Health care advocates say House GOP's Medicaid cuts would harm children, people with disabilities
Sue Abderholden, executive director of NAMI Minnesota, talks about how proposed Medicaid cuts would impact people with mental illness. Photo by Michelle Griffith/Minnesota Reformer.
Health care advocates on Thursday raised an alarm over planned cuts to federal Medicaid spending, which currently helps provide care to 1.4 million low income and disabled Minnesotans.
House Republicans and President Donald Trump are considering a range of cuts to Medicaid — known here as Medical Assistance — including reducing what the federal government pays to states. Last week, the U.S. House Budget Committee voted to seek at least $880 billion in spending cuts in programs overseen by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which includes Medicaid.
Republicans want to cut Medicaid and other programs to pay for more border enforcement, defense spending and tax cuts that would give the most substantial benefits to the highest incomes.
In Minnesota, 650,000 children are enrolled in Medicaid, or nearly half of the total. Another 125,000 are people with disabilities.
'The size of the cuts being proposed in Congress make it impossible for people to not lose coverage and for covered services to not be eliminated,' said Tina Rucci, public policy director with The Arc Minnesota — an advocacy group for people with disabilities — during a Capitol press conference.
Cuts to Medicaid would impact Minnesotans across the state. Dr. Justin Schafer, a psychiatry resident with HCMC who's on rotation in Bemidji, said the majority of patients he sees are covered by Medicaid. In Bemidji, Schafer said he mostly works with patients with opioid use disorder, who wouldn't be able to access life-saving medication without Medical Assistance.
'I'm really nervous,' Schafer said Thursday.
U.S. House Republicans are also considering requiring enrollees to prove that they are working in order to access Medicaid, a move that critics say would add bureaucratic burdens to accessing care and have little impact because most enrollees already work.
If the federal government cuts Medicaid funding and Minnesota wants to maintain care in the face of rapidly rising health care costs, state government would have to fill the gap.
Minnesota is already facing a multi-billion dollar budget deficit, and additional state Medicaid spending would require tax increases or cuts to other priorities like public education, parks or transportation.
'We simply want to help people understand that Medicaid is something that makes our state stronger, safer and healthier,' Rucci said.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
TPresident Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food aid program, by the numbers: Year: 2008 The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law took effect eliminating a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. Number: 42 million A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the county. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. Dollars: $295 billion Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion of federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come by expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. Ages: 7 and 55-64 To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents would need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. Percentages: 5% - 25% The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. Margin: 1 House Resolution 1, containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts, passed the House last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food aid and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Utah lawmakers oppose AI regulation in Trump's ‘Big, beautiful bill'
SALT LAKE CITY () — Utah Lawmakers have signed a letter opposing specific measures related to artificial intelligence in President Donald Trump's In a letter addressed to Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Senator John Curtis (R-Utah), state lawmakers say they are 'concerned with the proposed ten-year moratorium on state-level artificial intelligence regulation.' According to , initially the bill was and block dozens of states from enforcing preexisting AI regulations and oversight structures in any way. But on June 5, the Senate Commerce Committee altered the text on the bill. The new version would only require states not to regulate AI if they want access to federal broadband funding. The bill allocates $500 million over the next 10 years to modernize government systems with the help of AI and automation technologies. In a letter signed by nearly 50 lawmakers including House Speaker Mike Schultz (R-Hooper) and Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore (R-Draper), they claim the provision would hinder Utah's nationally recognized efforts 'to strike the right balance between innovation and consumer protection.' They add that since Utah to establish an Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy, followed by the launch of an AI learning Lab, Lawmakers say these initiatives 'allow Utah to encourage responsible AI development, empower industry leaders and shield consumers from real-world harms, all without stifling innovation.' According to , a centerpiece of the legislation is making the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent — which nonpartisan scorers and think tanks estimate would cost trillions of dollars over the next decade. Utah taxpayers may take a hit if 2017 cuts expire The bill also includes a proposal that would raise the cap for the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, which would allow taxpayers — especially those in higher-tax blue states — to deduct more of their regional taxes from their federal tax bill. The bill also has major reforms to Medicaid, estimated to lead to millions of people losing coverage by 2034. Trump is pushing Congress, where Republicans have majority control, to send the final product to his desk to become law by the Fourth of July. RSL hoping to make a run in second half of season Utah lawmakers oppose AI regulation in Trump's 'Big, beautiful bill' 'Somebody has to stop it:' Gov. Cox defends Trump's decision to deploy troops to LA 'We're living in the dumbest timeline' — Gov. Cox comments on SLC Sego pride flags Calif. governor asks court to block Trump administration from using troops in immigration raids Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Newsom, in California address, says Trump purposely 'fanned the flames' of L.A. protests
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday night accused President Trump of intentionally fanning the flames of the Los Angeles protests and "pulling a military dragnet across" the city endangering peaceful protesters and targeting hardworking immigrant families. The Democratic governor's comments were a forceful rebuke to the president's claims that deploying the California National Guard and U.S. Marines to the city was necessary to control the civil unrest. "Donald Trump's government isn't protecting our communities — they're traumatizing our communities," Newsom said. "And that seems to be the entire point." The governor posted his video address to California on social media hours after Trump said at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina that he sent in troops to protect immigration agents from 'the attacks of a vicious and violent mob.' The picture Trump painted of the federal government's role in the protests against immigration raids marks a sharp contrast to Newsom's assertion that state and local law enforcement were successfully keeping the peace before federal authorities deployed "tear gas," "flash-bang grenades" and "rubber bullets" on Angelenos exercising their constitutional right to free speech and assembly. Then Trump "illegally" called up the California National Guard, Newsom said. "This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation, putting our people, our officers, and even our National Guard at risk," Newsom said. "That's when the downward spiral began. He doubled down on his dangerous National Guard deployment by fanning the flames even harder. And the president, he did it on purpose." The governor, who has become a target for Republicans and a central figure in the political and legal battle over the protests, has said for days that an "unhinged" Trump deployed troops to intentionally incite violence and chaos, seeking to divert attention away from his actions in Washington and assert his 'dictatorial tendencies.' Read more: L.A. immigration raids draw California Gov. Gavin Newsom back into the fight with Trump Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a request for a restraining order earlier Tuesday asking a federal judge to call off the 'Department of Defense's illegal militarization of Los Angeles and the takeover of a California National Guard unit.' The request came the day after California filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration alleging that the deployment of the guard without the governor's consent violated the U.S. Constitution. After returning to Washington, Trump commented on the 'good relationship' he's always had with Newsom, before blaming the governor for the unrest. 'This should never have been allowed to start, and if we didn't get involved, Los Angeles would be burning down right now,' Trump said, and then made a reference to the deadly wildfires in the Los Angeles area in January. 'Just as the houses burned down." He said the military is in the city to de-escalate the situation and control what he described as paid 'insurrectionists,' 'agitators' and 'troublemakers.' 'We have a lot of people all over the world watching Los Angeles,' Trump said. 'We've got the Olympics, so we have this guy allowing this to happen.' On Monday, Trump said his top border policy advisor Tom Homan should follow through on threats to arrest the governor. Newsom immediately jumped on the comment, comparing the federal administration to an 'authoritarian regime.' 'I never thought I'd hear those words. Honestly, Democrat, Republican. Never thought I'd hear those in my lifetime — to threaten a political opponent who happens to be sitting governor,' Newsom said. Read more: California asks court for restraining order to block Guard, U.S. Marine deployments in L.A. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) declined to answer a question about whether Newsom should be arrested on Tuesday and instead said the governor should be 'tarred and feathered.' Newsom took a shot at Johnson during his address, saying the speaker has "completely abdicated" his responsibility for Congress to serve as a check on the White House. He warned that "other states are next." "At this moment, we all need to stand up and be held to account, a higher level of accountability," Newsom said, imploring protesters to exercise free-speech rights peacefully. "I know many of you are feeling deep anxiety, stress and fear. But I want you to know that you are the antidote to that fear and anxiety. "What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty. Your silence. To be complicit in this moment. Do not give in to him." Times staff writer Laura Nelson and Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner contributed to this report. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
