Analysis: Upwards of 80K Utahns could lose health insurance under ‘big, beautiful' bill'
Though the full ramifications of the 'big, beautiful' tax and spending bill that narrowly passed the U.S. House this week are still murky — especially since the bill is likely to change as it makes its way through the Senate — the bill as currently written could jeopardize health insurance for tens of thousands of Utahns.
Plus, states including Utah would need to grapple with an estimated $625 billion in cumulative Medicaid cuts over 10 years from work requirements, stricter eligibility rules and a pause on provider taxes — changes that would likely lead millions of Americans losing Medicaid coverage.
On Friday, officials from the Utah Department of Health and Human Services told Utah News Dispatch they did not have state-specific estimates available detailing the potential impacts of the still-evolving federal budget reconciliation package on Utah's Medicaid program because it's still a 'moving target.'
U.S. House Republicans push through massive tax and spending bill slashing Medicaid
However, according to the health policy outlet KFF, the bill could result in an estimated $381 million loss in federal Medicaid dollars for Utah. The outlet used Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates to unpack the potential state-by-state impacts of a $625 billion federal cut to Medicaid in an analysis posted last week.
'Cuts of $625 billion will force states to make tough choices: maintain current spending on Medicaid by raising taxes or reducing spending on other programs; or cut Medicaid spending by covering fewer people, offering fewer benefits, or paying providers less,' KFF reported.
The vast majority of the cut would come from three sources: work requirements mandating that adults who are eligible for Medicaid expansion must meet work and reporting requirements (estimated to save $300.8 billion as people become ineligible), repealing the Biden administration's rule simplifying eligibility and renewal process (estimated to save $162.7 billion) and setting a moratorium on new or increased provider taxes (estimated to save $86.8 billion), accordion to KFF.
It depends on what states decide to do to respond to the cuts, but in another analysis posted Tuesday based on CBO estimates, KFF estimated the changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces could increase the number of people without health insurance across the nation by 8.6 million.
Additionally, when combined with the effect of the expected expiration of the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits, the CBO expects 13.7 million more people will be uninsured in 2034, according to KFF.
'Anticipating how states will respond to changes in Medicaid policy is a major source of uncertainty in CBO's cost estimates. Instead of making state-by-state predictions about policy responses, CBO estimates the percentage of the affected population that lives in states with different types of policy responses,' KFF noted, adding that states may choose to implement work requirements that are easier or harder to comply with, which would impact enrollment.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
So KFF's analysis included a range of enrollment impacts varying by plus or minus 25% from a midpoint estimate.
Based on the budget reconciliation bill's changes to Medicaid, Utah is projected to see its uninsured population increase by a mid-range estimate of roughly 65,000 — somewhere between 49,000 on the low end and up to 81,000 on the high end, according to the analysis.
When combined with the expected expiration of the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits, KFF estimated that Utah's uninsured population could increase by even more — roughly 150,000, or a 4% increase. That estimate could vary between 110,000 on the low end or up to 190,000 on the high end, according to KFF.
Other states would see bigger impacts than Utah, where about 350,000 total Utahns enroll in Medicaid. About half of the 13.7 million more people who would be uninsured under both policy changes live in Florida (1.8 million), Texas, (1.6 million), California (1.5 million), New York (800,000), and Georgia (610,000).
Utah health advocates who have been watching the budget reconciliation bill's progress expressed deep disappointment in its passage out of the House.
'I've yet to meet any Utahn who said that when they voted in November, they were looking for which candidate was most focused on kicking as many people off Medicaid,' said Stephanie Burdick, an advocate with the newly-formed Protect Medicaid Utah Coalition.
'Yet here we are,' Burdick said. 'The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that could force almost 80,000 Utahns off their health insurance.'
The proposed federal cuts also come as Utah state officials — anticipating the Republican-controlled White House and Congress' appetite to implement work requirements on Medicaid — are considering a waiver to impose work requirements on Utah's adult Medicaid adult expansion population.
