logo
As Republicans Eye Sweeping Medicaid Cuts, Missouri Offers a Preview

As Republicans Eye Sweeping Medicaid Cuts, Missouri Offers a Preview

Yahoo12-05-2025
The prospect of sweeping federal cuts to Medicaid is alarming — especially to some Missourians who remember the last time the public medical insurance program for those with low incomes or disabilities was pressed for cash in the state.
In 2005, Missouri adopted some of the strictest eligibility standards in the nation, reduced benefits, and increased patients' copayments for the joint federal-state program due to state budget shortfalls totaling about $2.4 billion over several prior years. More than 100,000 Missourians lost coverage as a result, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported that the changes led to increases in credit card borrowing and debt in third-party collections.
A woman told NPR that year that her $6.70-an-hour McDonald's job put her over the new income limits and rendered her ineligible, even though she was supporting three children on about $300 a week. A woman receiving $865 a month in disability payments worried at a town hall meeting about not being able to raise her orphaned granddaughter as the state asked her to pay $167 a month to keep her health coverage.
Now, Missouri could lose an estimated $2 billion a year in federal funding as congressional Republicans look to cut at least $880 billion over a decade from a pool of funding that includes Medicaid programs nationwide. Medicaid and the closely related Children's Health Insurance Program together insure roughly 79 million people — about 1 in 5 Americans.
'We're looking at a much more significant impact with the loss of federal funds even than what 2005 was,' said Amy Blouin, president of the progressive Missouri Budget Project think tank. 'We're not going to be able to protect kids. We're not going to be able to protect people with disabilities from some sort of impact.'
At today's spending levels, a cut of $880 billion to Medicaid could lead to states' losing federal funding ranging from $78 million a year in Wyoming to $13 billion a year in California, according to an analysis from KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. State lawmakers nationwide would then be left to address the shortfalls, likely through some combination of slashing benefits or eligibility, raising taxes, or finding a different large budget item to cut, such as education spending.
Republican lawmakers are floating various proposals to cut Medicaid, including one to reduce the money the federal government sends to states to help cover adults who gained access to the program under the Affordable Care Act's provision known as Medicaid expansion. The 2010 health care law allowed states to expand Medicaid eligibility to cover more adults with low incomes. The federal government is picking up 90% of the tab for that group. About 20 million people nationwide are now covered through that expansion.
Missouri expanded Medicaid in 2021. That has meant that a single working-age adult in Missouri can now earn up to $21,597 a year and qualify for coverage, whereas before, nondisabled adults without children couldn't get Medicaid coverage. That portion of the program now covers over 329,000 Missourians, more than a quarter of the state's Medicaid recipients.
For every percentage point that the federal portion of the funding for that group decreases, Missouri's Medicaid director estimated, the state could lose $30 million to $35 million a year.
But the equation is even more complicated given that Missouri expanded access via a constitutional amendment. Voters approved the expansion in 2020 after the state's Republican leadership resisted doing so for a decade. That means changes to Medicaid expansion in Missouri would require voters to amend the state constitution again. The same is true in South Dakota and Oklahoma.
So even if Congress attempted to narrowly target cuts to the nation's Medicaid expansion population, Washington University in St. Louis health economist Timothy McBride said, Missouri's expansion program would likely stay in place.
'Then you would just have to find the money elsewhere, which would be brutal in Missouri,' McBride said.
In Crestwood, a suburb of St. Louis, Sandra Smith worries her daughter's in-home nursing care would be on the chopping block. Nearly all in-home services are an optional part of Medicaid that states are not required to include in their programs. But the services have been critical for Sandra and her 24-year-old daughter, Sarah.
Sarah Smith has been disabled for most of her life due to seizures from a rare genetic disorder called Dravet syndrome. She has been covered by Medicaid in various ways since she was 3.
She needs intensive, 24-hour care, and Medicaid pays for a nurse to come to their home 13 hours a day. Her mother serves as the overnight caregiver and covers when the nurses are sick — work Sandra Smith is not allowed to be compensated for and that doesn't count toward the 63-year-old's Social Security.
Having nursing help allows Sandra Smith to work as an independent podcast producer and gives her a break from being the go-to-person for providing care 24 hours a day, day after day, year after year.
'I really and truly don't know what I would do if we lost the Medicaid home care. I have no plan whatsoever,' Sandra Smith said. 'It is not sustainable for anyone to do infinite, 24-hour care without dire physical health, mental health, and financial consequences, especially as we parents get into our elder years.'
Elias Tsapelas, director of fiscal policy at the conservative Show-Me Institute, said potential changes to Medicaid programs depend on the extent of any budget cuts that Congress ultimately passes and how much time states have to respond.
A large cut implemented immediately, for example, would require state legislators to look for parts of the budget they have the discretion to cut quickly. But if states have time to absorb funding changes, he said, they would have more flexibility.
'I'm not ready to think that Congress is going to willingly put us on the path of making every state go cut their benefits for the most vulnerable,' Tsapelas said.
Missouri's congressional delegation split along party lines over the recent budget resolution calling for deep spending cuts, with the Republicans who control six of the eight House seats and both Senate seats all voting for it.
But 76% of the public, including 55% of Republicans, say they oppose major federal funding cuts to Medicaid, according to a national KFF poll conducted April 8-15.
And Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican, has said that he does not support cutting Medicaid and posted on the social platform X that he was told by President Donald Trump that the House and Senate would not cut Medicaid benefits and that Trump won't sign any benefit cuts.
'I hope congressional leadership will get the message,' Hawley posted. He declined to comment for this article.
U.S. House Republicans are aiming to pass a budget by Memorial Day, after many state legislatures, including Missouri's, will have adjourned for the year.
Meanwhile, Missouri lawmakers are poised to pass a tax cut that is estimated to reduce state revenue by about $240 million in the first year.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
The post As Republicans Eye Sweeping Medicaid Cuts, Missouri Offers a Preview appeared first on Katie Couric Media.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump raises prospect of Ukraine attacks on Russia: ‘Impossible' to win without attacking invader country
Trump raises prospect of Ukraine attacks on Russia: ‘Impossible' to win without attacking invader country

