logo
As a doctor, I'm telling you that Medicaid cuts will cost Ohio money — and lives

As a doctor, I'm telling you that Medicaid cuts will cost Ohio money — and lives

Yahoo2 days ago

As a Cincinnati doctor, I see what Medicaid cuts will cost us. I work as a primary care physician in Cincinnati − much of my job involves counseling people on the long-term risks of today's actions. I remind parents that juice contributes to early diabetes in their children. I teach teenagers that regular cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis. I urge patients to take their blood pressure medications to avoid future strokes and heart attacks. I refer people for colonoscopies to catch cancer early.
My job is about prevention − acting now to avoid suffering later. Congress is about to do the opposite.
More: Trump budget bill would slash Medicaid. How it would affect Ohio
The House Budget Reconciliation Bill includes drastic cuts to Medicaid, which will take health insurance away from Ohioans. If passed, these cuts won't just cost the state billions of dollars − they'll cost lives. Estimates suggest that between 300,000 and 500,000 Ohioans will lose their health insurance coverage due to these cuts. They are unlikely to find other options.
Employment benefits won't suddenly appear. In 2018, the Ohio Department of Medicaid reported that the vast majority (93.8%) of Ohio Medicaid recipients were employed, in school, taking care of family members, or navigating severe illness. The average Ohioan on Medicaid won't be able to afford private health insurance − self-insured plans cost upwards of $8,000 per year.
The result? Fewer people will get the care they need. Uninsured individuals are three times more likely to postpone or avoid seeking care and much more likely to skip medications due to cost. People won't stop getting sick − they'll just stop getting care.
When care stops, hospitals close. According to a 2025 report from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, 'over the past two decades, nearly 200 rural hospitals have closed. As a result, the millions of Americans who live in those communities no longer have access to an emergency room, inpatient care, and many other hospital services that citizens in most of the rest of the country take for granted."
More: Ohio lawmakers wanted to keep kids on Medicaid. Then they changed course
As of April 2025, there are eight Ohio hospitals at risk of closing, and there are 34 Ohio hospitals operating at a financial loss. If these Medicaid cuts go through, hospitals in Ohio will have to provide more than $2 million more in uncompensated care each year, while missing out on millions in revenue from covered care. This financial stress will be too much. Hospitals will close, costing communities thousands of jobs and worsening health care shortages in areas.
Once hospitals close, patients will have to travel further and wait even longer. They will delay care due to these inconveniences, and they will suffer more. Eventually, they'll still seek care − because illness doesn't wait. But often, it will be too late.
A few years back, I took care of a patient in the hospital who was living with diabetes and hypertension. He lost his insurance when he lost his job during the COVID-19 layoffs. Without health insurance and transportation, he couldn't see a doctor. He ignored the worsening numbness in his feet and blurry vision while he desperately tried to stay housed and find work.
By the time he realized how sick he was and finally arrived at the hospital, his foot was gangrenous, the infection had spread to his bones, and he had suffered multiple small strokes. His eyesight was permanently damaged. After extensive surgeries and a prolonged hospital stay, he was discharged to a nursing facility, where he faced an uphill battle to recover.
More: Man with rare skin disease fears Medicaid cuts
This story is not unique. Each year, millions experience lapses in their health care coverage, leading to delayed or forgone care. If these cuts to Medicaid pass, there will be millions more. Uninsured adults are more likely to delay care, to develop more serious illnesses with more complicated and longer hospital stays, and are at increased risk of early death.
The decisions lawmakers make today will have lasting effects. As a doctor, I see the human cost of delayed care and insurance lapses every day. As an Ohioan, I know our communities can't afford this.
Call your representatives and senators. Tell them to protect our health and our hospitals. Tell them: Don't cut Medicaid.
Joshua Smith is a resident physician at The Christ Hospital and University of Cincinnati Medical Center, training in Family Medicine and Psychiatry. All opinions and views expressed here are his own and do not reflect those of his places of work or employers. The information provided does not represent medical advice, and patient details have been changed to protect privacy.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Ohio will lose healthcare access if Congress cuts Medicaid | Opinion

