Proposed cuts to the VA will limit health care access for veterans. They deserve better.
Soldiers from Fort Lee, Virginia, help mark Veterans Day ceremonies at the World War II Memorial on Nov. 11, 2011, in Washington, D.C. Veterans Day in the United States honors those who have served in the nation's military and also coincides with the anniversary of the conclusion of hostilities on the western front in World War I. ()
Our soldiers have endured unimaginable hardships and faced profound challenges, testing the very limits of human resilience and strength. When they arrive home, the trauma many veterans experience abroad comes with them, and the toll it takes on their mental health can be devastating without intervention. Veterans will face additional challenges if promises of massive U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs layoffs around the country and in Idaho go forward.
Our veterans deserve better.
Several Americans have protested cuts to the VA. Here in Boise at the VA campus, local community members have supported those protests, demonstrating just how important VA services are to Idaho veterans. Our communities are concerned about access to behavioral health care for our veterans and with good cause. Military veterans are 57.3% more likely to die by suicide than non-veteran U.S. adults. This stark statistic reveals the harsh reality that our service members face, particularly those living in rural areas like many veterans do in Idaho. Our state has one of the highest rates of rural military populations, and it has a higher rate of VA reliance for health care than the national average.
The Trump administration aims to cut 83,000 jobs from Veterans Affairs. The VA is tasked with caring for our veterans who return home, it provides crucial medical and behavioral health services including telehealth services for our rural vets. At the Boise VA campus alone, we may lose 300 employees, and this is a VA that already lacks staff for the vets it serves.
Veterans and active-duty military personnel face unique challenges. Reintegrating into civilian life, Adverse Childhood Experiences (or ACEs) and post-traumatic stress all can contribute to poor mental health outcomes for our nation's heroes.
Many veterans shy away from seeking help due to stigma, barriers to care created by the isolation of rural living, or a lack of access to services, but the need is real. Veterans in rural areas often feel most comfortable accessing these services through the VA, a community that knows what they have gone through, specifically telehealth options which can allow access to behavioral health professionals working from home.
Current changes by the administration have put into question these services, leaving our veterans uncertain about where they might find care in the future.
In Idaho, one of the most pressing issues connected with this uncertainty is the disproportionate suicide rates among service members. Research consistently shows that veterans, especially those living in remote, rural regions — a common way of life in Idaho — are at greater risk of suicide. A lack of accessible mental health services can prevent veterans in need from receiving vital care.
Furthermore, for patients at risk of suicide continuity of care, including consistent follow-ups with trusted health care providers is critical. Any threat to losing that continuity of care poses a significant danger, it is well known to be a key component of successful strategies to prevent suicide.
Veterans health care provided by the VA removes barriers to care associated with insurance accessibility and affordability, and in many cases has been offered with telehealth options. However, any health services required outside of the VA falls on the service members to cover. If the VA's behavioral health services are disrupted in a way that jeopardizes telehealth for rural veterans, it not only creates a crisis in continuity of care but also establishes a significant barrier to access for many low-income veterans.
For more information on the Idaho Association of Free and Charitable Clinics, go to www.idahoafcc.org.
For veterans who are unable to access mental health services through the VA, safety net options such as the Idaho free and charitable clinics are crucial. These clinics are closely monitoring the situation, hoping for continued care and support for our nation's heroes.
In the meantime, they can provide health care to any Idahoan without health insurance including our former service members. To ensure the wellbeing of our nation's heroes, we must advocate for health care and behavioral health care as a basic human need, and work to improve and protect access to these services.
Veterans and service members deserve the support and care necessary to thrive, both during and after their service.
Idaho Capital Sun is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Idaho Capital Sun maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Christina Lords for questions: info@idahocapitalsun.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. | Opinion The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that way of thinking? Show Caption Hide Caption Trump rescinds Biden-era emergency abortion care guidance The Trump administration rescinded guidance clarifying that hospitals in abortion-ban states must treat pregnant patients during medical emergencies. unbranded - Newsworthy Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? Having a baby in America is dangerous. Republicans aren't helping. The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. None of this is surprising from Republicans. It's just sad. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts.
