The most likely Medicaid cuts would hit rural areas the hardest
Working-age adults who live in small towns and rural areas are more likely to be covered by Medicaid than their counterparts in cities, creating a dilemma for Republicans looking to make deep cuts to the health care program.
About 72 million people — nearly 1 in 5 people in the United States — are enrolled in Medicaid, which provides health care coverage to low-income and disabled people and is jointly funded by the federal government and the states. Black, Hispanic and Native people are disproportionately represented on the rolls, and more than half of Medicaid recipients are people of color.
Nationwide, 18.3% of adults who are between the ages of 19 and 64 and live in small towns and rural areas are enrolled, compared with 16.3% in metro areas, according to a recent analysis by the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University.
In 15 states, at least a fifth of working-age adults in small towns and rural areas are covered by Medicaid, and in two of those states — Arizona and New York — more than a third are. Eight of the 15 states voted for President Donald Trump.
Health insurance for millions could vanish as states put Medicaid expansion on chopping block
Twenty-six Republicans in the U.S. House represent districts where Medicaid covers more than 30% of the population, according to a recent analysis by The New York Times. Many of those districts have significant rural populations, including House Speaker Mike Johnson's 4th Congressional District in Louisiana.
Republican U.S. Rep. David Valadao of California, whose Central Valley district is more than two-thirds Hispanic and where 68% of the residents are enrolled in Medicaid, has spoken out against potential cuts.
'I've heard from countless constituents who tell me the only way they can afford health care is through programs like Medicaid, and I will not support a final reconciliation bill that risks leaving them behind,' Valadao said to House members in a recent floor speech.
U.S. House Republicans are trying to reduce the federal budget by $2 trillion as they seek $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. GOP leaders have directed the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid and Medicare, to find $880 billion in savings.
Trump has ruled out cuts to Medicare, which covers older adults. That leaves Medicaid as the only other program big enough to provide the needed savings — and the Medicaid recipients most likely to be in the crosshairs are working-age adults. But targeting that population would have a disproportionate impact on small towns and rural areas, which are reliably Republican.
Furthermore, hospitals and other health care providers in rural communities are heavily reliant on Medicaid. Many rural hospitals are struggling, and nearly 200 have closed or significantly scaled back their services in the past two decades.
Before the Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010, there were far fewer working-age adults on the Medicaid rolls: The program mostly covered children and their caregivers, people with disabilities and pregnant women. But under the ACA, states are allowed to expand Medicaid to cover adults making up to 138% of the federal poverty level — about $21,000 a year for a single person. As an inducement to expand, the federal government covers 90% of the costs — a greater share than what the feds pay for the traditional Medicaid population.
States will not be able to cover those shortfalls.
– Jennifer Driver, senior director of reproductive rights at the State Innovation Exchange
Last year, there were about 21.3 million people who received coverage through Medicaid expansion.
One GOP cost-saving idea is to reduce the federal match for that population to what the feds give states for the traditional Medicaid population, which ranges from 50% for the wealthiest states to 77% for the poorest ones. That would reduce federal spending by $626 billion over a 10-year period, according to a recent analysis by KFF, a health research group.
Nine states — Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia — have so-called trigger laws that would automatically end Medicaid expansion if the feds reduce their share. Three other states — Idaho, Iowa and New Mexico — would require other cost-saving steps.
'States will not be able to cover those shortfalls,' said Jennifer Driver, senior director of reproductive rights at the State Innovation Exchange, a left-leaning nonprofit that advocates on state legislative issues. 'It's not cutting costs. It is putting people in real danger.'
Reducing federal dollars for Medicaid expansion could cut millions from the rolls
Studies have shown that Medicaid expansion has improved health care for a range of issues, including family planning, HIV care and prevention, and postpartum health care.
Another idea is to require able-bodied Medicaid recipients to work. That would affect an average of 15 million enrollees each year, and 1.5 million would lose eligibility for federal funding, resulting in federal savings of about $109 billion over 10 years.
