logo
The most likely Medicaid cuts would hit rural areas the hardest

The most likely Medicaid cuts would hit rural areas the hardest

Yahoo12-03-2025
Patients have their blood pressure checked and other vitals taken at an intake triage at a Remote Area Medical (RAM) mobile dental and medical clinic in Grundy, Va. Potential cuts to Medicaid would hit working-age adults who live in small towns and rural areas especially hard. ()
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
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Best 4 Healthcare Stocks To Buy Now In A Growing Sector
The Best 4 Healthcare Stocks To Buy Now In A Growing Sector

Forbes

time17 minutes ago

  • Forbes

The Best 4 Healthcare Stocks To Buy Now In A Growing Sector

The relatively high dividends paid by some of these companies may prove worth the uncertain revenue ... More impact of Medicaid cuts. The healthcare sector is one of the largest in the U.S., with spending expected to account for 20% of the American economy as it reaches $5.2 trillion in 2025, according to NerdWallet. But the healthcare sector is likely to suffer considerably in the wake of the passage into law of the so-called Big Beautiful Bill. The industry's pain will result from a roughly $1 trillion reduction in Medicaid spending through 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. These cuts are likely to cause widespread pain. For example, 15.9 million Americans could lose Medicaid coverage, according to the Urban Institute. Hospitals' expenses for Medicaid patients could fall by $37 billion, estimated the Commonwealth Fund; to offset the lower revenue, hospitals, nursing homes, and doctors' offices could eliminate 477,000 jobs, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges. And many rural hospitals may be forced to close, forcing patients to travel further for care, noted the American Hospital Association. Nevertheless, the growth of companies providing high-value solutions to painful problems whose business models are relatively impervious to Medicaid cuts could provide attractive opportunities for investors. 4 Top Healthcare Stocks to Buy Now Healthcare consists of interconnected industries including the following: From this sector, the following stocks stand out. 1. Cardinal Health (CAH) Dublin, Ohio-based Cardinal Health distributes pharmaceuticals and medical products to more than 100,000 locations – controlling roughly 50% share of the market. Cardinal Health's stock rise can be attributed to a 2% boost, to $8.18, in analysts' 2025 consensus earnings per share due to stronger-than-expected growth and profitability in the company's pharmaceutical distribution and medical products segments, according to AInvest. Moreover, the stock could rise should the company report better than expected second quarter 2025 earnings. Due to Cardinal Health's 'cost discipline, supply chain stability, and rising demand for healthcare services post-pandemic,' analysts anticipate the company will report EPS of $2.04 – two cents above the Zacks consensus. Cardinal Health is on my list because investors have recognized the company is improving its operations, and many anticipate the company will exceed investor expectations. If demand remains strong and profitability rises, its shares could rise more. Medicaid cuts pose a significant risk to the healthcare sector, including Cardinal Health. Yet the company's diversified business model could enable it to withstand the worst damage from these cuts, AInvest reports. 2. Cencora (COR) Conshohocken, Pennsylvania-based Cencora – formerly known as AmerisourceBergen – is a drug wholesaler and contract research organization. Cencora's stock rise is likely due to the company's faster than expected growth in the first quarter of 2025. This growth resulted from higher unit volume, a boost in demand for diabetes and weight loss drugs, and a 2% increase, to $15.83, in the company's fiscal year 2025 earnings per share guidance, according to StockTwits. Although the pharmaceuticals distribution industry is intensely competitive, Cencora is expected to deliver solid profit growth and to exceed investor expectations. Specifically, investors anticipate the company's profits will rise 12.8% over the next five years in the wake of delivering 6% better than expected EPS for each of 'the trailing four quarters,' noted Zacks. I included Cencora due to its track record of beating investor expectations. However, Medicaid cuts could reduce drug sales as millions of Americans lose their Medicaid coverage – thus cutting into Cencora's revenues, noted AInvest. However, the company's focus on growing areas like specialty pharmaceuticals and its acquisition of a retinal care company could help offset the likely negative effects of Medicaid policy changes, according to Zacks. 3. Hinge Health (HNGE) San Francisco-based Hinge Health develops healthcare software for musculoskeletal care, acute injury, chronic pain and post-surgical rehabilitation. The company's stock market rise flowed from its torrid revenue growth – up 420% in the quarter ending in March, according to Google Finance. Hinge Health stock rose 23% after the company's May 2025 initial public offering. The stock is propelled by strong investor confidence in the company's digital musculoskeletal care platform and positive financial performance, according to BusinessInsider. Hinge Health is on my list for these same reasons. What's more, since the company primarily targets self-insured employers and is partnering with major health plans to expand into the Medicare Advantage market, this diversification could mitigate the pain of Medicaid cuts, noted AlphaSense. Nevertheless, Hinge Heath's stock price will likely rise only if the company beats expectations and raises guidance when the company next reports quarterly earnings. 4. Gilead Sciences (GILD) Foster City, California-based Gilead Sciences researches and develops antiviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza and COVID-19. Gilead's stock rise resulted from expectations-beating earnings in the first quarter, coupled with an optimistic forecast for 2025 EPS due to strong sales of existing products and new treatments, according to Reuters. In addition, the company's 99.9% effective HIV drug Sunienca received regulatory approval in the U.S. and Europe. Gilead is on my list because of its strong growth and bright prospects. However, since about 25% of the company's revenue is exposed to Medicaid – notably to its HIV drug Biktarvy – the Medicaid cuts could reduce the company's total revenue by 1% to 2%, according to Fierce Pharma. Bottom Line Healthcare is a huge, complex industry. Medicaid cuts could take a sizable bite out of many industry participants' revenue. The four companies described above – Cardinal Health, Cencora, Hinge Health, and Gilead – are likely more impervious to these cuts than owners of hospitals – particularly rural ones. Investors should scrutinize whether the relatively high dividends paid by some of these companies are worth the uncertain revenue impact of the Medicaid cuts.

