Latest news with #HouseEnergyandCommerceCommittee
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House Reconciliation Bill Locks in Trump's Energy Dominance Agenda
Americans voted for lower energy costs. President Donald Trump's administration followed through on the promise in record time with gas prices reaching their lowest levels in years. Now Congressional Republicans are codifying his energy policy agenda as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill. The administration is expanding drilling on federal lands, expediting approvals for natural gas exports, and streamlining bureaucratic red tape that too often strangles energy exploration and extraction. Taken together, these actions will begin unleashing the private sector to bring about American energy dominance. Already, oil prices have reached a four-year low, and prices at the pump are down about 50 cents per gallon over the past year. That's major progress, but there is only so much an administration can do solo. Thankfully, congressional Republicans have passed plan to give President Trump an expanded arsenal of tools to achieve his energy policy agenda. Their energy plan is a core part of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' that will also extend the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act from Trump's first term. The entire package will deliver pro-growth tax relief, save trillions of taxpayer dollars, and avoid a massive $4.5 trillion tax increase in 2026. While there are a lot of taxpayer-friendly provisions in the reconciliation package, part of the bill's mission is to fix America's broken energy policy. It repeals billions of dollars in wasteful Green New Deal-style funding and drives certainty for energy companies to invest over the long-term. The House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee should each be commended for crafting some of the most important provisions of this tax and budget savings package. The core focus of the Natural Resources Committee's plan is to promote energy production. It does so by finally establishing a predictable schedule for the consideration of public lands and waters that can be tapped for resource extraction. The private sector will have long-term certainty thanks to quarterly onshore oil and gas lease sales, and biannual offshore lease sales. President Biden infamously halted these sales and issued the fewest leases since the 1960s. Opening a competitive and responsible bid process for federal acreage will ensure a steady pipeline of future energy projects. Their proposal also focuses on bringing down production costs by repealing the Inflation Reduction Act's misguided fee increase on oil and gas produced on federal lands. It delivers a 25% cut to that fee, making production less expensive and more attractive for drillers to extract fossil fuels—likely yielding downstream consumer benefits. Higher taxes and fees ultimately disincentivize activities, and the inverse is also true. The Energy and Commerce Committee's portion of the bill will expedite the construction of energy infrastructure by cutting government red tape and allowing the private sector to bring energy from the ground to market more quickly. It accelerates permitting with a one-year timeline for carbon dioxide, oil, and hydrogen pipeline projects and for liquefied natural gas export facilities. It would also exempt most of these projects from frivolous, activist litigation to avoid 'delay-to-die' schemes. And while the Biden Administration emptied the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for political purposes, the Republican bill begins the process of responsibly refilling it. The Reserve currently sits at historically low levels, a scary reality in today's uncertain world. Its purpose is to safeguard against real emergencies, like natural disasters or major supply disruptions, not political worries. It's refreshing to see Congress engage on sensible energy policy after the boondoggles of the Biden years. Urgency on this issue is crucial since energy is a building block of our modern society and is woven into every facet of our lives. We need oil and natural gas to help grow crops, transport goods, power our factories, energize our homes, and much more. Without it, our entire way of life would be threatened. More energy, lower costs, and a reliable electricity supply: that's the vision Republicans and President Trump are hoping to accomplish with their reconciliation bill. The right course of action, and the necessary one, is for policymakers to keep these provisions in the final proposal that reaches the Oval Office. Praise be to Republicans for advancing a strong America-first energy policy. Thomas Aiello is Senior Director of Government Affairs at National Taxpayers Union
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Pueblo citizens urge Hurd to vote ‘no' on Medicaid cuts
