logo
The true cost of the GOP's megabill will be measured in lives. Tens of thousands of lives.

The true cost of the GOP's megabill will be measured in lives. Tens of thousands of lives.

Yahooa day ago
The reconciliation bill making its way through Congress includes cuts to Medicaid that are so massive that even some Republicans have criticized them. In a remarkable address Sunday in the Senate, Sen. Thom Tillis asked his GOP colleagues what he should tell his fellow North Carolinians who lose health care coverage. 'What do I tell 663,000 people in two years, three years,' he asked, 'when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding's not there anymore?'
But the toll is even worse than lost coverage. These cuts will cost more than 51,000 people their lives every year. That's not hyperbole. It's a predictable result when you cut off health insurance to people who are old, poor and sick. And it's based on analyses and projections from researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard and Yale.
Medicaid insures 1 in 5 Americans, typically low-income and often disabled. The latest version of the bill in front of the Senate includes more than $1 trillion in proposed cuts to the Medicaid program over 10 years. If enacted, these cuts would be the largest in Medicaid's 58-year history and would harm the health of millions.
Consider one deeply vulnerable group of 13 million Americans, known as dual-eligible individuals because they rely on both Medicare and Medicaid. These people automatically get subsidies that lower the cost of their medications. When they lose Medicaid, they lose access to low-cost drugs, increasing the likelihood that chronic conditions go untreated.
Using Medicare data on dual-eligible individuals, we calculated the effects of losing drug subsidies on beneficiaries' mortality. Based on this research, we estimated that 18,200 dual-eligible individuals would die each year from the loss of Medicaid coverage. Among the hardest hit would be those with chronic conditions like HIV, heart disease and lung disease.
The harms will not stop there. The bill proposes to add a work requirement for most nonelderly adults within Medicaid and would also end enhanced premium tax credits that lower the cost of individual plans on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace. Drawing on research about the effects of gaining Medicaid and marketplace coverage, our colleagues at Yale estimated that over 20,000 people would die annually due to projected coverage losses from these provisions of the bill.
The budget bill also will delay for a decade the new rule for minimum staffing at nursing homes that would improve quality of care. Based on studies of the relationship between nurse staffing hours and resident mortality, our colleagues at Penn project another 13,000 deaths per year among residents.
Medicaid funding cuts will force governors and state legislators to make politically unpalatable decisions, because states, unlike the federal government, must balance their budgets every year. States will likely be forced to curtail benefits or install policies that limit the amount of time individuals can receive Medicaid. Hospitals, clinics and other caregivers will suffer as well with rural and urban facilities bearing the brunt, forcing them to trim operations or close altogether.
A full accounting of these impacts won't be known for several years as they depend on how states adjust over time to funding cuts. Therefore, the full effects of Medicaid cuts could be even more extensive than current forecasts of coverage loss and mortality suggest.
What can be done to reduce unnecessary Medicaid loss? Halting the proposed cuts would be a start. There is evidence that Medicaid expansions are cost-effective by improving the long-term health of many people. While several Republican lawmakers who have criticized the Medicaid cuts still plan to vote for the legislation, there is still time for them to use their leverage to amend the bill.
Another place to look is Medicaid's onerous application process. Many people cycle on and off Medicaid for bureaucratic reasons like lost or incorrect paperwork rather than improving finances. Analysts have identified ways states can reduce these burdens, including streamlining asset tests and making Medicaid enrollment automatic for individuals receiving income-based programs.
Unfortunately, the tax bill will move policy in the opposite direction — adding or preserving administrative hurdles that prevent individuals who need Medicaid from getting coverage.
For example, the proposal to introduce a Medicaid work requirement would add bureaucratic red tape and make it harder for people to remain on Medicaid — even for those who are working and meet eligibility criteria. In 2018, for instance, Arkansas instituted work requirements for its Medicaid program until a federal judge's ruling the following year put them on hold. Research found that the requirements did not increase employment but instead led to coverage losses because of difficulty reporting their employment status to the state.
The tax bill also proposes to delay until at least 2035 a Biden-era Medicaid rule to streamline Medicaid eligibility and renewals for dual-eligible individuals. Currently, most dual-eligible individuals must fill out more than 15 pages of forms to document their income and assets. This complexity can make it especially hard to keep Medicaid for people with cognitive impairment. Delaying this rule would result in 1.3 million fewer low-income Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicaid by 2034, the Congressional Budget Office estimated.
Although policymakers say they don't intend to cut coverage for older adults and people with disabilities, what is clear is that the bill's funding reductions and its changes to Medicaid enrollment policies are unlikely to spare this vulnerable population.
As the budget bill moves through Congress, policymakers must consider the repercussions that steep Medicaid cuts will have and whether Medicaid-eligible individuals keep the coverage they need. If they do not, the consequences won't just be financial; they'll be deadly.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Inquiry hears of older people ‘cull' as Matt Hancock defends care home policies
Inquiry hears of older people ‘cull' as Matt Hancock defends care home policies