In heavily rural North Carolina, which has a trigger law, there are about 3 million people on Medicaid, and 640,000 of them are eligible under the state's expansion program. About 231,000 of the expansion enrollees live in rural counties. Black residents make up about 36% of new enrollees under the state's eligibility expansion, but only about 22% of the state's population.
Brandy Harrell, chief of staff at the Foundation for Health Leadership & Innovation, an advocacy group based in Cary, North Carolina, that focuses on rural issues, said the proposed Medicaid cuts would 'deepen the existing disparities' between white people and Black people and urban and rural residents.
'It would have a profound effect on working families by reducing access to essential health care, increasing financial strain and jeopardizing children's health,' Harrell said. 'Cuts could lead to more medical debt, and also poorer health outcomes for our state.'
Two of the North Carolina lawmakers with about 30% of their constituents on Medicaid, U.S. Reps. Virginia Foxx and Greg Murphy, represent heavily rural districts in western and coastal North Carolina, respectively.
For Indian Country, federal cuts decimate core tribal programs
Foxx has supported GOP budget priorities in social media posts. Murphy, a physician and co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus in the House, has focused his statements on taking care of what he says is abuse and fraud in the Medicaid system.
But North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein last week sent a letter to U.S. House and Senate leaders of both parties, saying the state's rural communities disproportionately rely on Medicaid and that cuts would upend an already fragile landscape for rural hospitals in the state.
'The damage to North Carolina's health care system, particularly rural hospitals and providers, would be devastating, not to mention to people who can no longer afford to access health care,' Stein wrote.
In Nebraska, 27% of residents live in rural areas, and state lawmakers are already scrambling to make up for reduced federal Medicaid funding.
Dr. Alex Dworak, a family medicine physician who works at an Omaha health clinic that serves low-income and uninsured people, said a dearth of health care options in rural Nebraska already hurts residents. He has one patient who drives up to three hours from his rural community to the clinic.
'It wouldn't be just bad for marginalized communities, but it would be worse for marginalized communities — because things were already worse for them,' Dworak said of proposed Medicaid cuts. 'It will be an utter disaster.'
Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein and Stateline's Barbara Barrett contributed to this report. Scott S. Greenberger can be reached at sgreenberger@stateline.org.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
19 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
American kids have become increasingly unhealthy over nearly two decades, new study finds
The health of U.S. children has deteriorated over the past 17 years, with kids today more likely to have obesity, chronic diseases and mental health problems like depression, a new study says. Much of what researchers found was already known, but the study paints a comprehensive picture by examining various aspects of children's physical and mental health at the same time. 'The surprising part of the study wasn't any with any single statistic; it was that there's 170 indicators, eight data sources, all showing the same thing: a generalized decline in kids' health,' said Dr. Christopher Forrest, one of the authors of the study published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has brought children's health to the forefront of the national policy conversation, unveiling in May a much-anticipated 'Make America Healthy Again' report that described kids as undernourished and overmedicated, and raised concerns about their lack of physical activity. But the Trump administration's actions — including cuts to federal health agencies, Medicaid and scientific research — are not likely to reverse the trend, according to outside experts who reviewed Monday's study. 'The health of kids in America is not as good as it should be, not as good as the other countries, and the current policies of this administration are definitely going to make it worse,' said Dr. Frederick Rivara, a pediatrician and researcher at the Seattle Children's Hospital and UW Medicine in Seattle. He co-authored an editorial accompanying the new study. Forrest and his colleagues analyzed surveys, electronic health records from 10 pediatric health systems and international mortality statistics. Among their findings: 1. Obesity rates for U.S. children 2-19 years old rose from 17% in 2007-2008 to about 21% in 2021-2023. 2. A U.S. child in 2023 was 15% to 20% more likely than a U.S. child in 2011 to have a chronic condition such as anxiety, depression or sleep apnea, according to data reported by parents and doctors. 