Letters: What slashing Medicaid would do to health care in Cook County
Medicaid is a crucial public health program in the United States, providing essential health care services to millions of low-income families, children, pregnant women, elderly adults and individuals with disabilities.
As Cook County commissioner, I know the importance of prioritizing health care access, recognizing its pivotal role in public health. Cook County Health, a trailblazer in health care regardless of financial ability, has served our community for over 180 years, and a substantial portion of our patient population relies on Medicaid. I convened public hearings on maternal health and secured funding for the inaugural Cook County Health doula program, aiming to reframe the narrative on maternal health in Cook County and address disparities for our pregnant mothers.
However, the GOP's looming Medicaid cuts pose a significant threat to health care. These cuts could reduce access to medical services, strain health care providers, and burden state and county budgets. They would disproportionately affect low-income families, the elderly and individuals with disabilities, who heavily rely on Medicaid. Reduced funding could diminish Medicaid eligibility and access to essential medical services.
Furthermore, these cuts would eliminate or reduce preventive care programs, leading to long-term health complications due to delayed detection and treatment. Hospitals and clinics serving a substantial portion of Medicaid patients may face financial challenges, resulting in staff reductions, decreased services and even facility closures. I understand the concerns of Illinois patients regarding losing coverage, especially if hospitals in low-income areas are forced to close or reduce services.
Health care advocates argue that such cuts could ultimately cost everyone more in the long run. Limited resources may compromise care quality, leading to longer wait times and reduced patient satisfaction. Medicaid cuts exacerbate health outcomes, causing individuals to forgo necessary medical treatments due to cost or lack of coverage. In the long term, the absence of preventive and basic care can lead to more severe health issues and increased health care costs.
Cook County Health could potentially lose $200 million annually in reimbursements if our patient population were to lose Medicaid coverage. Medicaid cuts would have far-reaching implications for individuals, health care providers, state and county budgets, and overall public health.
Policymakers must carefully consider these consequences when making decisions about Medicaid funding. This is precisely the reason why I firmly oppose cuts to Medicaid.
— Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller, 6th District
Threat to transit is real
Regarding the editorial 'Chicago's transit agencies want you to panic. They don't explain the whole truth' (April 27): Warning riders and lawmakers about an impending fiscal cliff isn't 'panic-stoking' — it's responsible leadership. Without immediate action this spring, Chicagoland faces devastating transit cuts that would gut service, strand riders and devastate our economy.
Unfortunately, the editorial minimizes the urgent reality facing our region. Public transit in the Chicago region is at a crossroads. We are here because Illinois has undervalued and underfunded transit for decades — despite the essential role the CTA, Metra and Pace play in providing an average of 1.2 million rides a day that connect people to jobs, education and health care. Illinois contributes just 17% to transit operations, far behind peer states like New York (28%), Boston (44%) and Philadelphia (50%).
When the Regional Transportation Authority and other agencies warn of a crisis, it's because the threat is real. A 40% cut to transit service would be catastrophic. It would mean longer wait times, the loss of 24-hour service in Chicago, the elimination of weekend options for suburban riders, higher fares for working families and devastating impacts for our most vulnerable riders. This cut in service would mean $2.6 billion lost from our region's annual gross domestic product, on top of the loss of tens of thousands of jobs — all in just the first year.
Advocates, independent experts and residents across the region — who have already sent thousands of letters at SaveTransitNow.org — are united behind the call for a $1.5 billion investment to not just stabilize transit but also to strengthen it. An empowered RTA that would deliver more frequent, reliable service and reforms. Independent analysis estimates that this investment will add $2.7 billion to our region's GDP annually and 28,000 jobs in the first year.
We are advocating for a future in which the RTA would be accountable for fares, service quality and capital investment — giving riders a better system and taxpayers better results. Shorter waits, more frequent service and a more seamless experience — all backed by a stronger RTA, one empowered to intervene when needed to fix issues riders are facing whether that be ghost buses or implementing a Transit Ambassador pilot to help improve safety.
