Democrats pick fight over how GOP's SNAP change hits states
Legislation passed out of the GOP-led Congress on Thursday that could see some states pay a share of benefit costs for SNAP, also known as the food stamps program, for the first time.
The federal government currently covers the cost of benefits, but under the plan that's been tossed around by congressional Republicans over the past few months, some states would have to cover anywhere between 5 percent and 15 percent of the benefits costs if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent — which factors in over-and-underpayments.
However, changes were made to the text that allowed delayed implementation for the cost-share requirements for states with the highest error rates shortly before its passage in the Senate this week. GOP leadership sought to lock down support from Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, whose state had the highest payment error rate in the country in fiscal year 2024.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans made the change to comply with chamber rules.
'You have to give those states time to adjust because about all they're going to do is get down to that midrange, and then they're still going to have to pay a penalty because they're so high,' he said. 'So, it's about giving states a fair chance to adjust.'
Under the plan that was greenlit by Congress on Thursday, some states would begin contributing a share of benefit costs in fiscal year 2028, depending on their payment error rate. But the plan also allows for delayed implementation for two years for states with payment error rates if they reach around 13.34 percent or higher — an effort Republicans say is aimed at providing states like Alaska with much higher rates to bring them down.
Hoeven said the GOP-led agriculture committee, which crafted the SNAP pitch, 'came up with a lot of proposals' trying to comply with restrictive rules governing a special process that Republicans used to approve the plan in the upper chamber without Democratic support. Under the rules, Hoeven said, 'they always said you got to give states time to adjust in order to meet the test.'
Republicans say the overall proposal is aimed at incentivizing states to reduce erroneous payments. But Democrats have sharply criticized the plan, arguing it would encourage states with higher error rates to continue making erroneous payments.
'The most absurd example of the hypocrisy of the Republican bill: they have now proposed delaying SNAP cuts FOR TWO YEARS ONLY FOR STATES with the highest error rates just to bury their help for Alaska: AK, DC, FL, GA, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, OR. They are rewarding errors,' Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, wrote this week as she sounded off in a series of posts on X over the plan.
In another swipe at the plan, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote on X that he had to text his state's governor that 10 states with 'the MOST ERRORS in administering the program' are 'exempt from food assistance cuts,' at that Hawaii is not exempt because the governor has done 'good work in reducing the error rate by 15 percent.'
The comments come as Democrats and advocates have argued the measure could lead to states having to cut benefits because of the shift in cost burden.
Recent figures unveiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) showed Alaska's payment error rate hit 24.66 percent in fiscal year 2024. The national average was 10.93 percent.
Murkowski said after the vote that she didn't 'like' the bill but sought to 'to take care of Alaska's interests.' But she also said she knew 'that, in many parts of the country, there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill.'
'I don't like the fact that we moved through an artificial deadline, an artificial timeline to produce something, to meet a deadline, rather than to actually try to produce the best bill for the country,' she said. 'But when I saw the direction that this is going, you can either say, 'I don't like it and not try to help my state,' or you can roll up your sleeves.'
Republicans also criticized Democrats for challenging a previous GOP-crafted SNAP provision that sought to provide more targeted help to Alaska, as GOP leadership sought to win Murkowski's support for the bill, which ultimately passed the Senate in a tie-breaking vote. However, Democrats opposed previously proposed waivers for the noncontiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii, decrying 'special treatment.'
In remarks on Wednesday, House Agriculture Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) the Senate 'had to add something to get to address that challenge that Alaska has.'
'The goal is, from a functionality perspective, they need to get their error rate down as soon as possible, because when the time comes, and they have to start to pay, they don't want to be that high error rate that you're coming in now,' he said.
'In most states, Alaska would be a challenge, I think, but most states have been under 6 percent at one time in past years,' he said.
However, he also wasn't 'crazy about' work requirements exemptions for some Indigenous populations in the Senate's version of Trump's megabill that didn't appear in the House bill, as Republicans seek to tighten work requirements.