About 75,000 Utahns have enrolled in Utah's Medicaid expansion program, an estimated 7,500 (10%), would not qualify for an exemption and be subject to the work requirements. That means that if they don't start working or submit documents showing they're applying for at least 48 jobs during a three-month period, they could lose their medical coverage.
Between Utah's proposed work requirements and the proposed federal Medicaid cuts, Burdick said state officials and federal politicians in D.C. are 'both deadset on one thing: increasing the number of uninsured Utahns and squeezing more time and more money out of working families.'
'How is this aligned with Utah values?' Burdick said, urging Congress to 'go back to the drawing board and find ways to increase access and affordability to health care for all Americans and this is the opposite.'
Advocates sound alarm as Utah looks to impose work requirements on Medicaid expansion
Nate Crippes with the Disability Law Center, also a member of the Protect Medicaid Utah Coalition, issued a statement saying health advocates 'remain concerned about the devastating impact of the billions of dollars in Medicaid cuts on Utahns with disabilities.'
'Numerous provisions in this bill would be harmful to the disability community, including a work requirement that penalizes Medicaid beneficiaries for losing a job, and will strip health coverage from millions nation-wide, including many Utahns,' Crippes said.
He added that given the focus on people enrolled in Medicaid expansion, 'we are particularly concerned with the impact on those with mental illness and substance use disorder, who make up nearly 60% of the expansion population.'
'We see no beauty in a bill that denies healthcare to millions, shifts costs to the states and the middle class, and weakens our entire healthcare system,' he said. 'So we urge our senators to support the disability community, protect Medicaid, and stop this bill from passing.'
President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have lauded the bill as needed to curb government spending, cut taxes and provide resources to execute Trump's agenda around immigration, energy production and increased military investment.
Democrats criticized the bill as a tax cut that would largely benefit the billionaire class and lead the U.S. to raise its debt limit by $4 trillion.
Utah's Medicaid Director Jennifer Strohecker briefed Utah lawmakers this week on the status of Utah's Medicaid program, proposed changes including the state's version of work requirements, and possible impacts from the budget reconciliation bill if it receives final passage.
'Utah has the lowest Medicaid enrollment of every state, but for the 350,000 Utahns that do receive their health benefits through this program, it is a lifeline for preventive care, institutional care when it's needed, physical health, behavioral health,' she told the state Health and Human Services Interim Committee on Wednesday.
An estimated 1 in 10 Utahns are enrolled in Medicaid, she said. One in 6 babies are born with Medicaid as their health coverage.
In total, Utah's Medicaid program costs about $5.3 billion per year. More than 64% of it is funded with federal dollars, equaling $3.4 billion. About $1.7 in state dollars pay for the rest.
'Counterproductive and cruel': Advocates form coalition to protect Medicaid from federal cuts
Lawmakers including Rep. Tyler Clancy, R-Provo, and Rep. Ray Ward, R-Bountiful, asked Strohecker about Utah's proposed work requirement waiver and questioned whether it will lead to Utahns losing coverage due to administrative burdens.
'This was not meant to be an administrative hurdle or a barrier. This was not meant to take people off of the Medicaid program,' she said of Utah's proposal.
While Strohecker noted the federal proposal has a 'pretty big dollar figure tied to work requirements as it's proposed, Utah's design did not have that intent.'
'So it is our commitment to look at what are those administrative hurdles, what are those barriers, as it's designed today, and thoughtfully work through those with you all and with our partners at DWS,' she said, noting that Utah's proposal is still being drafted using feedback from public comment.
Though the original public comment period for Utah's proposed work requirements waiver was initially scheduled to end Thursday, state officials told Utah News Dispatch they decided to extend it through June 2, with one more public hearing scheduled for Tuesday.
'We have received a lot of helpful feedback and will consider those recommendations before submitting the request to (the federal government) within a month or two of closing the public comment period,' a Utah Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson said in an email.
However, Strohecker noted that Utah's waiver and the federal mandates included in the budget reconciliation package are two different proposals. The proposed federal mandated work requirements would require Americans to 'complete work requirements before you ever get Medicaid.'
The federal proposal has the potential to risk loss of health coverage for tens of thousands more Utahns than the state's work requirement waiver, as currently drafted.
