locations often hard to get to, or weather impacts them,' Barrasso said. 'This is a concern of rural hospitals in both Republican and Democrat states. It's bipartisan. It is critical that the financial, workforce challenges that we are facing are addressed.'
Nursing homes at risk
Most states finance at least a portion of their Medicaid spending through taxes collected from health care providers, which generates additional federal matching payments to the states, according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis. States return the collected taxes to those providers in the form of higher Medicaid payments.
Wyoming's had a hospital provider tax since 2017 and a nursing home provider tax since 2011, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank based in Washington, D.C. These mechanisms help draw down federal dollars to the state, Hannes said, and nursing homes are a huge benefactor of these programs.
There is currently a 6% provider tax cap. The CBO estimated a 5% cap on the provider tax 'would reduce the deficit by $41 billion from 2024 to 2032.' A 2.5% cap 'would reduce the deficit by $209 billion over that period.'
Critics of restricting provider taxes argue this 'will create financing gaps for states that could result in higher state taxes, reductions in Medicaid eligibility, lower provider payment rates, and fewer covered benefits,' according to KFF.
'If they dial back these provider loopholes, that's a direct reimbursement reduction to the nursing homes,' said Wyoming HealthWorks CEO Tracy Brosius. 'They're almost entirely dependent on that.'
Around 70-80% of patients in nursing homes are reliant on Medicaid, Brosius said. People are there because they have a high clinical need and no one to take care of them. She questioned where these people are supposed to go once nursing homes start shutting down.
'What happens if they cut the provider taxes and now the nursing homes start to fold?' Brosius said. 'What happens to the 80 people that are there?'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

In Lansing, Democrats warn Medicaid and SNAP cuts would be a 'perfect storm' for the poor
In Lansing, Democrats warn Medicaid and SNAP cuts would be a 'perfect storm' for the poor

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

In Lansing, Democrats warn Medicaid and SNAP cuts would be a 'perfect storm' for the poor

U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Holly) and U.S. Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Bay City) at a June 6, 2025 town hall in Lansing. | Kyle Davidson Members of the Michigan Democratic Party laid out the impacts of congressional Republicans' 'big beautiful bill' at a town hall on Friday, calling on residents of Michigan's 7th Congressional District to help educate their friends and family as well. A few hundred supporters packed into the gym of Everett High School in Lansing as U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Holly), U.S. Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Bay City) and Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel detailed how the Trump administration's policies would impact everyone, particularly individuals with limited income. The Michigan Democratic Party has hosted several similar events in Republican districts throughout the state, Hertel said, noting House Republicans had been instructed to avoid town halls with their constituents. 'The most basic thing for a public servant is to be able to sit and answer questions. … The least someone can do is sit down with people and explain their votes' Hertel said. And the 7th Congressional District's current representative, Tom Barrett (R-Charlotte) has a lot of explaining to do, Hertel said, slamming Barrett for supporting Republican's spending plan, and arguing the representative failed to stand up to the President and make himself available to his constituents A Barrett spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. Prior to taking questions, McDonald Rivet slammed the Republican spending effort, telling audience members that it would take away healthcare and raise the cost of medicine, education and energy in order to deliver a tax break to the wealthy. 'Oh, and by the way, it's going to increase the deficit by several trillion dollars,' She said. Slotkin looked back on the president's first term, when Trump was looking to overturn the Affordable Care Act, which expanded access to Medicaid and barred insurance providers from denying people coverage or charging them due to preexisting health conditions. 'It was the first thing he talked about when he got sworn in, he even had the House of Representatives vote to repeal Obamacare. And now we not only still have it, we expanded it, and how? Because we educated people,' Slotkin said. However, rather than cutting people's healthcare outright, Slotkin argued Trump is aiming to hide those cuts by requiring individuals to reregister for Medicaid every six months, making it harder to qualify and more difficult to sign up. While the current proposal would implement work requirements for Medicaid recipients, Slotkin noted it also raises the age limit for those requirements to 64. According to KFF, an independent health policy organization, 92% of medicaid recipients under 65 are already working full or part time. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that Republican's budget plan would result in 10.9 million additional people being uninsured in 2034, with 7.8 million fewer individuals on Medicaid due to the policy's proposed work requirements. Even individuals who are not on Medicaid will feel the impacts of cuts to the program, Slotkin said, noting that nursing homes, hospitals and mental health facilities all rely on Medicaid funding. 'I would just say this bill is designed to really be a perfect storm for poor people. If you are living at or below the poverty line, you're getting hit in every direction. Medicaid, your health care; SNAP your food; a bunch of programs, right, that you depend on. … They are paying for those tax benefits for the most wealthy by really the perfect storm of cuts for the poorest among us,' Slotkin said. On top of cutting SNAP benefits by $300 billion, the Department of Government Efficiency had canceled $1 billion in funding to programs supporting school meals and food banks, McDonald Rivet said. 'So you're that hungry kid and you have lost access to a food bank. You have lost access to food at school, and now you don't have SNAP benefits. This is the America that this bill creates,' McDonald Rivet said. Alongside questions on cuts to SNAP and Medicaid, audience members asked the lawmakers about the legal challenges levied against the Trump administration, and Democrats' plans to counter Republicans heading into the 2026 mid-term election. On Friday, the Trump Administration backed down in its resistance of a Supreme Court order demanding that the administration facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador three months ago. However, the fight goes beyond Abrego Gracia, into whether the executive branch needs to obey orders from the Supreme Court, Slotkin said. 'Now, we haven't had to deal with this issue in the years past because Democrats and Republicans have largely said, 'Huh, if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court issues a court order, we're going to follow it.' Trump is pushing the boundaries on all the democratic values and principles most of us grew up with,' Slotkin said. Should an individual defy a federal court order, U.S. marshals would eventually be sent to enforce that order, Slotkin said. However, the U.S. marshals are controlled by the United States attorney general. Should the U.S. marshals receive a request to enforce a Supreme Court order against the president, Slotkin raised the question on whether Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Trump loyalist, would approve it. 'We've needed to have this fight. We need to have it out. We need a court order that he needs to obey, and we need to precipitate this conversation on the U.S. marshals. But today was an important sign that they don't want to get to that point. They don't want to wait until the U.S. marshals are potentially getting an order to activate,' Slotkin said. In preparing to take on the Trump Administration, Slotkin said she'd gone back to her roots in national security and crafted a war plan in the form of a 17-page powerpoint, with plans to lay out her vision of the nation's future under Democratic leadership. 'It's about facing our problems head on and saying the only way we do well as a country, the only way that we have a strong middle class going forward, the American Dream going forward, is if we face these issues and have a vision. And it's economic, it's about national security, and it's about our democracy,' Slotkin said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it