'It's what the Senate had to do,' he said, though he noted that 'economic conditions are challenging on those sovereign lands and in high unemployment, high poverty.'
It's unclear whether the carve-outs were the result of talks Alaska senators had with GOP leadership around SNAP in the days leading up to the Senate passage. The Hill has reached out to their offices for comment.
The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development said Alaska has 'one of the largest indigenous populations in the nation,' with Alaska Natives representing 17 percent of the state in 2010.
At the same time, the Senate bill nixed temporary exemptions that had been preserved in the House bill for former foster youth, homeless individuals and veterans.
Despite being preserved in the House plan, Thompson criticized the carve-outs, which were secured as part of a previous bipartisan deal in 2023.
'It cheats all those individuals from having access to that to us funding their SNAP Employment and career and technical education, because the whole goal here is to raise these people out of poverty if they're struggling in poverty, because that's how you qualify for SNAP,' he said. 'And the fact is, they were made ineligible for the really great benefits.'
Other proposals in the party's SNAP plan seek to limit the federal government's ability to increase monthly benefits in the future, changes to work requirements and include a chunk of farm provisions.
The plan comes as Republicans sought to find ways to generate north of $1 trillion in savings of federal dollars over the next decade as part of a major package that also advances President Trump's tax agenda, which is estimated to add trillions of dollars to the nation's deficits.
Republicans say the proposed spending reductions, which are achieved also through changes to programs like Medicaid, are aimed at rooting out 'waste, fraud and abuse' in the federal government.
But preliminary research released this week by the Urban Institute found that just the SNAP changes could affect about 22 million families, who researchers said could be at risk of 'losing some or all of their SNAP benefits' under the plan.
Asked if last-minute changes to the plan to help other states and not his bothered him, Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), who ultimately voted for the plan, told reporters this week, 'Yes and no.'
'But at the same time, I think they probably had more severe need and so I think it'll be fine,' Justice, a former governor, said Tuesday.
'If it's like any business deal that I've ever seen in my life, you know, the parties of a good business deal walk away after they get something done, and they walk away, and they're probably holding their nose a little bit, and they're probably regretting certain things and saying, 'Doggone, we didn't do good on this and that and everything,' That's a good deal.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Historic Medicaid cuts to come as Trump signs domestic policy bill
This story was originally published on Healthcare Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Healthcare Dive newsletter. President Donald Trump on Friday signed Republicans' major tax and domestic policy bill into law, setting into motion massive cuts to Medicaid that could remove millions of people from the safety-net insurance coverage. The legislation was sent to Trump's desk on Thursday, after months of rancorous debate in Congress. The Senate narrowly passed its version of the bill earlier this week, calling in Vice President JD Vance to cast the tiebreaking vote. House Republicans then scrambled to get their caucus in line, as moderates raised concerns about the Senate's steeper cuts to Medicaid and conservatives lambasted the legislation's growing contribution to the national debt. But the lower chamber ultimately voted to pass the megabill 218 to 214, nearly entirely along party lines. Only two Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, declined to support the legislation. GOP lawmakers cheered its passage Thursday. Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said the law 'strengthens Medicaid for those who need it most.' Here are some of the healthcare provisions in the law: Medicaid work requirements. Some beneficiaries in the safety-net insurance program — including childless adults and those with children older than 14 — would need to work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month to stay enrolled. Medicaid eligibility. States would be required to check enrollees' eligibility for the coverage every six months instead of yearly. The law also prevents the HHS from enforcing a regulation that aimed to streamline eligibility and enrollment for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Cost-sharing in Medicaid. Higher-income beneficiaries would have to pay cost-sharing up to $35 per service for some care. Provider taxes. The law freezes provider taxes — arrangements states use to finance their share of Medicaid funding — in states that haven't expanded Medicaid, and gradually lowers allowed rates in expansion states. State-directed payments. The arrangements that allow states to make supplemental payments