Latest news with #Medicaid-covered
Boston Globe
02-06-2025
- Health
- Boston Globe
How Trump's planned Medicaid cuts would hurt older women
Since women on average live longer than men, they are more likely to have to stretch their more meager savings and retirement income over more years. There are More women than men age 65 and older are low-income, meaning their Advertisement Since women live longer than men, they are also more likely to suffer the ailments of age. According to the Advertisement This brings us to Medicaid, the main public program paying for long-term care. According to KFF, Medicaid accounts for Since many more beneficiaries receiving Medicaid-covered long-term care are women, they would be most affected by cuts to Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the anticipated cuts would result in Speaking on the PBS 'NewsHour,' Jennifer Tolbert of KFF explained that the bill rescinds a rule 'that made it easier for seniors and people with disabilities who also have Medicare coverage to enroll in Medicaid, which will then pay for their premiums and cost-sharing, as well as provide them access to supplemental benefits that Medicare doesn't provide, including long-term care, dental benefits, as well as vision care.' Advertisement It could also mean many more seniors being forced to move to nursing homes. As Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute, explained to me, while Medicaid coverage of nursing home care is mandatory, coverage of home health care is discretionary. So to save funds, states are likely to cut back on the discretionary services they now cover. Without home health care assistance, many more families would have to make the difficult choice of placing parents and grandparents in nursing homes, where the quality of care would be likely to deteriorate as states reduce what they pay providers. This would also adversely affect women who are caregivers, both paid and unpaid. While the statistics vary, up to Further, many family caregivers would be likely to be thrown off Medicaid themselves under the expanded work requirements in the House Republican bill. According to KFF, All these funding reductions are meant to reduce a federal deficit that is projected to balloon with Advertisement Fortunately, the Republicans may not have the votes to put this devil's bargain through. Even Senator Josh Hawley,
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Work requirements in Trump's 'big, beautiful bill': What to know
The Brief President Donald Trump's "big beautiful" bill could transform Medicaid and food aid to many Americans. If the bill passes the Senate, it would impose work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The bill would also potentially make cuts to food assistance programs. WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump's"big beautiful" bill is inching its way closer to becoming law after passing the House early Thursday morning. One of the provisions of the bill would implement work requirements for low-income adults to receive Medicaid health insurance and increase them for food assistance. This is in addition to potentially slashing the funding for services like birth control. If passed, the bill will require able-bodied Medicaid enrollees under 65 to show that they work, volunteer or go to school in exchange for health insurance coverage. By the numbers Currently, about 92% of people enrolled in Medicaid are already working, being caregivers, attend school or are disabled. The other side This requirement could spell trouble for rural hospitals, in particular, who will see their small pool of patients go from paying for their emergency care with Medicaid coverage to not paying anything at all. Hospitals would have to eat their costs. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, already requires recipients to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month to receive full benefits. The "big beautiful" bill would raise the work requirement age for SNAP to 65 and it will extend it to parents without children who are younger than 7. The bill also would limit the ability to waive work requirements in areas with high unemployment rates. Under the bill, the federal government would punish states that use their own state dollars to provide Medicaid-covered services to immigrants lacking legal status or to provide subsidies to help them buy health insurance. That could mean states pulling back that Medicaid coverage to avoid the federal penalty. Planned Parenthood says a provision barring it from receiving Medicaid funds could lead to about one-third of its health centers closing. The group said about 200 centers are at risk — most of them in states where abortion is legal. In those states, the number of Planned Parenthood centers could be cut in half. The bill would stop Medicaid from covering gender-affirming care. Coverage for treatments could potentially not be required on insurance plans sold through the exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. The Source Information for this article was taken from reporting by The Associated Press and previous reporting by FOX Local. This story was reported from Los Angeles.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Nearly a third of pregnant rural Arkansans rely on Medicaid, study shows