Additionally, if Congress approves the bill as currently drafted, it included a provision that would penalize states that expanded coverage for immigrants by reducing the federal Medicaid matching rate for the Medicaid expansion program from 90% to 80% for states that either provide health coverage or financial assistance to purchase health coverage to certain groups of immigrants.
'I have a hard enough time': Utahns urge state not to impose work requirements on Medicaid
Last year, Utah started offering health insurance to noncitizen children through its State Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. As of last week, 1,317 children were enrolled in that program, which has the capacity to cover up to 2,000 kids, according to the state's website.
Strohecker said that if the federal government penalizes Utah for its CHIP program and reduces its state match from 90% to 80%, that would trigger a law to 'terminate' Utah's adult Medicaid expansion program. She said lawmakers may need to consider what to do about that.
That may include repealing the state's CHIP program for 2,000 kids in order to save Utah's Medicaid expansion program, which covers 75,000 adults.
Rep. Steve Eliason, R-Sandy, acknowledged the federal bill is 'constantly evolving,' so state leaders will need to watch what happens, but he said 'assuming this bill passes, if this provision is left in there,' lawmakers may need to repeal CHIP.
'I think it's a really simple policy call, myself, that we need to sunset the (CHIP) program that would trigger the 10% penalty as well as our trigger law, because that would be a domino effect,' Eliason said. 'This is not making a policy comment on the underlying legislation, it's just that our hands would be tied, and it would be, I think, the greatest good for the greatest number.'
Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, also acknowledged that the federal budget package is a 'moving target, so who knows what it's going to look like in the next week.' But she asked whether the Utah Legislature would need to convene in a special session to deal with fallout if the bill receives final passage before lawmakers' next general session in January.
Strohecker said that's a possibility.
'We've been keeping a very close eye on this legislation,' she said.
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
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Trump releases AI 'action plan' that offers a split with Biden
President Trump released an AI "action plan" on Wednesday that outlines the administration's vision for achieving global dominance in artificial intelligence. The report marks a split from Biden administration policies, which favored restrictions against exports of AI chips and steps to ensure AI was not used to spread misinformation. However, the new rules do come with limitations for AI developers that build "ideological biases" into their systems, which have yet to be defined by the administration. 'There is a global competition now to lead in artificial intelligence, and we want the United States to win that race," said David Sacks, chair of the president's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, during a briefing on the report. Sacks said the report builds on President Trump's executive order on AI issued during the first week of his second term in office by taking away "unnecessary barriers" to AI adoption put in place by the Biden administration. Keys to the action plan include removing federal regulations that the administration believes hinders AI, promoting the build out of AI data centers, and exporting American-made AI around the world. More details of the plan are expected to come in an executive order or orders issued by the president on Wednesday afternoon. And Trump is also expected to discuss the plan during a speech at a Wednesday event titled "Winning the AI Race," organized by White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks and his co-hosts on the "All-In" podcast. Those executive orders, according to Axios and the Wall Street Journal, would promote the exports of chips and AI technology to countries considered friendly to the US. There may also be an order that targets "woke AI," according to The Wall Street Journal. It would target AI developers that the administration believes create liberally biased algorithms and block them from serving as federal contractors. The White House didn't respond to a request for comment. Asked who decides if an AI system is biased, a senior White House official said during a briefing that "what we're recommending here is that federal procurement guidelines be updated to ensure that government only, the federal government only contracts with LLM developers who ensure that their systems are objective and and free from top-down ideological bias. And you know, DEI is really the main one." Two