Some of those who supported Trump have concerns about what's in his megabill
Some of those who supported Trump have concerns about what's in his megabill

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Some of those who supported Trump have concerns about what's in his megabill

Some Trump supporters living in rural areas say they have concerns about the impact of President Donald Trump's tax and policy megabill, which he signed into law on Friday. The bill's potential health care impacts, both personally and on their communities, were top of mind for some, while others anticipated a positive impact on business but were wary of the bill's price tag. ABC News spoke with these people after the Senate passed the bill on July 1 but before the House did two days later. Provisions in the bill enacting stricter eligibility requirements for Medicaid could impact finances for rural hospitals, which tend to rely more on Medicaid funding than urban hospitals and often already operate on tight margins. The American Hospital Association called the potential impact on rural hospitals and patients 'devastating.' In the leadup to the bill's passage, Democratic senators working with researchers from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill compiled a list of 338 rural hospitals that could be at risk of 'financial distress,' 'service reductions' or closure. Some Republican senators, including Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a physician, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, had expressed concerns about the bill impacting health care providers in their states. In response to these worries, Senate Republicans included a measure setting aside $50 billion over five years in the bill to support these rural hospitals, but advocates and experts say it may not be enough to prevent hospital shutdowns and loss of care. The National Rural Health Association said in a statement that the fund would 'fall short of' offsetting the impact of other provisions. James, a 62-year-old man who lives in a semi-rural area in North Carolina, is on Medicaid and gets Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. He said the bill would cut around $300 worth of those benefits for him per month. 'It's going to be hard to pay the rent and everything else,' he said. He added that he didn't have family that could help support him, now that his brother has died and his mother was in a nursing home. MORE: How soon will you feel the effects of Trump's megabill? Identifying as an independent, James said he did not vote in 2024 but had liked Trump as a candidate more than Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. 'I thought Trump was the lesser of two evils,' he said. 'But I was wrong … If you want to make the poor people poorer, he's doing real good.' Insurance agent Bryan Shaver, who lives in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, voted for Trump in 2024. Shaver, 62, said he was not worried about the Medicaid provisions in the bill affecting his clients. 'Because they're elderly and they make very little money,' he was confident they would meet the new criteria. However, Shaver said he was 'absolutely worried' that the Medicaid cuts could affect rural hospitals in Mississippi, some of which he had worked with in the past. 'It was extremely difficult for them to take care of who they needed to take care of … it's very difficult for them to survive in Mississippi,' Shaver said. He said hospitals' financial struggles sometimes reduced access to care for the people living around them. 'A lot of the hospitals here can't afford [to provide care for] maternity,' Shaver said. 'For example, a hospital up in Batesville, Mississippi. [Patients] have to drive to Memphis to deliver a baby, and that's kind of ridiculous.' Shaver said he would wait to see how the provisions in the bill would affect voters. If there was a negative impact, he said he hoped Republican lawmakers would 'correct it' or otherwise 'get booted out.' Stephen Caraway, who also voted for Trump, lives in a rural area around 70 miles east of Cincinnati. He said he anticipated a positive effect for himself and his community from the bill. Caraway was appointed to the state's Elections Commission by Ohio Governor Mike Dewine in 2023 and will serve until 2027. 'There are service jobs, a lot of restaurant positions in my part of Ohio, and I absolutely think that no tax on tips or overtime would be great for the middle class and for those employees,' Caraway said. He said he would personally benefit from some of the tax cuts the bill extended. To Caraway, the tightened eligibility requirements for Medicaid seemed reasonable, and he did not buy into worries that the bill would take millions of people off the benefits and potentially hurt rural hospitals like the one he lives near. Caraway's one concern is the effect the bill would have on U.S. debt. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would add $3.4 trillion to the deficit over a decade. MORE: Why some economists say the deficit increase in Trump's bill is dangerous 'Regardless of what party was in control, I would tell you that the federal government needs an overhaul, and has needed it for a long time. The only thing that would give me pause is some of those CBO projections,' Caraway said. 'But I believe that those projections can just as easily be incorrect as they can be correct. And I'm going to trust my national leaders to do what is right and be fiscally responsible.'