(PUEBLO, Colo.) — Some community members in Pueblo came together on Sunday, May 18, to urge Representative Jeff Hurd to vote 'No' on any bill cutting funds to Medicaid. On Saturday, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee pushed forward a plan aimed at saving $880 billion by cutting Medicaid funding. The proposal would end funding methods that many states rely on and penalize states covering people who entered the U.S. illegally. Some in Pueblo say Jeff Hurd has been quiet on matters about the policy, and are asking him to speak up. 'Jeff Hurd needs to understand that he is working for us and not Donald Trump,' said Center for Health Progress Kebin Abernathy. 'He was elected by Colorado Congressional District 3, maybe not by all of us, but he does represent all of us, and he needs to listen to all of us.' The plan could leave more than 10 million people without Medicaid and 7.6 million more by 2034. 'Working at the Department of Human Services for almost 20 years, Medicaid isn't just a program, it's faces, it's people,' said Josette Jaramillo. 'It's the people that rely on Medicaid for their treatment, for their medications, for their behavioral health programs.' Those who rallied together on Sunday are asking Hurd to speak up and vote no on the proposed Medicaid cuts that would allegedly put 228,000 working people in Colorado's Third Congressional District at risk, along with several healthcare and public service workers' jobs. FOX21 News reached out to Jeff Hurd's Office for comment and is still awaiting a response. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
18-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
GOP push for Medicaid cuts could have political ramifications for party
Republicans in Congress seem focused on passing a budget with deep spending cuts to programs except defense while making the tax cuts adopted during the first Trump administration permanent. The President promised there would not be any cuts to Medicaid, yet the most recent draft from the House would cut Medicaid spending by the federal government. The proposal also has a work requirement for adults. Those cuts are mathematically unavoidable given the plan for the House Energy and Commerce Committee to eliminate $880 billion over ten years. This has actually generated some opposition from within the Republican party. Host Jim Niedelman brings back Elesha Gayman and Kurt Whalen to discuss. 'I think it's a dangerous path, there's no question about it,' Whalen said. 'This is going to have catastrophic results,' Gayman said. To hear more, click on the video. And now we want to hear from you, too, with our question of the week: What do you think about the federal budget proposal that would cut Medicaid and cause millions of people to lose their healthcare coverage? Please share your thoughts at 4therecord@ Local 4 News, your local election headquarters, is proud to present , a weekly news and public affairs program focused on the issues important to you. It's a program unlike any other here in the Quad Cities. Tune in each Sunday at 10:30 a.m. as brings you up to speed on what's happening in the political arena, from Springfield, Des Moines, Washington, D.C. and right here at home. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Axios
16-05-2025
- Health
- Axios
1 big thing: Medicaid provider taxes throw off sparks
It's been a WEEK in health land! Thanks for sticking with us. Today's newsletter is 1,008 words or a 4-minute read. Congress and the Trump administration are trying to limit how much states can tax hospitals, nursing homes and other providers to help cover the cost of their Medicaid programs. That could tie governors' and legislatures' hands at a critical moment. Why it matters: The taxes have been a friction point for decades, but they're deeply ingrained in the safety net program. Every state except Alaska levies at least one type of provider tax to help cover the non-federal part of Medicaid spending. How it works: States typically cover about 30% of Medicaid costs annually and use general funds along with taxes on hospitals, nursing homes and even managed care organizations. The more they collect, the more they receive in federal matching funds. That's key in the current debate over federal Medicaid spending, with projections showing that limiting provider taxes could reduce federal outlays by hundreds of billions over a decade. The stakes are particularly high for red states. Mississippi, South Carolina, Utah and Alabama would all lose more than one-third of their federal Medicaid funding without the ability to levy provider taxes. State of play: The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday advanced a sweeping overhaul of Medicaid that would prevent states from establishing new provider taxes and freeze those taxes already on the books at their current rates. Democrats unsuccessfully fought the move during a marathon 26-hour markup. But the committee ultimately advanced the restrictions and the rest of the legislation along party lines. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the restrictions would save about $87 billion through 2034. Meanwhile, the Trump administration this week proposed additional restrictions on how states can structure their provider taxes. Seven states currently have waivers for provider taxes that would have to be restructured under the new policy, mostly for taxes on insurers. That proposal alone, which mirrors another provision in the House reconciliation bill, would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $33 billion over five years, CMS estimates. "Every state is going to have a really different situation in front of them," said Morgan Craven, a director in ATI Advisory's state program and policy practice. "Because it's been such a part of the fabric of how so many states finance and deliver care, undoing that is going to be really complex, and states will need time and will need a really strategic lens for how they can sustainably undo these policies," she added. Zoom out: Hospitals and patient advocates are concerned about the effects of such a foundational change in Medicaid financing. "By freezing the taxes, the proposal ignores circumstances that drive increased health care costs including inflation, increased labor and drug costs, increased utilization and increased population demand for service," the American Hospital Association wrote in a statement to the Energy and Commerce Committee this week. Yes, but: Hospital stocks actually gained, on the premise that the House's Medicaid changes could have been more onerous, per the Wall Street Journal. And the CMS proposal suggested that the Trump administration won't further try to dock provider taxes outside of congressional efforts — good news for hospital investors, Capstone senior vice president Wylie Butler wrote in an analyst note. What to watch: There are some signs that Senate Republicans aren't as interested in cracking down on provider taxes as their counterparts in the House. "It's not that I think that provider taxes are good; it's that the Medicaid reimbursements have been insufficient," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told reporters this week. 2. Means pick reflects new era in messaging Tina Reed, Eleanor Hawkins Casey Means was nominated to become the new face of American public health. She's not a career doctor — but she knows how to go viral. That's the point. And the risk. Why it matters: This is part of the Trump administration's broader strategy to prioritize messaging, allegiance and influence over expertise. Driving the news: Means' nomination to become surgeon general drew major backlash from the medical establishment. It also didn't sit well within segments of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s public health movement, because Means wasn't strident enough on vaccines. The administration has defended Means' qualifications, claiming her critics are worried that her popularity among "MAHA moms" could create "an existential threat to the status quo interests, which profit from sickness." The big picture: Whatever the outcome, Means represents a continuation of the Trump administration's strategy of identifying and elevating public figures, influencers or creators who have clout within niche audiences of the MAGA-sphere. "She is reaching people in new ways that I actually would like to see more 'trusted institutions' think about," Claire Wardle, an expert on health communication and misinformation at Cornell University, told Axios. Yes, but: While she focuses on issues many people might find important, she also veers into areas in which there isn't scientific consensus, she said. 3. A Trump-Cuban alliance on drug manufacturing Tina Reed The Trump administration is partnering with several health companies, including Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drug Company, to find new ways to make drugs or their key ingredients at the point of care, such as a hospital, officials announced Thursday. Why it matters: The launch comes amid ongoing drug supply chain concerns, particularly as tariffs threaten to increase the costs or constrict access to key active pharmaceutical ingredients in the U.S. Called Equip-A-Pharma, the program aims to lower production costs, reduce drug shortages, speed approval times and boost the rapid response to national emergencies, officials said. But it's noteworthy because of the involvement of Cuban, a fierce Trump critic, who called him a "snake oil salesperson" last year. His company aims to fundamentally change drug pricing via a direct-to-consumer model. Cuban did not respond to a request for comment. The collaboration includes the HHS public health preparedness arm and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, along with Battelle Memorial Institute and Aprecia, Bright Path Laboratories and Rutgers University. The partners are expected to submit abbreviated new drug applications to the FDA within a year, officials said.