The Hill

time20 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump raises prospect of Ukraine attacks on Russia: ‘Impossible' to win without attacking invader country

President Trump on Thursday promised 'interesting times ahead' as he raised the prospect of Ukraine launching an offensive against Russia, amid signs that the Kremlin could be slow-walking progress on a peace deal. In a post on the Truth Social platform, the president seemed to justify a hypothetical offensive against Russia and criticized the Biden administration's longstanding policy against Ukraine using U.S. long-range missiles to attack inside Russia. 'It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invaders country. It's like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense. There is no chance of winning! It is like that with Ukraine and Russia,' Trump wrote in his post. 'Crooked and grossly incompetent Joe Biden would not let Ukraine FIGHT BACK, only DEFEND. How did that work out? Regardless, this is a war that would have NEVER happened if I were President – ZERO CHANCE,' he continued. 'Interesting times ahead!!!' Two weeks after Trump's 2024 victory, former President Biden authorized a major shift in U.S. policy to allow Ukraine to use long-range U.S. missiles to attack sites in Russia. Trump, at the time, sharply criticized the decision, calling it 'stupid' and saying he 'might' consider reversing the decision, adding, 'I think it was a very stupid thing to do.' 'I don't think that should have been allowed, not when there's a possibility — certainly not just weeks before I take over,' Trump said at a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort last December. 'Why would they do that without asking me what I thought? I wouldn't have had him do that. I think it was a big mistake.' Lawmakers in both parties generally offered support for the shift, with some Republicans saying the move was welcome but came too late. Other Republicans, including many of Trump's supporters, echoed the president's sentiment and called the move escalatory. Trump's latest public musing about a hypothetical Ukrainian offensive comes as Russian officials have expressed some doubt about early prospects of a peace deal, including on potential security guarantees for Kyiv and a bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Paul Krugman: Trump administration ‘about to ICE the economy' with immigration crackdown
Paul Krugman: Trump administration ‘about to ICE the economy' with immigration crackdown

The Hill

time20 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Paul Krugman: Trump administration ‘about to ICE the economy' with immigration crackdown

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman said in a Wednesday Substack post that the Trump administration is 'about to ICE the economy' with its immigration crackdown. 'I worry, as everyone should, about how a huge expansion of this deeply un-American organization may be used as a tool of presidential power and repression,' Krugman said in a Substack post, discussing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 'Furthermore, give people power without accountability — and it's hard to give a better example than masked, unidentified agents authorized to use force — and some of them will abuse their position. And given what ICE has already been doing, what kind of people do you think are likely to sign up as it massively expands?' he added. 'Compared with these issues, concerns about the economic impact of mass deportations are definitely second-tier. But they're still important, and a subject I know something about. So the rest of this post will be devoted to how the Trump administration is about to ICE the economy.' Krugman argued in his Substack post that the U.S experiencing a mass loss of immigrant workers would cause negative economic disruption because they 'aren't spread evenly across the economy.' 'They're strongly concentrated in certain industries and occupations, where they constitute a large share, sometimes a majority, of the work force. As a result, the Trump administration's latter-day Edict of Expulsion will be far more disruptive to the economy than the aggregate number of workers deported might suggest,' he added. In the first few months of President Trump's second term, his administration has harshly cracked down on immigration. The new leader of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said in a recent The New York Times interview that the Trump administration would make changes to the visa system for skilled workers and seek to change the test for U.S. citizenship to be harder. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a post on the social platform X last week that 'the world has heard our message: if you are in America illegally, LEAVE NOW.' 'In less than 200 days, 1.6 MILLION illegal immigrants have left the United States population. Under President Trump, we now have safer streets, better jobs for Americans, and less strain on schools, hospitals and social services,' Noem added in her post. Krugman added later in his Substack post that 'undocumented immigrants make up around 5 percent of the U.S. work force.' 'It seems plausible that a significant fraction of those workers will be pushed out, along with a number of legal workers snatched up based, as Trump's border czar has said, on their physical appearance. Losing large numbers of workers sounds as if it will be bad for the U.S. economy. In fact, it will be worse than you may think,' he continued.