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown

Hamilton Spectator

timean hour ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown

As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools , churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey , alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision . Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Judge says administration can dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services

timean hour ago

Judge says administration can dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Friday denied a request by the American Library Association to halt the Trump administration's further dismantling of an agency that funds and promotes libraries across the country, saying that recent court decisions suggested his court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had previously agreed to temporarily block the Republican administration, saying that plaintiffs were likely to show that Trump doesn't have the legal authority to unilaterally shutter the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which was created by Congress. But in Friday's ruling, Leon wrote that as much as the 'Court laments the Executive Branch's efforts to cut off this lifeline for libraries and museums,' recent court decisions suggested that the case should be heard in a separate court dedicated to contractual claims. He cited the Supreme Court's decision allowing the administration to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training money despite a lower court order barring the cuts, saying that cases seeking reinstatement of federal grants should be heard in the Court of Federal Claims. The American Library Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees filed a lawsuit to stop the administration from gutting the institute after President Donald Trump signed a March 14 executive order that refers to it and several other federal agencies as 'unnecessary.' The agency's appointed acting director then placed many agency staff members on administrative leave, sent termination notices to most of them, began canceling grants and contracts and fired all members of the National Museum and Library Services Board. The institute has roughly 75 employees and issued more than $266 million in grants last year. However, a Rhode Island judge's order prohibiting the government from shutting down the museum and library services institute in a separate case brought by several states remains in place. The administration is appealing that order as well.

Trump orders FAA to remove supersonic flight restrictions: ‘Bold new chapter in aerospace innovation'
Trump orders FAA to remove supersonic flight restrictions: ‘Bold new chapter in aerospace innovation'

New York Post

timean hour ago

  • New York Post

Trump orders FAA to remove supersonic flight restrictions: ‘Bold new chapter in aerospace innovation'

President Trump is boosting supersonic aviation in the United States. An executive order the commander in chief signed Friday directs the Federal Aviation Administration to repeal a 1973 rule prohibiting overland supersonic flight, establish new noise standards for aircraft and remove other regulations that get in the way of the development of high-speed planes. 'The United States stands at the threshold of a bold new chapter in aerospace innovation,' the president wrote in the order. Advertisement 'For more than 50 years, outdated and overly restrictive regulations have grounded the promise of supersonic flight over land, stifling American ingenuity, weakening our global competitiveness, and ceding leadership to foreign adversaries.' 3 'President Trump is Making Aviation Great Again,' the White House said of the his executive order. AFP via Getty Images Trump argued that advances in engineering and technology have now made supersonic air travel 'not just possible, but safe, sustainable, and commercially viable.' Advertisement 'This order begins a historic national effort to reestablish the United States as the undisputed leader in high-speed aviation,' the president declared. 'By updating obsolete standards and embracing the technologies of today and tomorrow, we will empower our engineers, entrepreneurs, and visionaries to deliver the next generation of air travel, which will be faster, quieter, safer, and more efficient than ever before.' Under current FAA rules, only military aircraft – flying in specially designated areas – are allowed to break the sound barrier over land. The 1973 ban on overland supersonic flight was primarily due to the disruptive impact of the sonic booms produced when aircraft exceed the speed of sound. 3 Boom Supersonic hopes to develop a commercially viable supersonic aircraft. AP Advertisement 3 The FAA banned supersonic flights over the United States in 1973, over noise concerns. Chad Robertson – However, new technology has enabled one aircraft maker, Boom Supersonic, to develop a plane that can cruise above Mach 1 without emitting a sonic boom. 'Supersonic is back, baby!' Boom Supersonic founder and CEO Blake Scholl wrote on X, noting that in January, his company's XB-1 aircraft became the first privately developed supersonic jet to break the sound barrier. 'And today…[Trump] broke the sound barrier…permanently!' he added. Advertisement Scholl argued that the ban on supersonic flight has 'crippled progress' in aviation for half a century, but with Trump's order in place, 'The supersonic race is on and a new era of commercial flight can begin.' 'By removing decades-old regulatory barriers and promoting cutting-edge supersonic technology, President Trump is Making Aviation Great Again,' the White House said in a statement.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store