Chicago Tribune
16-05-2025
- Health
- Chicago Tribune
Hundreds of thousands of Illinois residents could lose Medicaid coverage under House Republican proposals
State health care leaders are warning that proposed cuts to federal Medicaid funding could have devastating consequences — potentially resulting in a loss of health care coverage for hundreds of thousands of people in Illinois. House Republicans have been talking for months about potentially slashing Medicaid, but this week they unveiled, for the first time, language of a bill outlining exactly how they plan to do that. On Wednesday, those plans moved closer to reality, with the House Energy and Commerce Committee advancing the measure. It's unclear exactly how much federal money Illinois could lose under the current proposals, but a number of the provisions would directly affect Medicaid funding in Illinois. The bill includes work requirements for people on Medicaid, and would restrict taxes that states including Illinois now impose on providers to help raise money for Medicaid. It would also cut funding for states that offer health care coverage to undocumented immigrants, such as Illinois — a provision that could trigger an end of coverage for more than 770,000 Illinois residents who gained it under the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicaid. The bill would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $625 billion over 10 years, according to preliminary estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. It's part of a larger Republican plan to cut federal spending to help pay for new and existing tax cuts and enhanced border and national security. 'We're going to root out fraud, waste and abuse and that's where the savings are going to be found,' House Speaker Mike Johnson said of the proposed changes to Medicaid during an interview on Newsmax earlier this week. 'So, we're actually making the program stronger for the Americans who need it.' But health care advocates say the proposed cuts could leave many Illinois patients in the lurch. More than 3.4 million Illinois residents are on Medicaid — about one-fourth of the state's population. Medicaid is a health insurance program for low-income people that's funded by the state and federal government. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the measure would increase the number of people without health insurance by 7.6 million nationally over the next 10 years. 'It's breathtaking the scale of the cut,' said Carrie Chapman, deputy director of program and policy at the Legal Council for Health Justice, which provides legal services to low-income people in Illinois who need access to health care. 'It's certainly really concerning for the health and well-being of Illinoisans to be looking at a cut of this magnitude.' Illinois Health and Hospital Association President and CEO AJ Wilhelmi said in a statement Thursday that the bill 'will have devastating consequences for Illinois hospitals and their patients.' The bill must still pass the full House, and Johnson has said he'd like to send it to the Senate before Memorial Day. One of the biggest current provisions of the bill would impose a requirement that able-bodied adults on Medicaid spend at least 80 hours a month working, in school or engaged in community service. Trump administration leaders wrote in an opinion essay in The New York Times on Wednesday that Medicaid funding should focus on those most in need, not on able-bodied adults. 'For able-bodied adults, welfare should be a short-term hand-up, not a lifetime handout,' they wrote. 'But too many able-bodied adults on welfare are not working at all. And too often we don't even ask them to. For many, welfare is no longer a lifeline to self-sufficiency but a lifelong trap of dependency.' In Illinois, about 58% of adults on Medicaid are already working, according to KFF, a nonprofit organization focused on health policy. Most adults on Medicaid who do not hold jobs are not working because of caregiving responsibilities, illness or disability or because they're going to school, according to KFF. Under the proposed requirement, able-bodied adults who are not working, going to school or engaged in community service could potentially lose their coverage. The requirement, however, may also be problematic for those who are working, Chapman said. It creates more paperwork for Medicaid recipients — and the state — which can lead to people losing coverage even when they qualify. 'The purpose of work requirements is not to have people work, because they already are,' Chapman said. 'The point is to create an administrative burden so people lose their eligibility for Medicaid even when they are eligible. It's just a cynical effort to get people who are eligible off Medicaid.' If the work requirement goes into effect, anywhere from 270,000 to 500,000 people on Medicaid in Illinois may end up losing coverage for administrative reasons, according to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, which oversees Medicaid in Illinois. Critics of work requirements point to the experiences of other states that have tried the tactic. Arkansas had work requirements in 2018 to 2019 and saw about 18,000 people — about 25% of those subject to the work requirement — lose Medicaid coverage, mostly because they failed to regularly report their work status or show they were eligible for an exemption, according to KFF. Georgia has a work requirement in place now, but has seen low enrollment in its expanded Medicaid program for adults — about 6,500 people as of January, which is far short of the 25,000 the state had predicted, according to KFF. The proposed legislation could also lead to a loss of coverage for more than 770,000 Illinois