Latest news with #non-Medicaid
Fox News
25-07-2025
- Business
- Fox News
High-speed rail isn't California's only expensive boondoggle
Print Close By Michael Feuz Published July 25, 2025 California Gov. Gavin Newsom is suing the Trump administration for pulling back $4 billion in federal funding for high-speed rail. But President Donald Trump hasn't actually derailed any trains. And all the lawsuit has really done is expose the trainwreck that is California's fiscal situation. For months, Newsom has bragged about California having the world's fourth-largest economy and sending back more money to Washington than it takes in. He's right, but he's also conveniently ignoring that California also boasts the nation's highest real poverty rate and a projected budget deficit as high as $20 billion. That just scratches the surface of the fiscal mess Californians deal with every day – not just in Sacramento, but at every level of government. Let's start with the high-speed rail project. Voters approved it in 2008 to run from San Francisco to Los Angeles at an approximate cost of $40 billion with a completion date of 2033. As of June of this year, the projected cost was as high as $128 billion with no track laid. CALIFORNIA'S GREEN NEW SCAM COULD COST YOU $20,000 Los Angeles residents know this kind of bureaucratic ineptitude all too well. Complex and sometimes conflicting county and state environmental regulations played an important role in the closure of the county's second-largest landfill, Chiquita Canyon, at the end of 2024. Residents now have to fund the added expense of hauling trash to a landfill farther away while local politicians obsess over "price-gouging" by those who haul and handle residents' garbage. Taxpayers are burdened enough with the political junk Sacramento sends their way; local officials would be a lot more useful if they reduced, instead of added, to the heap. Los Angeles, meanwhile, can't seem to provide essential services at any price, gouged or otherwise. Check out all of the fire hydrants that didn't work during the recent fires and the empty city-run reservoir nearby. Anyone who oversaw those failures and still has a job is gouging taxpayers with every paycheck. Paying for incompetence is bad enough, but what about corruption? That's what taxpayers across the state have funded for years as officials in state, county and city governments have colluded in a Medicaid reimbursement scheme by allowing government-owned providers to charge as much as 13 times more for certain services than the private sector is allowed to charge. CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION Not only has this practice squeezed private providers, thereby limiting care options for non-Medicaid patients, but it has allowed California to paper over its unfunded pension obligations for government employees by pocketing the difference. And those obligations will come due faster than policymakers prefer as the nation's highest cost-of-living and top marginal tax rates continue to drive taxpayers and businesses out of the state. "Businesses that want to grow and parents who want to provide for their families have been moving out of California for a decade, especially to states like Texas and Florida that have no or minimal income taxes," said Vance Ginn, Ph.D., chief economist for the Office of Management and Budget during the first Trump administration. "And that trend isn't likely to reverse itself because lawmakers and regulators up and down the state keep spending more and regulating and taxing themselves out of residents." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Cleaning up California's fiscal mess will take a lot more than creative accounting tricks, piecemealing federal funding grants and soaking the taxpayers – like the one-time windfall of capital gains taxes that created the temporary surplus in 2022. It requires reining in out-of-control spending while also reducing the regulatory burden on residents and businesses. That's why Newsom's lawsuit over the train funds isn't about infrastructure. It's about image. His flip on gender identity issues and sudden support for reducing California's atrocious housing regulations were sops to "the middle," but he also wants to make the Left happy by showing he can stand up to Trump. At federal taxpayer expense, of course, all the while claiming that he's keeping California "innovative" while basic governance collapses underneath. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM MICHAEL FEUZ Print Close URL
Fox News
25-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
High-speed rail isn't California's only expensive boondoggle