Illinois lawmakers have a clear choice: Listen to the research, to the advocates and, most importantly, to the thousands speaking out to save transit for our region and for our future.
— Kirk Dillard, chairman, Regional Transportation Authority
Culture, history at risk
Culture, heritage, identity and history — these are not luxuries. They are the foundation of our democracy. Illinois has long led the way in preserving and celebrating them, from our iconic Chicago museums to rural libraries and local historical societies across the state.
Today, those very institutions are under attack.
The federal government has moved to gut funding that supports Illinois Humanities and similar organizations nationwide. These are not bloated bureaucracies — they are community lifelines, hosting after-school programs for underserved kids, amplifying veterans' stories, and bringing artists and scholars into classrooms to spark critical thinking.
As chair of the Museums, Culture, Arts, and Entertainment Committee in the Illinois House, I find this moment alarming — not just as a policymaker but also as an Illinoisan who understands the power of public memory.
This is not simply about budgets. It is about ideology.
One of President Donald Trump's recent executive orders — cynically titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History' — threatens to erase narratives deemed 'divisive' or unpatriotic. In practice, it means silencing Black, Indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ+ and other historically marginalized voices. It means replacing honest reckoning with historical whitewashing. It means undermining education to manipulate patriotism for political gain.
We have seen this playbook before. Authoritarian regimes have always sought to control culture — because when you silence a museum, you mute a people. When you erase a curriculum, you narrow a generation's understanding of justice. Illinois will not be complicit in that erasure.
Our libraries, historic sites and museums are not relics of the past; they are living classrooms. They teach empathy, civic responsibility and critical thought. They drive our economy, create jobs and make Illinois a destination for millions.
And they are in danger. We must act.
I urge every Illinoisan to contact their federal representatives and demand the restoration of funding to the National Endowment for the Humanities and related programs. Tell them we will not allow our stories — or our democracy — to be rewritten by fear and ideology.
This is not a red-state or blue-state issue. It is a question of whether we have the courage to confront the full truth of our shared journey — and to defend the spaces that protect and preserve it.
The stakes could not be higher. History does not erase itself. It is erased when good people stay silent.
Now is the time to raise our voices — before those who fear the truth silence them for good.
— State Rep. Kimberly Neely du Buclet, D-Chicago
Yes to upzoning plan
Op-ed writer John Holden's attack on the plan to upzone Broadway contains the misleading claim that opposing upzoning is somehow 'environmentally friendly' ('Zoning plan for Broadway a nonstarter,' April 25). This is as far from true as Chicago is from Australia.
As an environmental attorney, I know all too well the challenge we face in cutting our greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. In Illinois, transportation accounts for more carbon dioxide emissions than any other sector. One of the best ways to cut per-capita emissions is to allow more people to move to transit-rich neighborhoods such as Edgewater and Uptown, where car-free and car-lite lifestyles are possible. Unfortunately, zoning rules that prohibit dense new housing across much of Chicago limit the city's growth, pushing potential Chicagoans to car-oriented Sunbelt cities such as Houston.
