
Report finds five north country hospitals at risk if Republican Medicaid cuts pass Congress
Jun. 26—Five hospitals in the north country could be faced with steep cuts to their operating revenues if the budget bill Republicans are pushing through Congress right now passes, according to analysis from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill's Sheps Center for Health Services Research.
Analysis from the center found that rural hospitals across the country would be majorly hurt by the Medicaid cuts the Republican budget bill calls for, because rural hospitals often have a significant portion of their patient pool, sometimes a majority of it, in the Medicaid or Medicare programs that serve poor and elderly people, respectively.
The Sheps Center looked for hospitals that are both in the top 10% of Medicaid payer mix, meaning they have the largest proportions of Medicaid patients to non-Medicaid patients, and that have reported three straight years of negative total operating margins, meaning they've been paying out more money than they've been taking in.
In New York, 11 hospitals fit that criteria, including 5 in the north country; Claxton-Hepburn Medical Center in Ogdensburg, Massena Hospital, Clifton-Fine Hospital in Star Lake, Gouverneur Hospital and Lewis County General Hospital in Lowville.
Ogdensburg and Lowville are not considered top Medicaid providers, but they do each serve a significant number of Medicaid recipients each year and both demonstrate negative annual margins.
The Sheps Center analysis posits that the cuts to Medicaid, which come from a combination of changes to federal support for Medicaid spending, expanded work requirements and adjustments to the fees and taxes states can charge providers, would result in significant numbers of everyday Americans being kicked off of the program. Those people would still need emergency medical care as they receive at hospitals, which have a duty to provide it, but those hospitals would no longer be paid for the care they provide at all.
In a letter to President Donald J. Trump and the Republican leaders in the House and Senate, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and three other Democratic Senate leaders implored them to reverse course on the Medicaid cuts outlined in the reconciliation bill, which Trump has named the "One Big Beautiful Bill."
"Many of these rural hospitals are facing financial instability today, even before any of the Republican health care cuts take effect," their letter reads. "Rural hospitals will be disproportionately impacted by health care cuts. Addressing the crisis in rural health care access is a national, bipartisan priority, and it should be bipartisan to not worsen it. However, if your party passes these health care cuts into law, Americans in rural communities across the country risk losing health care services and jobs supported by their local hospitals."
State Democrats are criticizing north country Rep. Elise M. Stefanik, R-Schuylerville, for backing the bill and continuing to support it as Republicans push it to final approval.
"Five hospitals in Elise Stefanik's district are on the chopping block because of her vote for the largest cut to Medicaid in history," said Addison Dick, spokesperson for the state Democratic Party. "Instead of fighting for her constituents, Stefanik is caving to Trump and supporting his budget that will rip away coverage, increase health care costs, and devastate rural health care."
A spokesperson for Stefanik pushed back on the claims that the Medicaid provisions in the reconciliation package will result in loss of coverage for her constituents, which he called an "indespensible lifeline for our nation's most vulnerable."
"However, far left Democrats continue to fearmonger because they know that President Trump is delivering results for the American people," the spokesperson said. "He ran on the promise that he would root out the wasteful and fraudulent government spending. In New York alone, an estimated $20 billion is spent on fraudulent Medicaid claims annually. On top of this insurmountable burden resting on the shoulders of hardworking taxpayers, illegals are also eligible for Emergency Medicaid which has ballooned more than 1,200 percent since 2014. This spending is unsustainable and in order to continue protecting and preserving benefits for America's most vulnerable, waste, fraud, and abuse must be rooted out."
The Empire Center for Public Policy, a conservative New York think tank, found in late 2024 that as many as 3 million New Yorkers may be fraudulently collecting Medicaid and other health insurance benefits from the state, basing their analysis off of census data and information obtained from the state Medicaid program.
Overall, 44% of New Yorkers receive Medicaid or a similar program, including children on the state-level Child Health Plus program and the New York Essential Plan, provided through the American Care Act health insurance marketplace and providing Medicaid-like coverage to people making up to 250% of the federal poverty level.
The Empire Center also found earlier this year that the state program to offer emergency medicaid to undocumented immigrants, which has 480,000 people enrolled as of March, represents 7% of total Medicaid enrollment in the state.
If the reconciliation package passes into law with the provisions for Medicaid included in the House-passed version, the federal government could cut the money it pays to the state for its portion of Medicaid funding, which would reduce available benefits for all recipients.
Stefanik, who has floated a run for governor next year and has made criticisms of state programs aiding undocumented immigrants a core part of her early, pre-campaign message, said in a visit to Albany last month that she would seek to use executive actions and push the state legislature to end the emergency Medicaid program and cut down on fraud if elected.
