Latest news with #PlannedParenthoodSouthAtlantic
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Medicaid Expansions Save Lives, Study Finds
Medicaid recipient Emily Gabriella protests outside the U.S. Supreme Court as oral arguments are delivered in the case of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic on April 2, 2025 in Washington D.C. Credit -As Congress eyes sweeping cuts to Medicaid, the health care program for low-income adults that serves about 20% of people living in the U.S., a new study has a sharp conclusion: cuts to Medicaid will cost lives. The study, published in the National Bureau of Economic Research on May 5, tracked nearly 40 million people who gained Medicaid through state-based expansions under the Affordable Care Act between 2010 and 2022. It found that during that time, Medicaid expansions increased enrollment and reduced members' risk of death by 2.5%. People who enrolled in Medicaid because they gained eligibility saw a 20% reduction in their risk of death when compared to people in states who could not access Medicaid, the study found. In short, Medicaid expansions saved about 27,400 lives between 2010 and 2022, according to the study, by Dartmouth economics professor Angela Wyse and University of Chicago economics professor Bruce D. Meyer. It might seem obvious that expanding access to health insurance will improve people's health. But academics have actually had a difficult time proving this, Wyse says. 'This study really does a lot to advance our understanding of the magnitude of this relationship between health insurance and this really important health outcome,' she says. Read More: Trump Administration Cuts Funding for Autism Research—Even As It Aims to Find the Cause Medicaid expansion saves lives because it allows people to see doctors and access preventative care, and get recommendations from doctors about how to improve their lifestyles, she says. The study is one of the largest to date showing the health impacts on expanding Medicaid. It also found that gaining access to Medicaid reduced the chance of death across demographics. Its conclusion is especially relevant as Congress seeks to cut $600-$800 million from the Medicaid program over the next decade. Though around 70 million Americans are enrolled in Medicaid, the numbers vary tremendously by state. That's because the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, allowed states to expand Medicaid to more people, offering some funding for them to do so. Forty-one states—including conservative ones like Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana—have expanded Medicaid in the years since the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act. But 12 states have trigger laws in place that would automatically end the Medicaid expansion, or that would require significant changes to the program should there be reductions to the amount of money the federal government provides. Potential cuts to Medicaid are extremely controversial; an April KFF poll found that 76% of the public opposes major cuts to Medicaid. Even some Republicans seem wary of approving cuts. In April, 12 conservative members of Congress wrote a letter to GOP leaders reiterating their support of Medicaid. 'We cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations,' the letter concluded. The study also found that Medicaid is a relatively cost-effective way to save lives. It cost only about $5.4 million per life saved, which is actually relatively low compared to other interventions, Wyse says. 'I feel pretty confident in saying that restricting Medicaid access is going to have the real human cost of having more people die than otherwise would have,' she says. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Opinion - Abortion is back at SCOTUS — and this time the case could destroy Medicaid
Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could strip millions of Medicaid recipients of their right to choose their health care provider, marking a new battle over reproductive rights in the U.S. In Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the court will decide whether Medicaid recipients can challenge a state's decision to block them from accessing care at Planned Parenthood Health Centers. At issue is the freedom of choice provision, a federal law establishing that Medicaid patients can obtain care from any qualified provider. This case could set a precedent allowing states to dictate health care options based on political ideology rather than medical needs. A ruling against Planned Parenthood would be a historic shift, permitting states to exclude providers simply because they offer abortion services — even though Medicaid funds are already prohibited from covering abortion in most cases. The freedom of choice provision is a longstanding and widely accepted law, so much that the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals repeatedly rejected South Carolina's attempts to terminate Planned Parenthood as a provider under Medicaid. So why is the Supreme Court taking the case? Because anti-abortion activists are relentless in their attempts to defund Planned Parenthood. Ending Planned Parenthood's participation in Medicaid is part of a decades-long plan to financially hurt the organization and a Project 2025 strategy that has gained traction since Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and under the Trump administration. It's no coincidence that the Alliance for Defending Freedom (the group behind the efforts to revoke the