3. Annual prevalence rates for 97 chronic conditions recorded by doctors rose from about 40% in 2011 to about 46% in 2023. 4. Early onset of menstruation, trouble sleeping, limitations in activity, physical symptoms, depressive symptoms and loneliness also increased among American kids during the study period. 5. American children were around 1.8 times more likely to die than kids in other high-income countries from 2007-2022. Being born premature and sudden unexpected death were much higher among U.S. infants, and firearm-related incidents and motor vehicle crashes were much more common among 1-19-year-old American kids than among those the same age in other countries examined. The research points to bigger problems with America's health, said Forrest, who is a pediatrician at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. 'Kids are the canaries in the coal mine,' he said. ' When kids' health changes, it's because they're at increased vulnerability, and it reflects what's happening in society at large.' The timing of the study, he said, is 'completely fortuitous." Well before the 2024 presidential election, Forrest was working on a book about thriving over the life span and couldn't find this sort of comprehensive data on children's health. The datasets analyzed have some limitations and may not be applicable to the full U.S. population, noted Dr. James Perrin, a pediatrician and spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics, who wasn't involved in the study. 'The basic finding is true,' he said. The editorial published alongside the study said while the administration's MAHA movement is bringing welcome attention to chronic diseases, "it is pursuing other policies that will work against the interests of children.' Those include eliminating injury prevention and maternal health programs, canceling investments in a campaign addressing sudden infant death and 'fueling vaccine hesitancy among parents that may lead to a resurgence of deadly vaccine-preventable diseases," authors wrote. Forrest said risks highlighted by the MAHA report, such as eating too much ultra-processed food, are real but miss the complex reality driving trends in children's health. 'We have to step back and take some lessons from the ecological sustainability community and say: Let's look at the ecosystem that kids are growing up in. And let's start on a kind of neighborhood-by-neighborhood, city-by-city basis, examining it,' he said.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
American kids have become increasingly unhealthy over nearly two decades, new study finds
The health of U.S. children has deteriorated over the past 17 years, with kids today more likely to have obesity, chronic diseases and mental health problems like depression, a new study says. Much of what researchers found was already known, but the study paints a comprehensive picture by examining various aspects of children's physical and mental health at the same time. 'The surprising part of the study wasn't any with any single statistic; it was that there's 170 indicators, eight data sources, all showing the same thing: a generalized decline in kids' health,' said Dr. Christopher Forrest, one of the authors of the study published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has brought children's health to the forefront of the national policy conversation, unveiling in May a much-anticipated 'Make America Healthy Again' report that described kids as undernourished and overmedicated, and raised concerns about their lack of physical activity. But the Trump administration's actions — including cuts to federal health agencies, Medicaid and scientific research — are not likely to reverse the trend, according to outside experts who reviewed Monday's study. 'The health of kids in America is not as good as it should be, not as good as the other countries, and the current policies of this administration are definitely going to make it worse,' said Dr. Frederick Rivara, a pediatrician and researcher at the Seattle Children's Hospital and UW Medicine in Seattle. He co-authored an editorial accompanying the new study. Forrest and his colleagues analyzed surveys, electronic health records from 10 pediatric health systems and international mortality statistics. Among their findings: The research points to bigger problems with America's health, said Forrest, who is a pediatrician at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. 'Kids are the canaries in the coal mine,' he said. ' When kids' health changes, it's because they're at increased vulnerability, and it reflects what's happening in society at large.' The timing of the study, he said, is 'completely fortuitous." Well before the 2024 presidential election, Forrest was working on a book about thriving over the life span and couldn't find this sort of comprehensive data on children's health. The datasets analyzed have some limitations and may not be applicable to the full U.S. population, noted Dr. James Perrin, a pediatrician and spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics, who wasn't involved in the study. 