Gov. Kathleen C. Hochul, who is running for reelection, has not expressed any interest in changing that aspect of the state's Medicaid operations.
It's not clear if the final package will include the major Medicaid provisions as passed by the House. On Thursday, the U.S. Senate Parliamentarian, which is charged with ensuring all actions taken by that chamber follow the proper laws and procedures, struck many of the most impactful Medicaid provisions from the bill for procedural reasons. Whatever resulting legislation passes in the U.S. Senate will have to go back to the House for a final vote before it can go to the president for approval. The two chambers have not seen eye to eye on many aspects of the reconciliation bill.
Trump has demanded that lawmakers deliver a finished bill to his desk by July 4.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Obamacare preventive care mandate wins in Supreme Court ruling
The Big Story The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a key Affordable Care Act requirement that insurance companies cover certain preventative measures recommended by an expert panel. © AP Justices upheld the constitutionality of the provision in a 6-3 decision and protected access to preventative care for about 150 million Americans. The justices found that the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has the power to appoint and fire members of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF). The cases started when a small business in Texas and some individuals filed a lawsuit against the panel's recommendation that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PreP) for HIV be included as a preventative care service. They argued that covering PreP went against their religious beliefs and would 'encourage homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.' The plaintiffs further argued that the USPSTF mandates are unconstitutional because panel members are 'inferior officers' who are not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate. While the panel is independent, they said that since their decisions impact millions of people members should be confirmed. A U.S. district judge in 2023 ruled that all preventative-care coverage imposed since the ACA was signed into law are invalid and a federal appeals court judge ruled in agreement last year. The Biden administration appealed the rulings to the Supreme Court, and the Trump administration chose to defend the law despite its long history of disparaging Obamacare. Though public health groups celebrated the ruling Friday, some noted another potential outcome. 'While this is a foundational victory for patients, patients have reason to be concerned that the decision reaffirms the ability of the HHS secretary, including our current one, to control the membership and recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force that determines which preventive services are covered,' Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, said in a statement. 'We must be vigilant to ensure Secretary Kennedy does not undo coverage of preventive services by taking actions such as his recent firing of qualified health experts from the CDC's independent vaccine advisory committee and replacing them with his personal allies.' Welcome to The Hill's Health Care newsletter, we're Nathaniel Weixel, Joseph Choi and Alejandra O'Connell-Domenech — every week we follow the latest moves on how Washington impacts your health. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will be impacting the health care sector this week and beyond: New Hampshire lawmakers give final approval to gender-affirming care ban New Hampshire lawmakers on Thursday gave final approval to bills that would ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors in the state, sending the measures to Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte, who has not yet said whether she will sign them. State lawmakers voted to pass House Bill 377, which would prohibit doctors from administering puberty blockers and hormones to transgender youth beginning next year. The measure includes … FDA expanding COVID vaccine warnings over rare heart side effect The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is now requiring two common COVID-19 vaccines to update their warning labels to include information on two rare heart side effects. Myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, or inflammation of the thin sac surrounding the heart — are two conditions that a small number of people have experienced after receiving the mRNA COVID-19 shot. The rare cases of myocarditis … What causes a stroke? Learn the triggers and risk factors Most Americans likely know at least a little about the signs of a stroke. While early intervention is vital for a positive outcome, medical experts also stress the need to prevent strokes, which the Stroke Foundation reports are the fifth leading cause of death in the U.S. The key to prevention is knowing what causes these brain attacks. According to the American Heart Association, a stroke occurs when a blood vessel to the … In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: GOP leader sets Saturday vote on Trump 'big, beautiful bill' despite Republican pushback Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told Senate Republicans to expect to see the legislative text of the budget reconciliation package on Friday evening and then to vote at noon Saturday to begin debate on President Trump's tax and spending bill. Around the Nation Local and state headlines on health care: What We're Reading Health news we've flagged from other outlets: What Others are Reading Most read stories on The Hill right now: GOP leader sets Saturday vote on Trump 'big, beautiful bill' despite Republican pushback Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told Senate Republicans to expect to see the legislative text of the budget reconciliation package on Friday … Read more 5 takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling The Supreme Court handed President Trump a clear victory Friday, stopping judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that block his executive order … Read more What People Think Opinions related to health submitted to The Hill: Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here

3 hours ago
Idaho doctor, patients sue over new law halting public benefits to immigrants in US unlawfully