The Hill

time2 hours ago

  • The Hill

How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it

At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety.

Federal cuts force families to make difficult, and potentially deadly, choices
Federal cuts force families to make difficult, and potentially deadly, choices

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Federal cuts force families to make difficult, and potentially deadly, choices

A mother rushes into the emergency department cradling her 6-month-old baby. He is lethargic, seizing and in critical condition. The cause? Severely low sodium levels in his blood — a result of formula diluted with extra water to make it last longer. With grocery prices climbing and her SNAP benefits running out before the end of the month, she felt she had no other choice. This story is not an outlier. Pediatric clinicians across Wisconsin are seeing the real and devastating consequences of policies that fail to prioritize the health and well-being of children and families. And now, the situation could get worse. The Trump Administration's proposed 'skinny' budget for Fiscal Year 2026 includes deep and dangerous cuts to federal programs that form the backbone of public health in our communities. These proposed reductions include: $18 billion from the National Institutes of Health – stalling critical pediatric research and innovation $3.5 billion from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – compromising disease surveillance, immunization programs, and emergency response efforts $1.73 billion from the Health Resources and Services Administration – cutting access to essential primary and preventive care services for children and families $674 million from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services – threatening the Medicaid and CHIP programs that provide health coverage to nearly half of Wisconsin's children. Opinion: We asked readers about wake boats on Wisconsin lakes. Here's what you said. And as if that weren't enough, further reductions to SNAP and other nutrition support programs are also on the table. These aren't just numbers on a spreadsheet. These are lifelines. Vital services that help children survive and thrive. When families can't afford formula, when clinics lose funding for immunization programs, when children lose health coverage, the consequences are immediate and, in many cases, irreversible. As front-line providers, we witness this every day. We can do better. Our federal budget is a reflection of our national values. It should not balance its books on the backs of our youngest and most vulnerable. I implore Wisconsin's elected officials to reject this harmful budget proposal. Think of that infant in the emergency room. Think of the thousands of other children across our state whose health and future depend on robust public health infrastructure, access to care, and support for families in need. We urge lawmakers to work toward a bipartisan budget that invests in children, strengthens public health, and protects the building blocks of a healthy society. Wisconsin's children deserve every opportunity to grow up healthy and strong. Our chapter of the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners stands ready to partner in this effort. Let's move forward — not backward — when it comes to the health of our children. Christine Schindler is a critical care pediatric nurse practitioner at Children's WI, a clinical professor at Marquette University, and the President of the Wisconsin Chapter of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners. She has been caring for critically ill and injured children for almost 30 years. All opinions expressed are her own. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Trump budget jeopardizes health of American children | Opinion

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