How Trump's pride and joy is set to cause 13,000 preventable deaths... are you at risk?

Daily Mail​

4 hours ago

Health experts are sounding the alarm over the president's One Big Beautiful Bill, estimating the proposed cuts to government-funded health insurance could lead to the needless deaths of thousands.
The bill, which is expected to be passed July 4, would slash Medicaid coverage, reimbursement and funding by $793 billion over 10 years, as well as implement restrictive requirements for benefits.
This gutting of the federal insurance program is estimated to have big implications for the 71 million people enrolled in Medicaid.
Now, an in-depth study led by Dr Adam Gaffney, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, concluded it could undermine the coverage, financial well-being, medical care, and health of low-income Americans, resulting in up to 12,600 medically preventable deaths annually.
And an even higher mounting death toll would occur off the back of necessary healthcare services being reduced for vulnerable populations.
This could include, for instance, those battling chronic conditions like heart disease, HIV, and cancer, who rely on regular, low-cost medication and treatment.
Supporters of the bill say it will cut taxes, help boost the economy and increase take-home pay.
But critics argue the bill primarily benefits the wealthy and could lead to increased national debt.
The researchers warn: 'Today, despite its many shortcomings, Medicaid enjoys wide support from the electorate and serves as the foundation of the nation's health care safety net.
'The cuts under consideration, intended to offset the cost of tax cuts that would predominantly benefit wealthier Americans, would strip care from millions and likely lead to thousands of medically preventable deaths.'
Researchers identified six potential Medicaid cuts that the House of Representatives ' Budget Committee estimates would each reduce the federal government's Medicaid outlays by at least $100billion over 10 years.
They include reduction of the Medicaid matching floor; reduced funding of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid Expansion; Medicaid per capita caps; Medicaid work requirements; reduced Medicaid provider taxes; and repeal of the Biden-era Medicaid eligibility rule.
The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails or during certain emergencies.
It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul, which expanded eligibility and created a national minimum income threshold.
The team also assessed the overall effects of the current House bill, which includes three of the six options along with multiple smaller policy changes, such as shortening the duration of Medicaid's retroactive coverage and increasing cost-sharing for some Medicaid enrollees.
The researchers project that individually, these six Medicaid cuts would lead to an annual increase of between 651 and 12,626 medically preventable deaths.
These cuts would increase the number of uninsured Americans by between 600,000 and 3.9 million, and the annual number of people foregoing needed medical care will range from 129,060 to 838,890.
It could lead to 1.9 million people losing their personal doctor, 1.3 million foregoing needed medications and 380,270 women going without a mammogram.
The authors assert that policy makers should weigh the likely health and financial harms to patients and providers of reducing Medicaid expenditures against the desirability of tax reductions, which would benefit mostly wealthy Americans.
Under the current proposal, childless adults without disabilities who want Medicaid coverage would have to prove that they had worked, volunteered or attended school for 80 hours in the month enrolling.
But if you have a medically diagnosed illness or disability that prevents you from working, you may be exempt from Medicaid work requirements. This exemption falls under the category of being 'medically frail' or having 'special medical needs'.
Many details of the bill have yet to be ironed out, leaving beneficiaries with a host of unknowns and causing worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them from the work requirements.
Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees also worry that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates.
A tracking poll conducted by health policy research firm Kaiser Fund Foundation in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum, including those who voted for Trump.
About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats.
The poll found that about seven in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area.
About half said they were worried reductions would hurt the ability of them or their family to get and pay for health care.
Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment.
Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility.
'Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern,' she said.
Republicans have suggested a work requirement similar to the conditions for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - food stamps.
Those ages 16 to 59 must work or volunteer at least 80 hours a month if they are not in school, caring for a child under age six, disabled, pregnant or homeless.
Republicans say, however, the requirement could motivate people to find employment — maybe even a job that comes with health insurance.
Other cuts on the table include a proposal to change TO the federal government's reimbursement, which would shift the costs to states, forcing them to make tough choices about who or what they cover.
Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown Center for Children and Families, SAID: 'People still have health care needs even if you cut their coverage. Their health care needs are not going to go away.'