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is suing the Trump administration for pulling back $4 billion in federal funding for high-speed rail. But President Donald Trump hasn't actually derailed any trains. And all the lawsuit has really done is expose the trainwreck that is California's fiscal situation. For months, Newsom has bragged about California having the world's fourth-largest economy and sending back more money to Washington than it takes in. He's right, but he's also conveniently ignoring that California also boasts the nation's highest real poverty rate and a projected budget deficit as high as $20 billion. That just scratches the surface of the fiscal mess Californians deal with every day – not just in Sacramento, but at every level of government. Let's start with the high-speed rail project. Voters approved it in 2008 to run from San Francisco to Los Angeles at an approximate cost of $40 billion with a completion date of 2033. As of June of this year, the projected cost was as high as $128 billion with no track laid. Los Angeles residents know this kind of bureaucratic ineptitude all too well. Complex and sometimes conflicting county and state environmental regulations played an important role in the closure of the county's second-largest landfill, Chiquita Canyon, at the end of 2024. Residents now have to fund the added expense of hauling trash to a landfill farther away while local politicians obsess over "price-gouging" by those who haul and handle residents' garbage. Taxpayers are burdened enough with the political junk Sacramento sends their way; local officials would be a lot more useful if they reduced, instead of added, to the heap. Los Angeles, meanwhile, can't seem to provide essential services at any price, gouged or otherwise. Check out all of the fire hydrants that didn't work during the recent fires and the empty city-run reservoir nearby. Anyone who oversaw those failures and still has a job is gouging taxpayers with every paycheck. Paying for incompetence is bad enough, but what about corruption? That's what taxpayers across the state have funded for years as officials in state, county and city governments have colluded in a Medicaid reimbursement scheme by allowing government-owned providers to charge as much as 13 times more for certain services than the private sector is allowed to charge. Not only has this practice squeezed private providers, thereby limiting care options for non-Medicaid patients, but it has allowed California to paper over its unfunded pension obligations for government employees by pocketing the difference. And those obligations will come due faster than policymakers prefer as the nation's highest cost-of-living and top marginal tax rates continue to drive taxpayers and businesses out of the state. "Businesses that want to grow and parents who want to provide for their families have been moving out of California for a decade, especially to states like Texas and Florida that have no or minimal income taxes," said Vance Ginn, Ph.D., chief economist for the Office of Management and Budget during the first Trump administration. "And that trend isn't likely to reverse itself because lawmakers and regulators up and down the state keep spending more and regulating and taxing themselves out of residents." Cleaning up California's fiscal mess will take a lot more than creative accounting tricks, piecemealing federal funding grants and soaking the taxpayers – like the one-time windfall of capital gains taxes that created the temporary surplus in 2022. It requires reining in out-of-control spending while also reducing the regulatory burden on residents and businesses. That's why Newsom's lawsuit over the train funds isn't about infrastructure. It's about image. His flip on gender identity issues and sudden support for reducing California's atrocious housing regulations were sops to "the middle," but he also wants to make the Left happy by showing he can stand up to Trump. At federal taxpayer expense, of course, all the while claiming that he's keeping California "innovative" while basic governance collapses underneath.
The Intercept
26-06-2025
- Health
- The Intercept
South Carolina Can Deny Medicaid Patients Planned Parenthood Care, SCOTUS Rules
The Supreme Court moved to limit access to health care for over 1.3 million South Carolinians on Thursday by allowing the state to block Medicaid recipients from getting care at Planned Parenthood. The tight restriction on reproductive rights will likely pave the way for similar bans in other states, as ongoing attacks on abortion providers further impinge on access to maternal, gynecological, and other basic forms of health care. In a 6-3 decision, the court determined that Planned Parenthood clinics and patients in South Carolina may not sue the state for denying Medicaid funding to the reproductive care provider. The ruling overturns repeated lower court decisions that affirmed Medicaid recipients' rights to visit a provider of their choosing that accepts the program. It comes against the backdrop of looming federal cuts to Medicaid, which would further restrict health care access for millions of low-income Americans. In South Carolina, abortion is already subjected to a near-total ban. State law prohibits abortion after six weeks with limited exceptions — which is often before someone would be aware that they're pregnant. Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster has been direct about wanting to target Planned Parenthood because the network of clinics is known as an abortion provider. 