'The basic finding is true,' he said. The editorial published alongside the study said while the administration's MAHA movement is bringing welcome attention to chronic diseases, "it is pursuing other policies that will work against the interests of children.' Those include eliminating injury prevention and maternal health programs, canceling investments in a campaign addressing sudden infant death and 'fueling vaccine hesitancy among parents that may lead to a resurgence of deadly vaccine-preventable diseases," authors wrote. Officials from the U.S. Health and Human Services Department did not respond to a request for comment. Forrest said risks highlighted by the MAHA report, such as eating too much ultra-processed food, are real but miss the complex reality driving trends in children's health. 'We have to step back and take some lessons from the ecological sustainability community and say: Let's look at the ecosystem that kids are growing up in. And let's start on a kind of neighborhood-by-neighborhood, city-by-city basis, examining it,' he said. ____ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Medicare Advantage Offering Complete Guide for Aetna Medicare Advantage Plans 2026
07/07/2025, South Austin // KISS PR Brand Story PressWire // As the healthcare landscape continues to evolve, choosing the right Medicare Advantage plan becomes more critical than ever. With Aetna being one of the most trusted names in healthcare, its Medicare Advantage offerings for 2026 promise both comprehensive coverage and added value. In this detailed guide, we break down the Best Aetna Medicare Advantage Plans 2026, helping you make an informed decision that aligns with your healthcare needs and budget. Understanding Aetna Medicare Advantage Plans Aetna Medicare Advantage Plans—also known as Medicare Part C—combine Part A (hospital insurance) and Part B (medical insurance) into one comprehensive plan. Many plans also include prescription drug coverage (Part D), dental, vision, and hearing benefits, wellness programs, and more. These plans are offered through private insurers like Aetna and approved by Medicare. Each plan is localized, so availability and benefits may vary based on your zip code. Why Consider Aetna for Your Medicare Advantage Plan? Aetna, a CVS Health company, offers high-quality, customer-centric plans backed by a vast healthcare network and user-friendly digital tools. Aetna consistently ranks highly in CMS Star Ratings, providing transparency and trustworthiness for its members. Key Benefits of Aetna Medicare Advantage Plans: Top 5 Best Aetna Medicare Advantage Plans 2026 1. Aetna Medicare Premier Plan (HMO-POS) The Premier HMO-POS plan is ideal for individuals who want flexibility while enjoying coordinated care through a primary care physician. Recommended for: Those who prefer an HMO structure but want the option to get out-of-network care at a higher cost. 2. Aetna Medicare Value Plan (PPO) A standout choice for those who prioritize freedom in choosing healthcare providers without a referral requirement. Recommended for: Retirees who travel frequently or live in multiple locations throughout the year. 3. Aetna Medicare Freedom Plan (PPO) This plan offers the best of both worlds—strong provider flexibility and robust supplemental benefits. Recommended for: Seniors who have complex health needs and require access to specialists. 4. Aetna Medicare Elite Plan (HMO) A high-value plan for those who want extensive benefits with a focus on preventative care. Recommended for: Seniors looking to proactively manage chronic conditions. 5. Aetna Dual Eligible Special Needs Plan (D-SNP) Designed for individuals who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, this plan offers customized support. Recommended for: Dual-eligible individuals seeking fully integrated coverage. How to Evaluate the Best Aetna Medicare Advantage Plans 2026 When selecting your plan, consider these key factors: 1. Coverage Needs Does the plan include all the essential medical services, prescriptions, and any specialist visits you anticipate? 2. Network Size Are your preferred doctors and hospitals in-network? 3. Star Ratings Check the CMS Star Ratings to evaluate plan quality. 4. Prescription Coverage Ensure your medications are included in the plan's formulary list. 5. Extra Benefits Look for wellness programs, transportation, over-the-counter allowances, and vision/dental coverage. Enrollment Periods and Eligibility You can enroll during the following windows: Visit the official enrollment page to review deadlines and eligibility. How to Enroll in Aetna Medicare Advantage Plans 2026 To enroll, you can: Conclusion: Making the Smart Choice for 2026 The Best Aetna Medicare Advantage Plans 2026 offer something for everyone—whether you're a frequent traveler, have chronic conditions, or want all-inclusive support on a limited budget. By assessing your medical needs and using trusted resources, you can confidently choose a plan that provides peace of mind and excellent care.