(Getty Images) Pregnant Arkansas women living in rural areas will face even greater challenges obtaining obstetric care if Congress approves proposed cuts in Medicaid, according to health policy experts who discussed a new report Thursday. Arkansas as a whole has the 10th highest share of women of childbearing age covered by Medicaid in rural areas, according to a Georgetown University Center for Children and Families study presented during a webinar Thursday. The report also highlighted 20 U.S. counties where approximately half of their women of childbearing age are covered by Medicaid. One of those counties is in Arkansas, according to the study. Eastern Arkansas' Lee County has about 8,100 residents and a nearly 39% poverty rate, according to the U.S. Census. Medicaid is a significant source of health coverage for women of childbearing age, especially for those living in small towns and rural communities, the report found. The study defines these communities as non-metropolitan counties with urban areas of fewer than 50,000 residents. Bills to improve Arkansas maternal health, change ballot initiative process head to Sanders' desk 'It's absolutely critical for maternal and infant health that women have access to affordable, comprehensive healthcare before, during and after they get pregnant,' said Joan Alker, Georgetown University Center for Children and Families director and lead author of the report. Women in rural areas face greater challenges to accessing care because of a shortage of providers, hospital closures and the loss of labor and delivery units and obstetrical capacity, Alker said. Nationally, 23.3% of women of childbearing age (19 to 44 years old) in rural areas are covered by Medicaid, compared to 20.5% of women in metropolitan areas, according to the report. Louisiana and New Mexico have the highest share of Medicaid-covered women, with just over 40% each. Nearly 28% of women of childbearing age are covered by Medicaid in rural Arkansas. For many Arkansas women, especially those living in rural areas with low-income families, Medicaid may be the only health insurance source to keep them healthy throughout pregnancy, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families Health Policy Director Camille Richoux said in an interview. 'For me, it's a great thing that we have Medicaid ensuring that women throughout the state have coverage options,' Richoux said. 'It also means that we have more at stake whenever there are threats to Medicaid…this report really makes that case of how any kind of threats or cuts around Medicaid could have the potential to be devastating to a lot of women in the state and especially in a state that has so many challenges in maternal health.' Arkansas has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the nation and the third-highest infant mortality rate, according to the Arkansas Center for Health Improvement. Access to Medicaid could change under proposed federal legislation. A U.S. House panel approved a plan Wednesday that would reduce federal spending on Medicaid by $625 billion over the next decade. The proposal includes a provision for work requirements. Arkansas implemented a work-reporting requirement in 2018 that led to 18,000 people losing coverage, in part because enrollees were unaware or confused about how to report they were working. A federal judge later ruled the program was illegal. Arkansas officials submitted a request for a new work requirement earlier this year. 'The first time didn't work': Georgia and Arkansas scale back Medicaid work requirements Rural communities have a lot at stake with the congressional Medicaid debate, Alker said, because the loss of Medicaid revenue would place 'additional pressure on a very strained system.' Nearly half of all births in rural areas are covered by Medicaid, and less access to obstetrical care leads to worse outcomes to moms and their babies, she said. According to one study, 293 rural hospitals stopped providing obstetric care between 2011 and 2023. Another study found that more than 52% of rural hospitals did not provide obstetric care by 2022. Arkansas ranks sixth in terms of states with the highest percentage of maternity care deserts, according to the March of Dimes, which defines maternity care deserts as areas with no birthing facility or obstetric clinician. Nearly 51% of Arkansas is a maternity care desert, according to the organization's 2024 report. 'If we see more hospital closures and loss of labor and delivery units, all women living in rural areas are at risk of losing out on the care they need, regardless of who is their insurer, if that care is just not available,' Alker said. 'So these communities will not be able to grow and thrive without a robust system to support women and families.' Beyond reducing healthcare access for all rural community residents, not just those insured through Medicaid, Richoux noted hospital closures can hurt an entire community, especially when it's the area's largest employer. 'Not everybody can just leave…to move out of an area is an easy thing to say, a lot harder to do,' she said. 'And people shouldn't have to be forced to leave their small, rural town because their hospital is unnecessarily closed.' The full Georgetown University report is available here. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