BOISE, Idaho -- An Idaho doctor and four residents are challenging a new state law that halts some of the few public benefits available to people living in the U.S. unlawfully, including a program that provides access to life-saving HIV and AIDS medication for low income patients. The ACLU of Idaho filed the federal lawsuit Thursday night on behalf of Dr. Abby Davids and four people with HIV who are not named because they are immigrants without lawful permanent residency. The complaint says the new law is vague, contradicts federal law and makes it impossible for health care providers to determine exactly what kind of immigration status is excluded and how to verify that status for patients. They want a judge to grant them class-action status, expanding any ruling to other impacted people. Dozens of patients treated by one Boise-area clinic stand to lose access to HIV and AIDS medication under the law, according to the complaint, including several cared for by Davids. 'Withdrawing HIV treatment from her patients will not only have devastating consequences on their health, it raises the public health risk of increased HIV transmission,' the ACLU wrote in the lawsuit. 'When her patients are undetectable, they cannot transmit the virus. Without HIV treatment, however, they cannot maintain an undetectable viral level and therefore are able to transmit the virus to others.' The new Idaho law takes effect July 1, and appears to be the first limiting public health benefits since President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to enhance eligibility verification and ensure that public benefits aren't going to ineligible immigrants. The law requires people to verify that they are legal U.S. residents to receive public benefits like communicable disease testing, vaccinations, prenatal and postnatal care for women, crisis counseling, some food assistance for children and even access to food banks or soup kitchens that rely on public funding. Federal law generally prohibits immigrants in the U.S. illegally from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Security. But there are some exceptions for things like emergency medical care and other emergency or public health services. Idaho's law still allows for emergency medical services. But in a June 18 letter to health care providers, Idaho Division of Public Health administrator Elke Shaw-Tulloch said HIV is a long-term condition and not an emergency — so people must verify their lawful presence in order to get benefits through the federal Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The HIV patients challenging the new law include a married couple from Columbia with pending asylum applications, a man who was brought to the U.S. when he was just 4 years old and has Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status until next year, and a man from Mexico who has been living and working in Idaho since 2020. One of the patients said she and her husband were diagnosed with HIV in 2019 and immediately started antiretroviral therapy, receiving the medications at no cost through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The medication has lowered the viral load in her body enough that it is now undetectable, she wrote in a court filing, ensuring that she won't transmit the virus to others. 'My medication protected my daughter while I was pregnant because it prevented me from transmitting HIV to her during pregnancy,' she wrote. The treatment allows her to be with her child, watching her grow, she said. Davids has been trying for weeks to get clarity from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare about exactly what kind of verification her patients will have to show, and exactly which kinds of immigration status are considered 'lawful.' But the state has yet to provide clear direction, according to the complaint. 'I am really scared about what this means for many of our patients. Their lives will now be in jeopardy,' Davids wrote in a May 30 email to the Department of Health and Welfare.


Health Line
3 hours ago
- Health Line
Does Medicare Cover Famotidine?
Famotidine is a generic drug that doctors prescribe to treat conditions related to excess stomach acid production, such as stomach ulcers and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). It's available in over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription strengths, and companies may sell it under the brand names Pepcid AC or Zantac 360. Medicare Part D drug plans generally cover prescription famotidine, though there may be some variation based on the specific plan. Original Medicare doesn't cover OTC famotidine. However, some Medicare Advantage (Part C) plans may include OTC benefits that members can use toward this medication. Part D coverage for famotidine Medicare-approved private insurance companies sell Part D prescription drug plans. If you have Original Medicare, you can buy a stand-alone Part D plan, whereas people with Medicare Advantage plans often have Part D plans in their coverage. Each plan has a formulary. This is a list of medications that the plan covers. Part D plans generally include prescription famotidine in their formularies. However, since specifics vary by insurance carrier, plan, and location, there's no guarantee that all plans include coverage for famotidine. To learn whether your Medicare drug plan includes coverage for famotidine, consult your plan details or a representative. Over-the-counter famotidine and Medicare Many Medicare Advantage plans include coverage for OTC products as part of their additional benefits. If your Medicare Advantage plan includes OTC benefits, you can likely use them to buy famotidine. Generally, with OTC benefits, members can get a benefits card that works like a debit card. The plan adds funds to the card at regular intervals, and you can use it at participating retailers to buy eligible products. The specific retailer and product lists may depend on the plan, but Walgreens, for example, offers various famotidine products in different strengths and quantities through its OTC benefits program. Famotidine cost with Medicare The cost of famotidine may depend on its strength, quantity, form, and whether it's a generic or brand-name product. Formularies place covered drugs into tiers. These tiers typically correspond with a drug's cost, with lower tier drugs often carrying lower copayments or coinsurance. A plan's formulary may cover multiple versions of famotidine. If so, the oral tablet form is likely to be a tier 1 drug, whereas the oral suspension may be a tier 4 drug. However, this may not be the case for all plans that cover famotidine.