for services covered in Medicaid managed care contracts face new restrictions. The law directs the HHS to revise that payment limit from the average commercial rate to Medicare rates in expansion states, and 10% above the Medicare rate in non-expansion states. Affordable Care Act subsidy verification. The law requires pre-enrollment verification of eligibility for premium tax credits that subsidize the cost of health plans on the ACA exchanges. Limit immigrant eligibility for Medicare, Medicaid and ACA premium tax credits. Only green card holders and certain classes of immigrants would be eligible for these programs. Cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. The law blocks Medicaid funds for services offered by abortion providers like Planned Parenthood for one year. Rural healthcare support. The policy includes a $50 billion fund to help states support providers and hospitals in rural communities. Nursing home staffing. The HHS is prohibited from enforcing a Biden-era regulation that would have required long-term care facilities to increase staffing and have a registered nurse on-site. The Medicaid provisions of the law have been some of the most contentious. The policies reduce federal spending on the safety-net coverage by $1 trillion, according to a Tuesday estimate by health policy researcher KFF. Nearly 12 million additional people would become uninsured by 2034 under the law, according to an analysis published Saturday by the Congressional Budget Office. As such, the policies have been lambasted by the healthcare sector. Hospitals worry the growing number of uninsured patients would cause uncompensated care to soar, weighing on their bottom lines. Rural hospitals and providers that serve large numbers of Medicaid patients would be particularly hard hit, forcing them to cut services to close their doors altogether, experts say. Dr. Bobby Mukkamala, president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement Thursday the impact from the law 'will reverberate for years,' leaving patients sicker with less access to care. Chip Kahn, president and CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals, urged Congress to take action to mitigate damage from the law's healthcare provisions by extending enhanced financial assistance for people who buy coverage on the ACA marketplaces, which is set to lapse at the end of the year. 'Time is of the essence,' he said in a Thursday statement. 'Without action extending these credits, we will see the gains to health care access and affordability our country has made over the years further evaporate, and too many will not be able to pick up the slack.' Recommended Reading Senate passes Trump's spending bill with massive Medicaid cuts
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'A slap in the face': Georgia and Arkansas' Medicaid work rules may preview the road ahead
President Donald Trump is expected Friday to sign into law his sprawling domestic policy bill, which includes nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, the government health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans. Dubbed the 'big, beautiful bill,' the new legislation will extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts and make up for them in part by slashing federal Medicaid funding, introducing copays for some services and — for the first time — implementing nationwide Medicaid work requirements. The final version of the bill didn't include an estimate of coverage losses; an earlier Congressional Budget Office report projected that about 11 million people could lose their health coverage and become uninsured by 2034 because of the program cuts. Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal government and the states, which usually mandate that applicants meet certain criteria, such as low income, disability or caregiving status. Only two states have implemented Medicaid work requirements: Arkansas in 2018 and Georgia in 2023. Georgia's program, called Pathways to Coverage, remains in effect. Over the 10 months Arkansas' work requirement was in place, more than 18,000 people in the state lost Medicaid coverage. Georgia hasn't done a good job keeping track of how many have lost coverage, but enrollment remains low, said Leighton Ku, director of the Center for Health Policy Research at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University. When people lose Medicaid coverage, they view it as 'sort of a slap in the face,' Ku said. 'When your income is down, when you're unemployed, that's when you lose everything,' he said. 'When you're most in need. That's when you lose your food assistance, that's when you lose your health insurance coverage.' Kendall Rogers, 40, of Stone Mountain, Georgia, is looking for a job after he lost his Medicaid coverage this year because of the state's work requirements, according to his mom, Trudy Rogers, 59. The change means Trudy now has to take care of herself for long parts of the day. She has fibromyalgia and nerve problems in her back that make it difficult for her to get around. Kendall was caring for her nearly full time, Trudy said, but Georgia's work requirements don't offer exemptions for caregivers for older adults. She called the new requirements 'an insult not only to him, but to me.' 