constitutional law scholars who talked with Yahoo Finance said it is doubtful the "woke AI" measure will withstand legal scrutiny. "If you sanction software that is liberal, but not software that is conservative, the challenge will be that the executive order is content-based discrimination," said UC San Francisco School of Law professor Rory Little. "I don't even know how you tell if software is liberal or conservative," Little said, adding that the First Amendment protects intellectual property as forms of speech that the government may not single out for punishment. But the order's constitutional viability may not matter in the short term for companies like Amazon (AMZN), Anthropic ( Google (GOOG), OpenAI ( Microsoft (MSFT), and Perplexity ( all of which are vying to supply AI systems to the government. Even if the order is met with legal challenges, AI developers might not have time to wait out a court solution. "A lot of people are trying to make deals with the Trump administration, so they view these executive orders not as law, but as the opening bid in a negotiation," Little said. "If you're an AI company, like Google, you're probably going to do your best to negotiate something that permits whatever you want to do to go forward," he added. "And you could care less what atmospheric politics might look like, so long as you're making money on your software." OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said Tuesday at a Federal Reserve banking conference in Washington, D.C., that his company now has lots of government work. "We are increasingly working with the government to roll out our services to lots of government employees," Altman said. If such an AI order is issued and then challenged, a court fight is likely to resemble those in multiple ongoing lawsuits against two other DEI-focused executive orders issued by Trump during his first days back in office. Those earlier orders directed all federal contractors to certify that they do not operate DEI programs in violation of anti-discrimination laws. They also shuttered government offices and employment positions focused on DEI. David Coale, a partner with the law firm Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, said the executive orders get into an area called the "unconstitutional conditions" doctrine, which prohibits the government from conditioning a grant on the exercise of constitutional rights. "This [type of] proposal goes too far," Coale said, explaining that tying the eligibility to an AI's liberal bias presents "serious First Amendment issues." Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed.


Chicago Tribune
3 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
What to know about Parkinson's disease after Ozzy Osbourne's death
Heavy metal rocker Ozzy Osbourne died this week at 76, just weeks after his farewell show and about five years after announcing he had Parkinson's disease. Here's what to know about the disease: Parkinson's is a neurologic disease that robs people of control over their movements. It typically starts with tremors and is characterized by slow movement, a shuffling gait, stiff limbs, balance problems and slurred speech. About 1 million Americans are living with Parkinson's, and 10 million people worldwide, the Parkinson's Foundation estimates. It usually appears after age 60, although sometimes it can develop before age 50. The exact cause isn't known, but Parkinson's develops when cells that produce one of the brain's chemical messengers, called dopamine, begin to deteriorate and die. Dopamine transports signals to parts of the brain that control movement. Parkinson's symptoms appear after enough dopamine-producing cells die that there's too little of this neurotransmitter in the brain. According to the foundation, most experts believe genetic and environmental factors are behind the disease. Dozens of gene mutations linked to Parkinson's have been discovered and genetics account for 10% to 15% of all cases. Other factors suspected of increasing the risk include head injuries, exposure to pesticides and herbicides and where you live. Ozzy Osbourne, lead singer of Black Sabbath and godfather of heavy metal, dies at 76There is no cure but there are treatments, including medications that affect dopamine levels and a surgically implanted tremor-blocking device. Patients also can benefit from physical and occupational therapy. Symptoms worsen over time, usually slowly. The severity of symptoms and how quickly they progress varies widely between patients. In advanced cases, people may be unable to walk or care for themselves. They also can suffer from depression as well as memory and thinking problems. While Parkinson's itself isn't considered fatal, people can die from complications of the disease, including lung problems as muscle weakness impedes the ability to cough and to swallow.