Food and Drug Administration's approval for the abortion medication mifepristone) is representing the state of South Carolina. Based on last week's arguments, it was clear that the justices were skeptical about the case, and both liberal and conservative justices had major questions about the validity of South Carolina's argument. Beyond politics, this case has major public health implications. First, attacks on Planned Parenthood threaten abortion and reproductive health access nationwide. If successful, the case could shutter clinics, cutting off access to critical abortion care for people across the U.S. — even in states where abortion remains legal after the Dobbs decision. Millions could lose access to contraception, testing for sexually transmitted infections, HIV treatment, gender-affirming care, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and more. Research shows that limiting reproductive health services has horrific ripple effects, reducing access to the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive health care. Second, this case threatens the very structure of Medicaid, one of our most effective bipartisan anti-poverty measures. For over six decades, Medicaid has played a crucial role in helping people afford reproductive health services. Medicaid covers 1 in 5 people in the U.S. (just over 83 million people), the majority of whom are people of color because of systemic racism. Medicaid is also the largest public funder of family planning services, covering 41 percent of births in the U.S. Expanding Medicaid services has improved access to prenatal and postpartum care, contraception, HIV screenings and abortion care. If the court allows states to block providers for ideological reasons, Medicaid patients could lose access to high-quality, affordable care that meets their needs. The status of reproductive rights in the U.S. is changing quickly. Last week's oral arguments are coming just days after the Trump administration attempted to freeze millions of dollars in federal family planning grants, and weeks after the administration dismissed the case the Biden administration brought against Idaho, claiming that the state's abortion ban violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. It is clear that the Medina case will have far-reaching impacts on the health and well-being of people who use the Medicaid program, and is part of a coordinated affront to reproductive health care in the U.S. It is crucial that everyone who cares about health care access and the freedom to choose your health care provider to understand the Medina case. All eyes must be on the Supreme Court as it decides on a core pillar of our nation's reproductive health safety net. Dana M. Johnson, Ph.D., is a health disparities research postdoctoral fellow at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Terri-Ann Thompson, Ph.D., is a senior research scientist at Ibis Reproductive Health. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
08-04-2025
- Health
- The Hill
Abortion is back at SCOTUS — and this time the case could destroy Medicaid
Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could strip millions of Medicaid recipients of their right to choose their health care provider, marking a new battle over reproductive rights in the U.S. In Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the court will decide whether Medicaid recipients can challenge a state's decision to block them from accessing care at Planned Parenthood Health Centers. At issue is the freedom of choice provision, a federal law establishing that Medicaid patients can obtain care from any qualified provider. This case could set a precedent allowing states to dictate health care options based on political ideology rather than medical needs. A ruling against Planned Parenthood would be a historic shift, permitting states to exclude providers simply because they offer abortion services — even though Medicaid funds are already prohibited from covering abortion in most cases. The freedom of choice provision is a longstanding and widely accepted law, so much that the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals repeatedly rejected South Carolina's attempts to terminate Planned Parenthood as a provider under Medicaid. So why is the Supreme Court taking the case? Because anti-abortion activists are relentless in their attempts to defund Planned Parenthood. Ending Planned Parenthood's participation in Medicaid is part of a decades-long plan to financially hurt the organization and a Project 2025 strategy that has gained traction since Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and under the Trump administration. It's no coincidence that the Alliance for Defending Freedom (the group behind the efforts to revoke the Food and Drug Administration's approval for the abortion medication mifepristone) is representing the state of South Carolina. Based on last week's arguments, it was clear that the justices were skeptical about the case, and both liberal and conservative justices had major questions about the validity of South Carolina's argument. Beyond politics, this case has major public health implications. First, attacks on Planned Parenthood threaten abortion and reproductive health access nationwide. If successful, the case could shutter clinics, cutting off access to critical abortion care for people across the U.S. — even in states where abortion remains legal after the Dobbs decision. Millions could lose access to contraception, testing for sexually