How 2 words could decide whether SC can remove Planned Parenthood from list of Medicaid providers
Supporters and opponents of Planned Parenthood hold signs outside a U.S. Supreme Court hearing Wednesday, April 2, 2025, on a case that will decide whether South Carolina can remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid rolls as a provider for non-abortion health care services. (Photo by Sofia Resnick/States Newsroom) Whether South Carolina Medicaid patients can go to the doctor of their choice could hinge on two words in federal law, attorneys argued to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday. A section of the federal Medicaid Act says patients 'may obtain' care from any provider who is willing and qualified. It will be up to the nation's highest court to decide what that means. Attorneys for South Carolina and the U.S. government contend that allows states to choose which providers can be reimbursed for Medicaid-covered health care services. An attorney for Planned Parenthood argued those words give patients the right to see the provider of their choice. The case stems from a 2018 executive order in which Gov. Henry McMaster directed the state's Medicaid agency to remove abortion clinics from the list of providers that patients can choose to visit for non-abortion health care services. Under federal law, Medicaid can't pay for abortions. But Planned Parenthood also offers 'family planning' services Medicaid does cover, such as breast and cervical cancer screenings, birth control, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. Because the Medicaid Act doesn't explicitly use the word 'right,' or similar words, such as 'privilege,' 'entitlement' or 'immunity,' the state isn't legally obligated to allow patients to see whatever health care provider they want, argued John Bursch, an attorney representing the state, and Kyle Hawkins, an attorney for the Office of the Solicitor General. 'We're looking for unmistakable rights-creating language,' said Hawkins, who presented the federal government's arguments in support of the state. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Kentaji Brown Jackson seemed to differ. Requiring certain phrasing would be like telling Congress there are 'magic words' that can make the court interpret the law a certain way, said the justices who are generally considered liberal. Justice Elana Kagan was more direct in her questioning. The law's phrasing seems to clearly convey that a patient has the right to choose their provider, she said. 'It's impossible to even say the thing without using the word 'right,'' Kagan said. The use of the word 'may' is not related to a person's choice in what provider they visit but rather whether they choose to seek out health care at all, Kagan said. 'The 'may' is just, 'You may see a doctor,'' Kagan said. 'We're not forcing people to see doctors.' If the court interpreted the law as allowing states to deny Medicaid reimbursements to any doctor or practice state politicians deem unqualified, that could lead to any number of arbitrary decisions about who to include or exclude from the provider list, she said. Some states might decide to approve only the providers that perform abortions, offer contraception or do gender transition treatment, while other states might decide the opposite, she said. 'Every state could split up the world by providers like that, right?' Kagan said. Allowing states to do that, she added, would give patients 'no ability to come back and say, 'That's wrong, I'm entitled to see my provider of choice, regardless of what they think about contraception or abortion or gender transition treatment.'' Congress passed that part of the Medicaid Act because some states were trying to 'steer their Medicaid beneficiaries to certain providers and away from others,' Jackson said. That suggests Congress intended people to be able to choose which providers they want to see, said Nicole Saharsky, attorney for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. 'There aren't that many things that are more important than being able to choose your doctor, the person that you see when you're at your most vulnerable, facing some of the most significant challenges to your life and your health,' Saharsky said. 'Congress said a long time ago, 'This is something we want to protect.'' In response, Bursch argued that interpreting the wording as giving patients the right to choose their provider could open up a flood of lawsuits from people whose preferred doctors aren't on the list. SC's Planned Parenthood Medicaid funding case before the Supreme Court 7 years after McMaster's order The law already creates an appeals process for patients who feel their care isn't sufficient, Bursch said. Providers can also appeal to the courts if they feel they were unfairly excluded, he said. He likened the process to private insurance, in which an insurance company will only cover care provided by doctors considered part of its network. 'The beneficiary doesn't have the right to whip out a magic wand and then just hit on the head the doctor that they want, and then they must be qualified under Medicaid,' Bursch said. But that process doesn't allow a person to appeal until they've seen the provider, meaning that person couldn't challenge the decision to remove a health care provider from the list entirely, said Justice Amy Coney Barrett. 