The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats can rebuild government by learning from how Trump has destroyed it
We know the tragic effects of President Trump's dismantling of the federal government. Social Security service delivery are in crisis. Calls to the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the wake of disaster go unanswered. Rural hospitals brace for a loss of federal support. And now congressional Republicans are surrendering the power of the purse to further hobble core government services by choking off funding. But the truth is, Trump alone didn't break the federal government. He is putting the devastating capstone on a decades-long conservative project of undermining its capacity to function: underfunding agencies, outsourcing expertise, layering on procedural hurdles, stacking courts with partisan allies, and eroding public trust. Long before Trump took office, the result was a government that couldn't move quickly, deliver boldly or meet the needs of the people it was supposed to serve. And when the government is unable to visibly respond to people's discontent and aspirations within the timeframe of an electoral mandate, the legitimacy of democracy itself erodes. If Democrats truly believe in the power of government to improve people's lives, they should be cautious about reverting to pre-Trump institutions. Our time in the Biden-Harris administration taught us that the federal government wasn't meeting the needs of middle- or working-class people long before the 2024 election. What was left of it has now been intentionally sabotaged. If we want to implement a bold policy agenda in the future — one that truly creates agency, power and opportunity for people who don't have it — we have to start planning now to build the basic infrastructure for a government that's much more responsive to and resonant with ordinary Americans, not the monied few. For too long, Democrats have been stuck in a vicious cycle of playing catch-up in a game with existential stakes. Phase one: Republicans dismantle government programs and services and trigger economic crises through their laissez-faire approach to governance. Phase two: Democrats retake power, and then scramble to steer a hobbled system back to the status quo. Phase three: Democrats fail to deliver the visible change the electorate craves, Republicans retake power, and the cycle repeats. What has to change? We need to confront a hard truth: Despite good intentions and tireless efforts from appointees and civil servants alike, the old tools and norms have not worked. Administrative rulemaking has been too slow, fragile, and captured by well-resourced industries to meaningfully serve the public interest. Major policies passed with fanfare took four or more years to show results — long after voters were asked to judge them. Meanwhile, activist courts stacked by the right delayed or dismantled even modest reforms. Agencies were afraid to antagonize the powerful industries they were supposed to oversee, or to take an investment risk and face public failure. Enforcement against corporate lawbreaking was underfunded and slow. Outsourcing of core government functions made private contractors rich even when their performance was shoddy. And far too often, the government was a distant, impenetrable behemoth that piled paperwork on Americans, instead of proactively listening to them to understand their needs and deliver frictionless services in response. We can't win back faith in government with policies that are invisible, delayed or drowned in process. We need a new playbook — one that matches the urgency of the moment and the acuteness of people's needs. One that learns, paradoxically, from the relentlessness of Trump and his allies. What they've demonstrated is that the rules and norms constraining government action aren't fixed laws of nature. They're conventions — and they can be changed. If there's no political cost for ignoring them in the service of corporate power and oligarchic corruption, there should be even less fear about changing them to make government work better for ordinary people. Democrats should take the lesson: Flip the risk profile. Go big or go home. That means reorganizing policymaking around speed, visibility and political resonance. It means building teams around outcome-driven missions — not statutes, institutional bias or risk-averse compliance. It means treating economic, legal, outreach and communications strategy as one integrated campaign, and working much more collaboratively with our state and local government partners and community-based organizations. It means starting work long before Day One with the understanding that we will need to simultaneously build and deliver: pre-drafting policies, mapping authorities, recruiting top-flight talent and identifying the signature priorities for each agency that will show up in people's lives within a single term. These are unified campaign-style operations, not bureaucratic ones. And it means breaking free from the norms that keep the government mired in caution. Abolish or radically retool obsolete veto gates, such as the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Limit judicial meddling in economic policy choices made by political leaders accountable to the people, and refocus courts on protecting individual liberties. Make the government great to work for again, and repopulate it with technologists, statisticians, product managers, service designers, community organizers and movement lawyers. Clean out the procedural clutter that saps time and bandwidth. We've seen what gets in the way. Now it's time to start clearing it. Importantly, when we act, we must act boldly. During the last administration, the types of policies that resonated were the big, simple, universal ones: a cap on insulin prices, a ban on junk fees, an end to noncompetes, a free, easy way to file your taxes. These were policies designed to be tangible, memorable and swift — and they addressed economic frustrations that transcend partisan lines. That's not just good economics. It's good politics. It's good democracy. Policies must provide proof that the government can still work for ordinary people, not just large corporations or insiders. For too long, Democrats have tried to govern within a framework designed to thwart them and to protect entrenched interests. Trump simply ignored it. If we want to change that trajectory for government, we need to be just as fearless and bold in building a new framework as Republicans have been in destroying the old one. If Democrats want to lead, the party must demonstrate that the government can — and will — continue to change lives for the better. Let's stop trying to tinker with a broken machine. Let's start building one that actually works.