'Because now he's forced to go out and look for work, and I need him to stay around the house,' she said. To justify the cuts, Republicans have argued that they're not taking Medicaid from those who are rightfully entitled to it — such as, they say, single mothers or the disabled — but from 'young, able-bodied men' who they say are abusing the system. 'If you clean that up and shore it up, you save a lot of money, and you return the dignity of work to young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said in April. But as seen in Georgia and Arkansas, that's not who is largely affected. Cynthia Gibson, director of the Georgia Legal Services Program's Health Law Unit, which helps appeal Medicaid denials, said many people in the state lose coverage not because they aren't working, but because they aren't aware of the new rules or face administrative issues like missed paperwork or not having received notices. Others, like Kendall Rogers, are caring for family members but don't qualify for exemptions. Likewise, in Arkansas, only 3% or 4% of the people on Medicaid in 2018 weren't working and didn't qualify for the exemptions under the state program, said Dr. Benjamin Sommers, a physician and health economist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Sommers published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019 looking at the impact of Arkansas' work requirements. His research found that about 40% of the other roughly 96% of people on Medicaid in the state were working the required 80 hours a month under the state program. The rest either had medical conditions that prevented them from working or had other responsibilities, such as school or caring for family members. Implementing work requirements also didn't result in a higher employment rate — one of the arguments Arkansas officials used in favor of the new work rules. 'Most people, almost everybody, was already doing what [the state] wanted them to do,' he said. Very few were 'the proverbial on the couch, video game story that we're hearing from some of the supporters.' Most commonly, Gibson said, people aren't actually aware that they've lost coverage until they go see their doctors. 'And that creates kind of a panic,' she said. 'Sometimes they may have something really important scheduled that the doctors won't do when they run their insurance and find out they no longer have coverage.' Gibson said the people most often affected by the work requirement are those in noncorporate jobs, including independent workers — like Uber drivers or delivery workers — who don't receive regular pay stubs and can't meet Georgia's work verification requirements. Others include people with certain disabilities that don't qualify for exemptions, as well as caregivers for children or elderly relatives. People who lose coverage often avoid going to the doctor or getting medical care unless it's an emergency, because they don't want to accumulate debt, she said. 'They just don't get treatment; they don't go to the doctor,' she said. Heather Payne, 53, of Dalton, Georgia, couldn't avoid medical care after she had a series of debilitating strokes in 2022. Unable to work, she was told she didn't qualify for an Affordable Care Act plan and didn't qualify for Georgia's Medicaid program because she was a childless adult. She later enrolled in classes to become a nurse practitioner — a career she could pursue despite her disability. By that point, the state's work requirement had gone into effect. However, Payne was told she still didn't qualify for Medicaid because she wasn't taking enough credit hours. She couldn't afford to take more. To pay for her medical bills, she burned through her $40,000 in savings and is now in collections for tens of thousands of dollars. 'When you have a problem, there's no help for you,' she said. 'It makes you feel as though society doesn't care what happens to you.' Dimitris Terrell, 49, of Clarkston, also worries her 24-year-old son, Justin Anderson, could start to accumulate debt following changes to Georgia's Medicaid program. Anderson doesn't work, but he has Medicaid coverage because he has Crohn's disease, a bowel disease that can cause chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. Terrell said her son started having to pay large copays last year, after the state began charging copays for prescription drugs and certain services. Anderson has paid over $400 out of pocket on doctor's visits and hundreds of dollars for the dentist, neither of which he could afford, his mother said. She also worries about his losing coverage — either because he would no longer qualify or because of missed paperwork. 'He's pretty sad and shocked,' Terrell said. 'He said, 'Like, Mama, I don't understand why I have to pay.'' This article was originally published on
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
An Iowa law rolling back trans civil rights protections in the state has taken effect. Here's what to know