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts. | Opinion Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. Show Caption Hide Caption Disabled protesters removed from House committee hearing Disabled demonstrators protesting a Republican proposal to cut benefits were forced to leave a House committee hearing and arrested. Perhaps you've heard: Republicans are about to kick millions of people off health insurance. That claim is all over the news media as Congress debates the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Advocates on the left even say the proposed changes will kill people. Such claims have no basis in reality. The point is to frighten Republican lawmakers into giving up on necessary reforms. Instead, the GOP should double down. Congressional Budget Office is biased, and often wrong The source for this fearmongering is the Congressional Budget Office. As the Foundation for Government Accountability shows in our new research, CBO staff consists largely of registered Democrats and the agency is often wrong in its projections. Washington elites and their media allies like to hold up the CBO as an all-seeing oracle. In theory, it's a nonpartisan federal agency inside Congress that accurately predicts how legislation will play out in the real world. In reality, CBO is overwhelmingly staffed by Democrats and its findings are less than trustworthy. We painstakingly analyzed the voter registration of every CBO employee. Our finding: A staggering 79% of CBO staff are Democrats. A mere 12% are Republicans. That's actually worse than senior bureaucrats at the most liberal federal agencies, including Housing and Urban Development, the State Department and Health and Human Services. And when you look at key CBO departments, the liberal bias is even more stark. The Health Analysis Division is 93% Democrat and zero Republican. That's the department now driving the news about the dangers of the Republican bill. In other words, CBO may well be the most liberal government outfit in all of Washington. And surprise, surprise: It does Democrats' bidding. Tell us: Republicans want massive cuts to Medicaid. What do you want? | Forum Opinion That fact should persuade Republicans to ignore CBO's analysis of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In May, CBO asserted that about 10 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage by 2034 if the bill passed. CBO blames Republican reforms like Medicaid work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks and the removal of illegal immigrants from Medicaid. But think about what's really happening. A group of Democratic bureaucrats are criticizing Republican efforts to roll back Democratic priorities. This isn't nonpartisan policy analysis. It's political damage control. CBO projections were wrong on 'Obamacare' And wouldn't you know: The leftist CBO is frequently wrong. The agency has a long history of underestimating the benefits of Republican policies like tax cuts and health care reforms. The CBO also routinely minimizes the damage of Democratic policies, especially the soaring cost of government expansions. In 2010, when the Affordable Care Act passed, the CBO said only 13 million able-bodied adults would be covered under the law's Medicaid expansion in all 50 states. But within a decade, 50% more able-bodied adults had jumped onto Medicaid, even though only two-thirds of states had expanded the program. Opinion: GOP must cut Medicaid now. Or risk debt crisis and devastating cuts later. CBO's error made "Obamacare" look more affordable than it is, and taxpayers have spent tens of billions of additional dollars on able-bodied adults who push vulnerable Americans and individuals with disabilities back in line. For more than a decade, CBO has been consistently wrong on Medicaid expansion's real-world impact, underestimating enrollment and the cost to taxpayers. But when CBO analyzed the Republican repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate in 2017, it overestimated how many people would lose coverage. It said 4 million people would lose private health coverage and Medicaid in the first two years alone. But by 2020, about 13 million people had gained coverage. CBO could hardly have been more wrong. And the agency is still in charge of making predictions. Now, the CBO is once again warning about massive coverage losses, and their media allies are dutifully repeating the assertion. But congressional Republicans should see through the charade. Case in point: CBO's predictions about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act include 1.6 million people enrolled in Medicaid in multiple states. They won't lose coverage in the state where they live, but CBO still counts them among those losing coverage. In addition, 200,000 'losses' are people who aren't even on Medicaid. CBO just assumes they'll join in the years ahead. GOP is doing the right thing with Medicaid The truth is that Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. That will allow states to focus on Medicaid's intended recipients such as individuals with disabilities. Republicans are also removing ineligible people and illegal immigrants from Medicaid rolls. CBO makes it sound like those coverage losses are wrong, but what's really wrong is letting millions of people take advantage of taxpayers. Republicans are looking out for Americans − taxpayers, individuals with disabilities and future generations. The Congressional Budget Office, on the other hand, is looking out for the Democratic agenda of growing government at any cost. Republicans in the Senate should ignore the fearmongering and move forward with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as soon as possible. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability, where Addison Scherler is a data investigator.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Revoking EMTALA guidance on abortions will only further confuse doctors, experts say