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Inquiry hears of older people ‘cull' as Matt Hancock defends care home policies

Care home deaths felt like a 'cull of older people who could no longer contribute to the society', the UK Covid-19 inquiry has heard as Matt Hancock defended his handling of an 'impossible' situation. There were tense exchanges as the former health secretary returned to give evidence to the wide-ranging probe, this time focused on the adult social care sector. Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting to breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, responded to an accusation he had 'blatantly lied about the situation with care homes'. At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.' Bereaved families have previously called the phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'. The inquiry has heard there were more than 43,000 deaths involving the virus in care homes across the UK between March 2020 and July 2022, and a civil servant was quoted earlier this week describing the toll as a 'generational slaughter within care homes'. On Wednesday, remarks were read to the inquiry from an anonymous witness, who accused Mr Hancock of not being heartfelt or having a proper understanding of the situation care homes were in during the pandemic. Counsel to the inquiry Jacqueline Carey KC, who gave no further information on the person's identity or their role, said: 'One person in particular said 'He (Mr Hancock) blatantly lied about the situation with care homes, there was no blanket of protection. We were left to sail our own ships. He wasn't heartfelt. He had no understanding or appreciation of the challenges care homes face, pandemic or not, it felt like we were the sacrifice, a cull of older people who could no longer contribute to the society'.' Mr Hancock said he felt it was 'not helpful' for the inquiry to 'exchange brickbats' – a term used to describe a verbal attack. He added: 'I've been through everything that we did as a department, a big team effort, and we were all pulling as hard as we possibly could to save lives – that's what I meant by saying that we tried to throw a protective ring around. 'Of course, it wasn't perfect. It was impossible – it was an unprecedented pandemic, and the context was exceptionally difficult. 'What I care about is the substance of what we did, the protections that we put in place, and most importantly, what we can do in the future to ensure that the options available are better than they were last time.' He said the emphasis was on ''tried' – it was not possible to protect as much as I would have wanted'. He added that he and others were 'trying to do everything that we possibly could' in 'bleak circumstances' at a time when 'I also had (former government adviser) Dominic Cummings and a load of people causing all sorts of problems for me, and I had Covid'. Elsewhere in his evidence, Mr Hancock – who said one of his own relatives died in a care home but did not give further details – acknowledged the policy around discharging patients from hospital into care homes early in the pandemic was an 'incredibly contentious issue'. When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April. This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus. The High Court ruled in 2022 that government policies on discharging hospital patients into care homes at the start of the pandemic were 'unlawful'. While the judges said it was necessary to discharge patients 'to preserve the capacity of the NHS', they found it was 'irrational' for the Government not to have advised that asymptomatic patients should isolate from existing residents for 14 days after admission. Asked about the policy, Mr Hancock said there were no good options, adding: 'It's the least-worst decision that could have been taken at the time.' Pressed further, he said he had both agreed with and defended the decision at the time. He added that 'nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives.' He said while the policy had been a government decision, it had been 'driven' by then-NHS chief executive Sir Simon Stevens, now Lord Stevens. The inquiry heard Mr Hancock said in his witness statement that NHS England had 'insisted' on the policy, and while he did not take the decision himself, he took responsibility for it as then-health secretary. Asked about March 17 2020 when NHS bosses were instructed to begin the discharge process, Mr Hancock said officials were 'pushing very hard' to get more PPE (personal protective equipment) into care homes. He said not advising care homes to isolate returning residents without symptoms was a 'mistake', but it was in line with clinical guidance at the time. In 2023, appearing for a separate module of the inquiry, Mr Hancock admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one, and said he understood the strength of feeling people have on the issue. Mr Hancock's statement, referred to during Wednesday's hearing, said while there had been 'widespread concern' that patients being discharged from hospital were the main source of infection in care homes, 'we learned in the summer of 2020 that staff movement between care homes was the main source of transmission'. He told the inquiry he had wanted to bring in a ban on staff movement between care homes but that being unable to secure funding from the Treasury to compensate affected workers was a 'killer blocker' so it did not happen. Nicola Brook, a solicitor representing more than 7,000 families from Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK (CBFFJ), said Mr Hancock's claim that the discharge policy had been the least-worst decision available was 'an insult to the memory of each and every person who died'. The CBFFJ group has written to inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson and Lord Stevens. Outlining the state of the adult social care sector at the outbreak of the pandemic, Mr Hancock said it 'was badly in need of, and remains badly in need of, reform', but rejected the suggestion of it being a 'Cinderella service to the NHS'. He said pandemic contingency plans, prepared by local authorities for adult social care, had been 'as good as useless' at the time, and described a 'hodge podge of accountability' between local councils and government departments. He claimed the situation has 'got worse not better' for care homes in the event of another pandemic hitting, and suggested a series of recommendations, including having isolation facilities in care homes and ensuring a stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE). Hearings for module six of the inquiry, focused on the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK, are expected to run until the end of July.