An Iowa law removing gender identity as a protected class from the state's civil rights code took effect Tuesday, the first action of its kind in the United States. The new rollback of protections is the latest attack on trans people in the US and part of a broader movement across conservative-led states working to restrict LGBTQ rights. GOP Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the Republican-backed measure earlier this year, saying it 'safeguards the rights of women and girls.' But advocates worry about what they call the dangerous, far-reaching consequences for the trans community in the absence of state legal protections. 'It's really a dark moment in our history,' said Democratic Rep. Aime Wichtendahl, Iowa's first openly transgender lawmaker. 'Our government in the state of Iowa has been reducing rights across the board this past decade.' The new law marks the end to an 18-year legacy of civil rights protection for trans people in Iowa – a stark departure from the state's history of inclusive gender policies. 'The fundamental fact is, we were freer 10 years ago than we are today,' Wichtendahl said. While there are still federal and other anti-discrimination protections in place, President Donald Trump and conservative allies continue to take steps to chip away at trans rights since he returned to office. A state's civil rights code safeguards people from discrimination, often based on characteristics like religion, race and, in many cases, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity. Gender identity is no longer on the list of protected classes in Iowa. Iowa's new law also attempts to redefine gender as a synonym for biological sex, a shift that disregards contemporary medical and psychological understandings of gender identity. Under the law, transgender people are barred from correcting their gender marker on birth certificates, so their identifying documentation will show the sex they were assigned at birth. Transgender and nonbinary people in Iowa now face increased legal uncertainty, experts say. 'This isn't some nebulous law that won't really impact people,' said Max Mowitz, the executive director of LGBTQ advocacy group One Iowa. Without state civil rights protections, individuals who are fired, denied housing or refused medical treatment based on their gender identity have a narrower path to legal recourse. 'Folks would be able to discriminate against us if (we) were trying to get a hotel room, or go to a coffee shop, or even open a line of credit,' he said. Having identifying documents with gender markers that don't appear to match how a person is presenting themself could foster an uncomfortable, sometimes dangerous, situation for people who are forced to out themselves as trans to strangers. As a trans Iowan, Mowitz said he's been patted down by TSA because 'something was on my driver's license that didn't look the way that they thought it should.' Naomi Goldberg, executive director of the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit think tank providing resources to the LGBTQ community, said trans and nonbinary people will have a hard time going about daily life because of the new law. It will also increase the already high risk of harassment and violence for trans Americans, Goldberg added. More than a dozen states, mostly conservative, have never added gender identity as a protected class to their civil rights laws, according to data from the Movement Advancement Project. Meanwhile, 31 states prohibit some form of discrimination against people based on their gender identity. And bills in those states have not moved to strike gender identity from their civil rights statutes, Goldberg said. But protections for LGBTQ people vary greatly by state. In Texas, the American Civil Liberties Union is currently tracking 88 bills it says are anti-LGBTQ that have been introduced during the 2025 legislative session — more than any other state. By contrast, the ACLU is tracking zero in Vermont. At the federal level, new legislation and lawsuits targeting trans people have increased across the US. The Supreme Court could agree this week to hear arguments in the backlog of cases dealing with trans issues — putting transgender rights front and center for a second year in a row. The high court handed conservative states a win this Pride Month when it upheld Tennessee's ban on some medical treatments for transgender minors. Trump, who campaigned on ending 'transgender lunacy,' has taken steps to dismantle the Biden administration's efforts to be more inclusive of Americans' gender identification. He has signed a flurry of executive orders targeting trans people — including declaring there are only two genders, banning transgender women from participating in most women's sports, and barring transgender service members from serving in the military. Trump earlier this year pushed Iowa to follow his lead from the orders and pass the bill to 'remove Radical Gender Ideology from their Laws.' But trans people just want politicians to allow them to live freely, said Wichtendahl, the Iowa lawmaker. 'The ability to live our lives and be treated equally under the law and rights and dignity, to not have the government be this pernicious voice dictating who we are every step of the way,' Wichtendahl said, 'that's all we've ever asked for.'