'South Carolina has made it clear that we value the right to life,' McMaster said in a February statement. 'Therefore, taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion providers who are in direct opposition to their beliefs.' The idea that Medicaid is subsidizing abortion care in South Carolina is incredibly misleading, said Susanna Birdsong, general counsel and vice president of compliance at Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. 'Medicaid does not cover abortion except in very narrow circumstances of rape, incest in life of the pregnant person,' Birdsong said. 'That's been a federal rule since the 1970s.' Planned Parenthood provides care for a host of other sexual and reproductive wellness concerns — meaning that low-income South Carolinians will lose access to 'health care that has nothing to do with abortion,' Birdsong said. She pointed to things like testing for sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening, and birth control. In its ruling, the Court made clear that it was aware of the other services Planned Parenthood provides. 'Planned Parenthood South Atlantic operates two clinics in South Carolina, offering a wide range of services to Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients,' reads a summary of the decision. 'It also performs abortions.' The Court noted that Planned Parenthood and a patient sued under the any-qualified-provider provision, which allows Medicaid patients to seek care from a provider of their choosing, but the majority determined they did not necessarily have an 'enforceable' right to do so. Experts expect that this decision will open the floodgates for other states to pass similar bans, limiting access to the largest provider of reproductive and sexual health care in the United States for millions of lower-income Americans. 'Other states certainly have tried it before,' said Dr. Jamila Perritt, an OB-GYN and president of the nonprofit Physicians for Reproductive Health. 'Much in the same way that abortion bans really swept this country, I think we're going to see similar effects.' The decision to limit where Medicaid patients can access care disproportionately affects women of color, said Perritt. As of 2023, the majority of people enrolled in Medicaid in South Carolina were nonwhite, and roughly 39 percent of Medicaid enrollees were Black, according to health policy research nonprofit KFF. Even before the decision, access to health care — particularly reproductive and sexual health care — in South Carolina was a challenge for lower-income residents. Roughly 41 of the state's 46 counties are considered federally designated 'Health Professional Shortage Areas,' and Medicaid recipients are disproportionately likely to live in communities with provider shortages. 'We're talking about communities that are already marginalized from care, communities that already have disproportionately poor reproductive and sexual health outcomes,' said Perritt, who predicted the decision would have 'significant negative health consequences.' Aside from having one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, South Carolina is one of only 10 states not to expand Medicaid coverage since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010. South Carolina also has the eighth-highest maternal mortality rate in the country, hovering around 47.2 pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 live births, and some of the highest rates of sexually transmitted infections in the nation. 'It's really a state that should be investing more in its public health infrastructure and making sure that people who live in the state have access to the care that they need,' said Birdsong. Jennifer Driver, senior director of reproductive rights for State Innovation Exchange, said, like the state's abortion ban, lower-income people in South Carolina will bear the brunt of the burden of this decision. 'It targets people who are already limited on resources to say, 'You know what? On top of that, you actually don't get to have a decision on the care that you get and the provider you get it from,' she said. Read Our Complete Coverage At the same time, the Trump administration and Congress are seeking to further restrict health coverage for low-income Americans. A Congressional Budget Office report found that the House of Representatives' version of the 'Big, Beautiful, Bill' would leave 16 million Americans without health insurance and kick 7.8 million people off of Medicaid. Senate Republicans are considering their own set of Medicaid cuts, though they've been snarled by political opposition. 'This is a clear and obvious attack on people with low income, people who rely on Planned Parenthood clinics to get life-saving health services,' said Perritt. She described the decision as part of the government's broader efforts 'to eliminate access to comprehensive health care for folks, really across the country. This has to also be understood as an attack that reaches far beyond the borders of South Carolina.'