In revoking federal guidance requiring emergency, life-saving abortions to protect the lives of pregnant women, the Trump Administration has added confusion to an already impossible situation for doctors, possibly putting women's lives at risk, experts told ABC News. "The rescission of this guidance is, contrary to its own statement, only further lending into the confusion that exists in emergency departments around the country, and it will put women's lives at risk," Alison Tanner, an attorney at the National Women's Law Center, told ABC News. "There have been countless stories of people across the country being denied emergency care, forced to wait in their cars in parking lots while they are actively bleeding, or being sent to different hospitals with a bucket and told to leave the state that they're in in order to get the care that they need," Tanner said. Earlier this week, the Trump administration revoked Biden-era federal guidance reminding hospitals that they are required to provide life-saving care, including abortions, in emergency situations under a federal law -- the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act -- regardless of state law. The guidance was issued after Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, ending federal protections for abortion rights. At least 13 states have total abortion bans in effect, according to the Guttmacher Institute. As the administration rolled back the guidance this week, a government agency also found that a Texas hospital "failed to ensure ... [Kyleigh Thurman] received an appropriate medical screening," when she presented to the emergency department in early 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said in a deficiency letter shared with ABC News. MORE: Trump administration rescinds Biden-era guidance requiring hospitals to perform emergency abortions Thurman ultimately needed to have a fallopian tube removed after it ruptured due to an ectopic pregnancy. Thurman said she was turned away twice from a local emergency room, without treatment. Another facility also denied her care twice, before her OB-GYN traveled to the hospital and convinced staff to end the pregnancy. She was rushed to surgery days later after the tube ruptured. Ectopic pregnancies are a dangerous complication that occurs when a fertilized egg implants and grows outside the uterus, in this case, in her fallopian tube. The treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion to prevent life-threatening complications. The hospital "did not appropriately screen [Thurman] for known risks associated with presenting signs, symptoms and test results including those which would constitute an [emergency medical condition], such as, but not limited to, ectopic pregnancy," the deficiency letter stated. "The hospital's failure to provide an appropriate medical screening examination, within the capability of the hospital's emergency department ... and consistent with the hospital's screening process, placed the patient at risk for deterioration of her health and wellbeing as a result of an untreated medical condition," the letter said. The determination was made after Thurman submitted an administrative complaint to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an office within the Department of Health and Human Services, in August 2024. MORE: Meet 18 women who shared heartbreaking pregnancy journeys in post-Roe world "I know how incredibly horrible and how hard it was for me, and I didn't want anyone else to ever have to go through what I had to go through," Thurman told ABC News. Thurman said she did not know how Texas' near-total abortion ban could impact her health or even what an ectopic pregnancy is before she learned she was pregnant. "I never imagined myself being caught in the crosshairs, but I don't think that many people ever do. It only highlights how this can happen to anyone," Thurman said. "I really didn't have a thought on it, and it really didn't become evident to me how negatively [abortion bans] would impact women until it was impacting my life," Thurman said. "I didn't know what it all meant." Thurman said she wants to try for a family despite her experience. "A lot of people are like 'just move' and I'm like, 'it's not that simple when you have deep roots in a place.' This is my home. I am not leaving. I'd rather fight back than leave," Thurman said. The new guidance will only create more confusion around what is already "muddy and very confusing," Thurman said. It is now more of an environment where "mistakes can happen," Thurman said. Despite the rescinding of the guidance, hospitals and physicians are still required to provide stabilizing care, experts said. "EMTALA is still the law of the land. Hospitals and doctors must still comply with EMTALA," Astrid Ackerman, a staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights who worked on filing EMTALA complaints, told ABC News. "What we're really concerned about is that this trend of that pregnant people cannot get the care that they need in this country, and more importantly, the care that hospitals and doctors want to provide," Ackerman said. Tanner said there is a real concern about whether the Trump administration will enforce EMTALA, especially after it dropped a federal lawsuit over Idaho's abortion ban, which does not allow abortions to save the life of the mother. An injunction in a separate EMTALA lawsuit by a hospital system in the state has blocked the ban. Doctors and hospitals are now stuck between "a rock and a hard place," trying to figure out what care they can provide, Tanner said. "Doctors and hospitals are being put in an untenable position. On the one hand, they are faced with state laws that would potentially impose severe criminal sanctions for providing necessary emergency abortion care," Tanner said. "And on the other hand, they have the federal law, EMTALA, which provides that both the federal government and individual patients can sue the hospital if they do not provide the necessary stabilizing care required under federal law," Tanner said. Revoking EMTALA guidance on abortions will only further confuse doctors, experts say originally appeared on