Proposed Law Would Mandate Automatic Enrollment Into Medicare Advantage
Proposed Law Would Mandate Automatic Enrollment Into Medicare Advantage

Forbes

time37 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Proposed Law Would Mandate Automatic Enrollment Into Medicare Advantage

Proposed law could have a massive effect on Medicare. 'H.R. 3467, To amend title XVIII to reform the Medicare Advantage program,' was introduced on May 15, 2025. This bill would automatically enroll millions of people into a Medicare Advantage plan they didn't choose and then lock them there for three years. While H.R. 3467 hasn't gone far (yet), the fine print deserves your attention. Here are the two significant provisions in this proposed legislation. 1. Automatic Enrollment into Medicare Advantage. Beginning January 1, 2028, anyone entitled to benefits under Part A and enrolled in Part B will be enrolled automatically into the Medicare Advantage plan with the lowest premium that is available. If there are multiple lowest-cost premium plans available, the Secretary will determine a method for choosing the plan. After being enrolled automatically, there will be an opportunity to opt-out. This proposal would likely apply to anyone who is newly eligible for Medicare: those before age 65 because of disability, at age 65 during the Initial Enrollment Period, or after age 65 when retiring. Some of these individuals might think automatic enrollment is great. They are overwhelmed by the entire Medicare process and just want someone else to make the decisions. However, the freedom to choose a plan is very important for four reasons. Plans have different networks. Chances are the lowest cost plan could lock one into a network that does not include the enrollee's physicians. It might not provide options for coverage away from home or physician choice. Focusing just on premiums does not take into consideration an individual's unique drug regimen. Plans decide which drugs to cover and pharmacies to include in-network. What if the plan doesn't cover all prescribed medications? What if a pharmacy is out of network? It seems the one thing that lowest premium plans have in common is no premium. Beyond that, cost sharing for services and out-of-pocket maximums can vary considerably. It is possible to pay more for the same coverage or lack of coverage. One of the big selling points for Medicare Advantage is offering benefits not covered by Medicare. But again, every plan is different. Some enrollees focus on dental services, others on gym memberships. The lowest premium plan may not offer what they want. There's little doubt that automatic enrollment in the lowest premium plan could lead to coverage and cost issues. But this bill offers an opt-out opportunity so why worry? There is reason to worry because chances are the individual may not opt out. They forget, don't know how to do it, or it's just too much work. One example: A report on the NIH website notes that only 16% of low-income-subsidy drug plans enrollees opted out of the drug plan chosen for them. That means 84% did nothing, even though they had the opportunity. Another example: In today's Medicare world, those receiving Social Security benefits before age 65 are enrolled automatically in Part A and Part B. They must keep Part A but not Part B if they don't need it. Their Medicare card includes instructions to decline Part B before the effective date. Over the last 10 years, I have heard from too many beneficiaries who discover they're enrolled in Part B when they get their SSA-1099 statement in January. Then, their options to drop Part B are limited and often painful. And, once enrolled, trying to get out of the lowest premium Medicare Advantage plan may present a challenge, too. Read on.2. Mandatory Continuous Enrollment. I have seen a few posts about H.R. 3467. Everyone expresses concern about automatic enrollment but not one mentioned the following point. Anyone who enrolls in a Medicare Advantage plan beginning January 1, 2028, cannot enroll in any other plan or choose to receive traditional fee-for-service Medicare Part A or Part B for a three-year-period. The reason for three years: an investment in keeping enrollees healthier. One exception noted in the bill: This paragraph will not apply 'in the case of an individual who experiences a hardship event (such as a serious illness, as specified by the Secretary).' The what, when, why, etc., of that exception definitely would need more details. Three years in the same plan– let that soak in. No matter what changes the plan makes (networks, cost, benefits, drug coverage), the enrollee could be locked in for 1095 days. Those changes could jeopardize coverage, which would not exactly help with keeping an enrollee healthier. It would also take away the individual's choice and control of their health care and dollars. Granted this is only a proposal with an effective date 30 months down the road. It's possible that it may not even get out of the gate, so why am I fretting about it? Mainly two reasons: It's difficult to reconcile such a push toward Medicare Advantage, which costs Medicare more and is riddled with care denials, in this time of cost-saving and program and budget cutting. But the healthy lead-time until 2028 gives us time to steer this in a way that maintains beneficiary choice and you can do.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store