'That's the beneficiary taking the risk, going to the provider she wants to see and then potentially having to pay out of pocket,' Barrett said. Activists on both sides gathered outside the U.S. Supreme Court during the hearing, with competing bright pink signs that read 'defund' or 'fund' Planned Parenthood. But representatives for Planned Parenthood said justices' ruling is not about the organization's ability to operate, but whether patients will lose access to health care. 'If we lose, it won't shut us down,' said Molly Rivera, communications director for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. 'The real impact is going to be on the patients. It's going to be on people who rely on Medicaid and Title X for preventative health care.' Other activists who traveled to the nation's capital showed their support with homemade signs. They included Alex Brunken; her husband, John McNeil; and their son, Glen, who came from Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania, to support Planned Parenthood. 'Poor people should also get to choose who their providers are, not just wealthy people,' said Brunken, who described her work as being in 'reproductive health care,' adding she wanted her son to see the work she and her co-workers do. This week, the Trump administration also temporarily froze nearly $30 million in Title X family-planning grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates, which the Guttmacher Institute estimates could impact more than 1 million people seeking contraception, testing for sexually transmitted infections or other reproductive health services. The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing South Carolina officials in the lawsuit, argues that any money going to Planned Parenthood ultimately goes toward funding abortion. 'We know that money is fungible, so any dollar that's going to an abortion facility like Planned Parenthood — even earmarked for other services — is going to enable more dollars that they have to then go towards things like their abortion activism or performing more abortions,' said Gabriella McIntyre, legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom. 'States need to be free to fund real, comprehensive, high-quality health care in their states and exclude organizations like Planned Parenthood' from their limited funding, she said. McIntyre said South Carolina has 'nearly 200 high quality, comprehensive healthcare facilities that are publicly funded' where Medicaid patients could go instead of Planned Parenthood for family planning services. Rivera and other reproductive rights advocates in the state have argued there is a dearth of reproductive health providers who accept Medicaid and who are accepting new patients. Rivera said Planned Parenthood, which is a nonprofit, actually loses money as a Medicaid provider because the government's reimbursement rates are lower than the cost of the approved services they provide, such as cervical cancer screenings and birth control. That's why many for-profit health providers do not accept or limit the amount of Medicaid patients they see, which Planned Parenthood does not, she said. She said she worries residents of South Carolina, where most abortions are currently banned after six weeks' gestation, might have to start traveling out of state — not just for abortions, but for birth control and Pap smears. 'Both of our health centers, Columbia and Charleston, are also part of Title X, so we see people for Title X and Medicaid, and if you can't do either because of the government, I don't know where people are going to go,' Rivera said. 'Especially with cancer screenings, early detection saves lives. So, if you have to travel across state lines for your Pap smear, are you going to be able to do that? People will just forgo care.' While reproductive rights advocates outside the court rallied in favor of patients' rights, U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina's Fifth District argued states should have the right to determine their Medicaid providers. He called it a case about choice as laid out in the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution as giving powers to the states. It's about the state's choice 'to determine where limited resources go, the choice of South Carolinians to align our Medicaid policies with our values, and the choice of our nation to uphold the principles of federalism that our founders so wisely enshrined,' Norman, a Rock Hill Republican who might run for governor, said while addressing national anti-abortion leaders. 'I urge the court behind us to affirm our right to make these decisions free from outside interference, and I will continue to fight just alongside each one of you until this right is protected.'
Washington Post
02-04-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
Virginia tribe accuses Youngkin, state of undermining health system
RICHMOND — The Nansemond Indian tribe has filed a federal lawsuit accusing the state of Virginia and Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) of a 'systematic and unlawful campaign' to undermine the tribe's push into Medicaid-covered health-care services, highlighting tensions arising as the state interacts with tribes newly empowered by federal recognition.