If Chicago is going to be the environmental leader so many of us want it to be, it needs to loosen restrictions on climate-friendly housing. The Broadway upzoning plan is a good start.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
33 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hawley bill would raise minimum wage to $15
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) wants to double the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, with legislation filed Tuesday to increase the rate adopted nearly two decades ago. 'For decades, working Americans have seen their wages flatline,' Hawley said in a statement to The Hill. 'One major culprit of this is the failure of the federal minimum wage to keep up with the economic reality facing hard-working Americans every day.' The increase would take effect next year, when Hawley's home state hikes its rate to the same level. Most states, like Missouri, have set minimum hourly wage levels above the $7.25 federal rate, and nearly a dozen of them will have minimum rates at or above $15 an hour after increases take effect this year. Five states — Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee — have never set their own rates, and three — Georgia, Oklahoma and Wyoming — have state minimums below $7.25 per hour. Those eight states all default to the federal rate. The Hawley legislation, cosponsored by Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), also would set automatic increases to match inflation over time to prevent future standstills like the nation has faced since the last federal hike in 2009. Minimum wage hikes have historically faced pushback from some business advocacy groups. 'This proposal would more than double the minimum wage and slash over 800,000 jobs,' Rebekah Paxton, research director at the Employment Policies Institute, said in a statement on Hawley's latest push. 'An overwhelming majority of economists agree that drastic minimum wage hikes cut employment, limit opportunities for workers and shutter businesses.' 'Hawley's proposal would take similar failed policies like California's and export them nationwide,' she added. It's unclear whether the GOP-controlled Senate and House will take up the bipartisan legislation or what the timeline could look like as lawmakers try to hash out President Trump's priority legislation. The White House declined to comment on Hawley's proposed minimum wage increase. A spokesperson told The Hill in an email that they would not 'get ahead of the President on pending legislation.' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent rejected the idea of increasing the minimum wage earlier this year. But Trump acknowledged in a 'Meet the Press' interview a month before the start of his second presidency that the current minimum wage is 'very low' but said he didn't want to raise it to a level that would ultimately force businesses to shutter. 'There is a level at which you could do it, absolutely,' the then-president elect told host Kristen Welker. 'I would consider it.' Trump added that the debate is 'very complicated' because the cost of living varies among states. 'It would be nice to have just a minimum wage for the whole country, but it wouldn't work because you have places where it's very inexpensive to live,' he said.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
The Real Medicaid Crisis Isn't Cuts—It's The Model Itself
WASHINGTON, DC: U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks to the media after the House ... More narrowly passed the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill" Act on May 22, 2025. Johnson was flanked by House Committee Chairmen who helped craft the legislation. (Photo by) Hospitals and trade groups are sounding the alarm over proposed Medicaid reductions, warning of serious consequences to access and financial stability. The concern is warranted, but it's only part of a larger, more systemic problem that keeps getting overlooked. If we want to protect access to care, especially for the most vulnerable, we have to move beyond the rhetoric of funding shortfalls. The root cause isn't this or that funding change. It's the broken business model that continues to siphon resources into unproductive spending. The real question isn't whether we can afford to keep expanding Medicaid. It's whether we can finally confront the inefficiencies that make even basic coverage feel out of reach. Though Medicaid has historically been the least attractive payment mode for providers–characterized by low reimbursement rates and administrative burden–it provided a lifeline for many delivery organizations post-ACA. The expansion meant more patients came through the doors with some form of coverage. But that window is closing. As the federal government reassesses eligibility and reduces its contribution, states are being asked to absorb the difference. That's a tall order. Many states are already grappling with budget constraints, and municipal systems are ill-equipped to fill the gap. Trade associations warn that millions may lose coverage. But hospitals aren't just worried about patients, they're also worried about the bottom line. They're ringing alarm bells not just because coverage is vanishing for individuals, but because revenue is vanishing for them. Medicaid cuts don't stand alone. They're the latest in a long string of policy changes that have slowly but steadily eroded confidence in the healthcare business model. Each time CMS or Congress tweaks funding, adjusts metrics or rolls out a new pilot program, providers find ways to adapt. But they can do that without ever truly transforming the underlying business model. And it's the transformation that has been at the heart of many of the actions that CMS and Congress have taken. We've seen this before: narrow fixes, more requirements, shifting incentives. It's become a pattern. And over time, these piecemeal adjustments have created a system so complex that even well-meaning changes produce unintended negative consequences. The deeper issue isn't a specific cut, it's the habit of tinkering at the margins instead of addressing the foundational issues: lack of alignment around value, bloated administrative structures and incentives that reward volume over outcomes. In my book Bringing Value to Healthcare, I estimated $500 billion per year in unnecessary healthcare spending. That figure was based on data from 2016–and there's little evidence the situation has improved. From duplicative testing to redundant administrative overhead, inefficiencies plague every corner of the delivery system. When policymakers say we 'can't afford' to provide coverage, they're missing the point. We're already spending far more than we need to. We're just not using it effectively. If we changed the underlying structure of the system, we could afford to provide coverage for every eligible American without increasing the total spend. The resources exist; we're just not deploying them wisely. Medicaid expansion gave providers short-term relief, but it also prolonged the illusion that the current system could be made to work with just a few more adjustments. Every time we patch the model rather than redesign it, we lock ourselves deeper into a framework that no longer serves patients or the public good. As I outlined in a recent column, the core cause of escalating costs is an underlying payment model with three fundamental flaws. First, it lacks transparency in cost and quality–either at the transaction level or across the continuum of care. Second, there is little accountability for outcomes that matter, with payment generally disconnected from the services provided. And third, without clear line of sight to outcomes and cost, consumer-patients have little ability to comparison shop for non-emergent care. If we're serious about protecting access, improving outcomes and reducing cost, we need to change the model on these three points. That means paying for value, not volume. It means holding providers accountable for outcomes. And it means demanding transparency from systems that have been opaque for far too long. Medicaid cuts may be painful, but they're not the root of the crisis. They're one more stress test on a business model that's already failed. If we don't want to keep reliving this same debate with every fiscal cycle, we need to stop managing symptoms and start curing the disease. There is enough money in the system to provide meaningful coverage. But only if we stop pouring it into inefficiency. Until then, we'll continue to panic over the symptoms of our problems, without ever addressing their causes.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Senate Republican questions megabill deadline — and says Musk ‘missed an opportunity' to shape it
Utah Republican Sen. John Curtis raised doubts on Tuesday the GOP could pass its megabill by its self-imposed Independence Day deadline. Curtis, speaking at the POLITICO Energy Summit in Washington, said, 'I think a lot of us would be surprised if it passed by July 4.' He added: 'I think that's a false deadline. I don't think that we need to put a specific deadline on it. Let's get it right.' Curtis, who has been pushing for specific changes to the House-passed tax cut, energy and security spending budget bill, said the package would unfairly phase out tax credits from the Democrats' 2022 climate law. He said the rollbacks could harm energy workers and the economy. 'I think that banks, the investors have invested billions of dollars based on the rules of the road, and you have employees who have set careers based on these things,' he said. 'And if they're to go, and I do think some of them should go. … Let's just be thoughtful in how we phase them out,' Curtis said. 'Let's not destroy careers and things like that.' As an example, Curtis said he's pushing for changes to the construction start date language. The senator's comments come as colleagues hash out details over contentious matters including renewable energy incentives, Medicaid changes and other provisions. The comments by Curtis, a relative moderate, underscore how difficult it could be for President Donald Trump and congressional leaders to get all Republicans in line before July. Asked if Elon Musk's recent opposition to the megabill because of deficit concerns could upend the effort, Curtis downplayed the billionaire's influence among Republican senators and suggested he does not appreciate how slowly government operates. 'If he would stop and slow down and realize the way Washington works, because what he does with a business is very different in the culture and everything is so different than what we do in Washington, D.C.,' Curtis said, adding, 'There's a lot we could learn from him and vice versa.' Curtis also said he was unsure exactly why Musk hates the bill. 'I'm a U.S. senator voting on this bill, and I don't know why he hates it. You can see how he's missed an opportunity.' More broadly, Curtis suggested Democrats were partly to blame for demonizing the fossil fuel industry — leading to Trump having an 'overreaction' on energy policy and rhetoric. 'I think what you're sensing is an overreaction to the demonizing that we've had of fossil fuels and how they should be 100 percent eliminated, and perhaps what you're seeing is simply a reaction to that to say, 'Wait a minute.'' Curtis said the reality is that energy demand for the coming decades will require renewables and fossil fuels as well as emerging technologies. 'I believe for us to get to our energy future, we're going to need 100 percent of everything,' he said.