Newsweek
13-05-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Medicaid Change Could Save Taxpayers $30 Billion
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A proposed regulatory change from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) aims to shut down a decades-old "tax loophole" in Medicaid financing, a move the agency says could save federal taxpayers over $30 billion across five years. CMS said in a press release issued on Monday that it plans to prohibit states from levying targeted taxes on managed care organizations' (MCOs) "Medicaid business" designed to draw higher federal reimbursements. Why It Matters According to CMS, this type of tax, which can be structured in such a way that it specifically targets MCOs' Medicaid operations, basically inflates a state's Medicaid spending and allows it to collect more matching funds from the federal government. The maneuver has been described by officials as a legal workaround used by states to secure inflated Medicaid funds while freeing up their own budgets for unrelated spending, such "new benefits for illegal immigrants." File photo: a "hands off Medicaid" sign in the House of Representatives. File photo: a "hands off Medicaid" sign in the House of To Know CMS said that these "loophole taxes are solely designed to game the higher federal match" by taxing a type of entity, drawing down a high federal match. It then added that federal dollars are being redistributed back to the entities that were taxed, deeming the tax practice "what most Americans call money laundering." CMS cited the example that in California, Medicaid business in "certain cases" is taxed at $274 per member/per month, while non-Medicaid business is taxed at $2 per member / per month. The proposed rule would bar higher tax rates on Medicaid business, tighten language standards on Medicaid-specific taxes to prevent regulatory evasion, and implement a transition plan for states with older waivers. CMS projects the proposed rule would save federal taxpayers billions of dollars, and that if the expansion of these financing tactics were left unchecked, and just two more states adopted the schemes each year, it could drive excess Medicaid costs above $74 billion in the next five years. The organization also pointed to waivers approved in the final year of the Joe Biden administration for California, Michigan, Massachusetts and New York, saying that those four states alone account for more than 95 percent of the projected losses stemming from the loophole. What People Are Saying CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said in the CMS press release issued on Monday: "States are gaming the system—creating complex tax schemes that shift their responsibility to invest in Medicaid and rob federal taxpayers. This proposed rule stops the shell game and ensures federal Medicaid dollars go where they're needed most—to pay for health care for vulnerable Americans who rely on this program, not to plug state budget holes or bankroll benefits for noncitizens." Drew Snyder, CMS deputy administrator and Medicaid director, said: "This isn't just wasteful—it's wrong. Medicaid was designed to protect low-income seniors, pregnant women, children, and people with disabilities—not subsidize coverage schemes that displace our most vulnerable. We are restoring Medicaid to its original purpose and ensuring the intent of the law is followed." What Happens Next The proposed rule is open for public comment through July 14, 2025, and can be accessed through the Federal Register.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Campbell accuses CVS of unfair prescription drug pricing, Medicaid fraud
BOSTON (WPRI) — Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell is suing Woonsocket-based CVS Health for allegedly charging the state's Medicaid program more for prescription drugs than cash-paying customers. Campbell accused the drugstore giant of neglecting to offer lower and discounted rates to MassHealth — which offers benefits to qualifying adults, children, families and seniors, as well as those with disabilities. She claimed CVS Health worked with ScriptSave to provide non-Medicaid customers with lower drug prices through a discount card program, which any cash-paying customer could sign up for. CVS Health avoided submitting the lower drug prices as its 'Usual & Customary' prices (U&C) under the guise that those discounts were being offered by a third party, according to the lawsuit. 'CVS Health worked strategically with ScriptSave to set pricing, and thus CVS Health (and not ScriptSave) was the party offering these discounts to the general public,' the lawsuit stated. Campbell explained that MassHealth has had a 'Most Favored Nation' drug pricing clause on the books since 1995, which entitles the statewide Medicaid program to the lowest U&C drug prices pharmacies charge or accept from other payers. SEE ALSO: Healey looks to tax pharmacies for prescription drug sales She also claimed CVS Health's methodology for submitting U&C drug pricing to MassHealth has not included the pharmacy's best prices, particularly for generic medications. The lawsuit further noted that, from January 1, 2016, to the present day, CVS Health has failed to comply with regulations requiring that it submit U&C prices on prescription drug claims to MassHealth, 'the goal of which is to ensure that Medicaid does not pay higher prices than non-Medicaid payers.' Campbell claimed she uncovered numerous transactions throughout that time period in which cash-paying customers received lower drug prices than the ones being offered to MassHealth. 'When pharmacies offer discounted drug pricing to its customers, they must also charge MassHealth that same low price,' Campbell said. 'At a time when costs are sky-high, our taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for pharmacies' inaccurate price reporting.' RELATED: CVS hit with lawsuit, accused of unlawfully filling opioid prescriptions Campbell is suing CVS Health jointly with the attorneys general of Connecticut, Indiana, and Oklahoma. In a statement to 12 News, CVS Health spokesperson Amy Thibault noted that the four states involved in the lawsuit 'have never issued guidance to pharmacies contending that third-party discount card prices constitute a pharmacy's usual and customary prices.' 'We strongly dispute the allegations that our prices to Medicaid programs were inaccurate or inflated,' Thibault wrote. 'We've always been transparent with Medicaid programs concerning the prices we were submitting.' Download the WPRI 12 and Pinpoint Weather 12 apps to get breaking news and weather alerts. Watch 12 News Now on or with the new 12+ smart TV app. Follow us on social media: Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Daily Roundup Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to