transmitted infections, HIV treatment, gender-affirming care, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and more. Research shows that limiting reproductive health services has horrific ripple effects, reducing access to the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive health care. Second, this case threatens the very structure of Medicaid, one of our most effective bipartisan anti-poverty measures. For over six decades, Medicaid has played a crucial role in helping people afford reproductive health services. Medicaid covers 1 in 5 people in the U.S. (just over 83 million people), the majority of whom are people of color because of systemic racism. Medicaid is also the largest public funder of family planning services, covering 41 percent of births in the U.S. Expanding Medicaid services has improved access to prenatal and postpartum care, contraception, HIV screenings and abortion care. If the court allows states to block providers for ideological reasons, Medicaid patients could lose access to high-quality, affordable care that meets their needs. The status of reproductive rights in the U.S. is changing quickly. Last week's oral arguments are coming just days after the Trump administration attempted to freeze millions of dollars in federal family planning grants, and weeks after the administration dismissed the case the Biden administration brought against Idaho, claiming that the state's abortion ban violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. It is clear that the Medina case will have far-reaching impacts on the health and well-being of people who use the Medicaid program, and is part of a coordinated affront to reproductive health care in the U.S. It is crucial that everyone who cares about health care access and the freedom to choose your health care provider to understand the Medina case. All eyes must be on the Supreme Court as it decides on a core pillar of our nation's reproductive health safety net. Dana M. Johnson, Ph.D., is a health disparities research postdoctoral fellow at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Terri-Ann Thompson, Ph.D., is a senior research scientist at Ibis Reproductive Health.
The Guardian
02-04-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
US supreme court weighs restricting Medicaid payments to ‘defund' Planned Parenthood
In its first abortion-related case since Donald Trump retook control of the White House, the US supreme court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday morning in a case challenging South Carolina's attempt to effectively 'defund' Planned Parenthood because the reproductive health giant performs abortions. The case, Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, deals with a 2018 executive order from the South Carolina governor Henry McMaster that blocked clinics that provide abortions from receiving reimbursements via Medicaid, the US government's healthcare program for low-income people, despite the fact that those reimbursements don't actually cover abortions. 'Payment of taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any purpose, results in the subsidy of abortion and the denial of the right to life,' McMaster said at the time. However, federal law bans Medicaid from covering the vast majority of abortions, which only comprised about 4% of Planned Parenthood's activities in fiscal year 2022. Instead, people use Medicaid to cover Planned Parenthood's other services. In the same year, the organization performed nearly half a million Pap tests and breast exams as well as 4.6m STI tests and treatments. It also provided birth control services to more than 2.2 million people. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a Planned Parenthood affiliate that operates two clinics in South Carolina, teamed up with a patient who sought birth control, Julie Edwards, to sue over McMaster's order. Lower courts have since kept the order from going into effect. If South Carolina wins, it could pave the way for other states to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs as well as devastate South Carolinians' ability to access reproductive healthcare and family planning services. Of the 2.4 million people treated at Planned Parenthood nationwide each year, nearly half are on Medicaid. About four in 10 women who have sought care at family-planning clinics say those clinics are their only recent source of healthcare. At the heart of the case is a federal provision that guarantees that people insured by Medicaid can freely choose their own providers as long as they accept the program and are qualified to provide care. The case hinges on a technical argument: South Carolina – which is being represented by the powerhouse Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom – says Medicaid beneficiaries have no right to sue if they believe that guarantee has been violated, in part because Congress never intended for beneficiaries to have that right. But that argument, legal experts warn, conceals the broader consequences of the case. If organizations like Planned Parenthood can't sue when they believe that a state is violating Medicaid, then it will become far more difficult to keep states from discriminating against certain kinds of care, said Nicole Huberfeld, a health law professor at Boston University's School of Public Health. 'Even though the state is trying to claim that it has sole authority to decide who's a qualified provider, this isn't really about whether Planned Parenthood is a qualified provider. It's about a political calculation on abortion,' Huberfeld said. 