Millions More Americans Are Being Exposed to Contaminated Water
Millions More Americans Are Being Exposed to Contaminated Water

Newsweek

time21 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Millions More Americans Are Being Exposed to Contaminated Water

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. New data released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has shown that millions more Americans are drinking water that is contaminated with carcinogenic chemicals, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reported. The findings come as part of the EPA's Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, known as UCMR 5, requiring U.S. water utilities to test drinking water for 29 individual PFAS compounds. PFAS chemicals, a group of thousands of different substances, are classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and have previously been found in U.S. drinking water systems. Newsweek has contacted the EPA via email for comment. Why It Matters PFAS chemicals, also known as "forever chemicals," are used across various industries, featuring in consumer products and even smartwatch wristbands. While these chemicals are favored for their long-lasting nature, research highlighting their potential health risks has been accumulating in recent years. Other than PFAS chemicals, arsenic contamination in U.S. drinking water systems has also become a growing concern across the country. File photo: a person fills a glass of water from the tap. File photo: a person fills a glass of water from the tap. Hendrik Schmidt/dpa via AP What To Know Jared Hayes, a senior policy analyst at EWG, told Newsweek the EPA's latest release of data confirmed the presence of at least one type of PFAS compound in an additional 200 locations—which in total serve 7 million people. He added that, based on previously collected UCMR and state data, it is now clear that more than 172 million Americans are being exposed to PFAS-contaminated drinking water. The EPA previously wrote in a fact sheet that long-term PFAS exposure "can cause cancer and other serious illnesses that decrease quality of life or result in death." Studies have also found that even low levels of exposure to the chemicals can have wide-reaching impacts on multiple systems in the body. While these numbers "are not entirely surprising given what we know about the persistence and mobility of PFAS in the environment," Vasilis Vasiliou, chair and professor of environmental health sciences at Yale School of Public Health, told Newsweek, it "underscores the magnitude of the problem." He added the findings showed "PFAS contamination is both widespread and underreported." However, Marc Edwards, a professor in civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, told Newsweek, on the flipside, "We already knew that PFAS chemicals are very widespread—the new data just confirms that expectation." He added the EPA is taking steps to reduce PFAS exposure, and "as our understanding improves and new treatments become available, we'll get a better understanding of what to do about it," he said. Additionally, it is not clear to what degree these additional water utilities were contaminated with PFAS chemicals, Natalie Exum, a professor of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Newsweek. "These chemicals are designed to never breakdown so we should expect that over time every water system in the U.S. will ultimately be contaminated," she said. "I will be more concerned when we can understand at what amounts they are occurring in drinking water and what health effects we are finding at those levels," she added. What People Are Saying Susan Richardson, a professor of chemistry at the University of South Carolina, told Newsweek: "There is the possibility for adverse health outcomes, but I personally would not be concerned at low parts-per-trillion levels. The good news is that drinking water plants will have to meet the new EPA regulation by 2031, and many plants will use granular activated carbon (GAC) to remove it. GAC can also remove natural organic matter precursors to disinfection by-products that are generally present in our drinking water at a thousand times higher levels than PFAS. So, there should be a great co-benefit of using GAC." Jennifer Freeman, a professor of toxicology at Purdue University, Indiana, told Newsweek: "It is very important PFAS drinking water testing continues so we can attain a fuller understanding of where the contamination is occurring and where treatment methods may be needed to reduce exposures." She said: "It is likely already impacting health outcomes across the country with these exposures likely occurring over the past several decades. On the positive side, as drinking water testing continues we now have a better understanding of the PFAS presence in our drinking water supplies and are identifying the regions where contamination is higher and action is needed." Vasiliou told Newsweek: "Chronic exposure to PFAS, even at low levels, has been linked in multiple studies to serious health outcomes, including certain cancers, immune dysfunction, thyroid disease, liver toxicity, and developmental effects. The sheer scale of potential exposure means this could become a major public health challenge in the years ahead. Addressing PFAS contamination is not just an environmental issue, it is a public health imperative." He said: "As monitoring expands, I expect even more communities will be identified, since PFAS are extremely persistent and widespread. What we need now is stronger regulation, expanded monitoring, investment in water treatment, and a rapid phase-out of non-essential PFAS uses." Exum told Newsweek: "PFAS gets into drinking water in so many different ways and over time as they are spread in sewage sludge, sprayed in pesticides, and even travel in rainwater, we should expect that their presence will only increase over time. But their presence may be in low levels depending on the source of contamination, and that is the important question to answer. And it gets answered by the EPA taking action to both regulate these chemicals for their known harms and for the agency to fund the science to understand the public health implications for exposures to these chemicals." She added: "Overall, with more PFAS exposure we should expect to see more cancer, harm to fetal development and reduced vaccine effectiveness, among others. The public needs to be aware and concerned and advocating to their elected officials for the EPA not to weaken the landmark PFAS protections in drinking water." What Happens Next The EPA is expected to release more UCMR 5 results in the coming months. For those who are concerned, Richardson said "activated carbon filters that are certified to remove PFAS" can be used to filter drinking water to reduce exposure.

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