residents who gained Medicaid coverage through the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act allowed states to expand Medicaid to more adults, namely those earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level. To help states do that, the federal government has been paying 90% of the costs for those adults. The bill, however, takes aim at states that use their own state funds to pay for health insurance programs for undocumented immigrants — states like Illinois. In 2020, Illinois began offering coverage to noncitizen immigrants ages 65 and older. The state later expanded the program to noncitizen immigrants between the ages of 42 and 64, though the part of the program for younger immigrants is slated to end this summer. In states that cover health care for undocumented immigrants, the bill would reduce the federal government's contribution from 90% of the cost to 80% of the cost of coverage for people who gained Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act's expansion of the program. In Illinois, that loss of funding would set in motion an end to the Medicaid expansion program. Illinois has a 'trigger law' that says the state will end its participation in the Medicaid expansion program if the federal match dips below 90%. It's one of about a dozen states with such laws, which were passed to ensure states didn't end up with enormous bills they couldn't pay if the federal government reduced its spending. 'The costs for those who remain uninsured would be absorbed by healthcare providers like hospitals who would have to shoulder the costs of uncompensated care,' Melissa Kula, a spokesperson for the state Department of Healthcare and Family Services, said in an email. In another move that could mean less Medicaid funding for Illinois in the future, the bill would also prohibit states from raising taxes on health care providers or imposing new taxes on providers. Nearly every state, including Illinois, now imposes certain taxes on providers, according to KFF. States use provider taxes to help raise money for their Medicaid programs. The federal government matches state spending on Medicaid, meaning the revenue from provider taxes also helps increase the federal matching dollars. Critics of provider taxes have called them a 'scam.' They say states essentially tax providers, and then use the federal match to hand that money, plus some, back to the providers, while keeping any extra matching dollars. Illinois expects provider taxes to raise about $11 billion for the state's Medicaid program next fiscal year, between the revenue it makes from the taxes and the money the federal government is expected to contribute in matching funds, according to the state Department of Healthcare and Family Services. 'Any future restrictions would significantly limit the state's ability to provide comprehensive healthcare coverage to Illinois residents,' Kula said. Wilhelmi, with the Illinois Health and Hospital Association, said in a statement that Illinois has used provider taxes for decades to fund Medicaid, helping to ensure access to health care for vulnerable populations. 'This legislation would severely restrict our ability to use these provider taxes in the future and shrink the resources available to implement the program,' he said. 'These proposals will lead to a significant increase in uncompensated care for providers at a time when many hospitals are already facing serious financial pressures.' In Illinois, the federal government pays about 51% of the cost of Medicaid for most beneficiaries, with no limit on the dollar amount. Gov. JB Pritzker has said in recent months that no state in the country, including Illinois, has enough money to backfill the billions of dollars that House Republicans are aiming to cut from Medicaid. The federal government sent more than $20 billion to Illinois in fiscal year 2024 to help pay for Medicaid, according to the Department of Healthcare and Family Services. 'Cuts in federal funding will lead to reduced services and enrollment, as the state will be unable to make up the funding gap,' said Kula. 'The full range of Medicaid services will potentially be at risk.' A significant loss in Medicaid funding could lead to difficult decisions for the state, health care providers and patients. For some people, a loss of coverage could be life-threatening, health care advocates say. For example, more than half of Illinois residents with HIV who are on Medicaid qualify because of the expansion under the Affordable Care Act, said Nadeen Israel, senior vice president of policy and advocacy at the AIDS Foundation Chicago. The illness can be managed as long as patients have access to certain medications. But if they lose Medicaid coverage, they may no longer be able to afford those medications, Israel said. 'It's a domino effect. If folks living with HIV lose their coverage through Medicaid, they lose access to the lifesaving treatment they need,' Israel said. 'It will result in new diagnoses, more diagnoses and preventable deaths.' But the cuts will affect more than just those who are on Medicaid in Illinois, said Chapman of the Legal Council for Health Justice. If people lose their Medicaid coverage they may see their doctors less and wind up in emergency rooms more often, increasing ER wait times for everyone, she said. If clinics or hospitals have to close because of a loss of Medicaid revenue, that's one less care option for all patients in a community. 'It doesn't matter if you have Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance through your employer. If the clinic shutters, you don't have health care,' Chapman said. 'It touches everyone, and cutting $700-plus billion out of it will affect every person.'