Fact check: Trump lies again about gas prices, falsely claiming five states are at $1.99
Fact check: Trump lies again about gas prices, falsely claiming five states are at $1.99

CNN

time20 minutes ago

  • CNN

Fact check: Trump lies again about gas prices, falsely claiming five states are at $1.99

The president's imaginary list keeps getting longer. In April, President Donald Trump claimed gas prices in 'a couple' unspecified states had just fallen to $1.98 per gallon. That wasn't even close to true. But the next day he said it was 'three states' that had just hit $1.98 per gallon, which also wasn't remotely accurate. Trump used the 'three' figure on multiple occasions in subsequent weeks, again with no factual basis. Then, during an immigration-focused visit to Florida on Tuesday, Trump made it five states with supposed sub-$2 gas. 'Gasoline just hit $1.99 today in five states – $1.99, isn't that a nice sound?' he said, adding moments later, 'We just hit, in five states, $1.99, $1.98.' Once more, this was a lie. The lowest state average price on Tuesday for a gallon of regular gas was about $2.71 in Mississippi, according to data published by AAA. The state with the fifth-cheapest Tuesday average, Louisiana, was at about $2.79 per gallon, per the AAA data. And the national average was about $3.18 per gallon, AAA reported. GasBuddy, a firm that tracks prices at tens of thousands of stations around the country, did not find a single station selling regular gas for below $2.26 per gallon on Tuesday. (There are sometimes individual drivers who get special discounts.) And GasBuddy's head of petroleum analysis, Patrick De Haan, told CNN that the last time his data showed any state average below $2 per gallon was more than four years ago, in January 2021, when demand was unusually weak because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The White House did not respond to CNN's Tuesday request to explain Trump's claim. The president has a long history of using inaccurate statistics even when he could make a similar point using accurate statistics. His false Tuesday boast was especially needless given that he could have correctly said that – as CNN reported in an article earlier in the day – gas prices for this Fourth of July weekend are expected to be the lowest for the holiday since at least 2021, according to GasBuddy.

Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban

CBS News

time20 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban

The Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority struck down the state's 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by a newer state law that criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb. State lawmakers adopted the ban in 1849, making it a felony when anyone other than the mother "intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child." It was in effect until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that the 1849 ban could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist. Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent — but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin. Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling. She'll play pivotal role, though, in a separate Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban's constitutionality. The high court decided last year to take that case. It's still pending.

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