'Really, what's happening here is states making politically driven decisions about access to medical care.' More than 1 million people in South Carolina use Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (Chip) – which is closely linked to Medicaid – for their insurance. Almost 40% of South Carolina counties are believed to be 'contraceptive deserts', where there are not enough providers to meet the needs of the people who live there. South Carolina bans abortion past six weeks of pregnancy. Because Texas terminated Planned Parenthood from its state Medicaid program in 2021, it offers a window into what happens when people lose access to Planned Parenthood. The termination affected the healthcare of some 8,000 Texans. 'Planned Parenthood, we heard again and again, was a medical home for people with very few options for providers,' said Anna Chatillon, a research scientist at Resound Research for Reproductive Health, who led a study that interviewed Texans about how the termination affected their lives. 'In several different interviews, we heard people talking about showing up for an appointment, finding out that they couldn't use Medicaid any longer, not having any idea where else to go, and experiencing real disruptions to their care based on that very quickly, but also serious emotional ramifications.' The case is part of a broader, longstanding anti-abortion campaign against Planned Parenthood, which includes an ongoing lawsuit that could bankrupt the organization over allegations that it defrauded Medicaid. On Tuesday, Planned Parenthood announced that the Trump administration – which is set to help South Carolina make its case in oral arguments – had notified nine of its affiliates that they would lose funding from Title X, the nation's oldest and largest family-planning program. Politico reported the funds were being withheld as punishment for the organization's diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court mulls South Carolina's effort to defund Planned Parenthood
By Andrew Chung, John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider South Carolina's bid to strip Planned Parenthood of funding under the Medicaid program in a case that could bolster efforts by Republican-led states to deprive the reproductive healthcare and abortion provider of public money. The justices are due to hear arguments in South Carolina's appeal of a lower court's decision barring the Republican-governed state from terminating Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the organization's regional affiliate, because the organization provides abortions. The case centers on whether recipients of Medicaid, a joint federal and state health insurance program for low-income people, may sue to enforce a requirement under U.S. law that they may obtain medical assistance from any qualified and willing provider. Since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, 12 states have implemented near-total bans while four states, including South Carolina, outlaw abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic operates clinics in the South Carolina cities of Charleston and Columbia, where it serves hundreds of Medicaid patients each year, providing physical examinations, screenings for cancer and diabetes, pregnancy testing, contraception and other services. The Planned Parenthood affiliate and Medicaid patient Julie Edwards sued in 2018 after Republican Governor Henry McMaster ordered state officials to end the organization's participation in the state Medicaid program by deeming any abortion provider unqualified to provide family planning services. The suit was brought under an 1871 U.S. law that helps people challenge illegal acts by state officials. It is the third time that the South Carolina Planned Parenthood defunding dispute has reached the Supreme Court, which in 2020 rejected the state's appeal at an earlier stage of the case. In 2023, the justices ordered a lower court to reconsider the state's arguments in light of a new ruling they had just issued that explained that people may sue to enforce a federal statute if such a right in the law is unambiguous. "The statute here readily meets that test," the plaintiffs told the Supreme Court in a filing. "It protects a deeply personal right that is fundamental to individual dignity and autonomy - the right to choose one's doctor." The South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom conservative legal group and backed by President Donald Trump's administration, said the disputed Medicaid provision in this case does not meet the "high bar for recognizing private rights." Planned Parenthood said on Monday that the Trump administration is withholding federal family planning funding to the organization under a program known as Title X, affecting birth control, cancer screenings and other services for low-income people. In the South Carolina case, a federal judge ruled in Planned Parenthood's favor, finding that Medicaid recipients may sue under the 1871 law and that the state's move to defund the organization violated the right of Edwards to freely choose a qualified medical provider. In 2024, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs. "Preserving access to Planned Parenthood and other providers means preserving an affordable choice and quality care for an untold number of mothers and infants in South Carolina," the 4th Circuit said in its ruling. A Supreme Court ruling is expected by the end of June.
