
How Trump's megabill will impact health care
The legislation, now on its way to President Trump, was never framed as a health bill, but it will mark the biggest changes to U.S. health policy since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010.
The bill's provisions will impact patients, doctors, hospitals, and insurers, as Republicans partially paid for it by cutting more than $1 trillion from federal health programs.
The bulk of the cuts are coming from Medicaid. As a result, changes are coming that will affect how people qualify for and enroll in the program that covers more than 70 million low-income and disabled Americans, as well as how they can maintain coverage.
'No matter how often repeated, the magnitude of these reductions — and the number of individuals who will lose health coverage — cannot be simply dismissed as waste, fraud, and abuse,' American Hospital Association president Rick Pollack said in a statement.
'The faces of Medicaid include our children, our disabled, our seniors, our veterans, our neighbors, and friends. The real-life consequences of these reductions will negatively impact access to care for all Americans.'
Almost 12 million lower-income Americans would lose their health insurance by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), blunting the significant coverage gains made under the ACA.
The cuts were deep enough to give some Republicans in both chambers pause, but in the end, only two GOP House members and three senators voted against the bill. It passed the Senate 51-50, and the House 218-214.
Here's how the bill could impact Americans:
By design, the group that would be hit the hardest are people whose income is between 100 percent and 138 percent of the federal poverty level (roughly between $32,150 and $42,760 for a family of four) who gained insurance when their states expanded Medicaid.
The most significant change will be a first-ever requirement for adults under age 65 — including low-income parents of children older than 14 — to prove they work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month. States will need to develop and launch systems to verify individuals' work status at least every six months, beginning in December 2026.
Health experts and advocates warn that a blizzard of red tape and administrative hurdles will strip people of needed health care, even those who would normally be eligible.
GOP lawmakers say they are fine with those consequences, even those who have said they oppose cutting Medicaid benefits, because the requirements will only target the 'able-bodied' people who should be working but choose not to.
Groups such as the disabled, pregnant women and people who are in prison or rehabilitation centers would be exempt from the requirements. Those people, Republicans say, are the truly needy.
But someone who qualifies would need to prove they are exempt, which would require submitting the correct forms and documentation — in the correct order — at the time they apply for Medicaid and after they are already enrolled.
Outside of work requirements, the legislation requires states to do an extra eligibility check on Medicaid enrollees starting in 2027. Checking every six months opens the possibility of a person losing coverage mid-year.
The bill will also require people with incomes above the poverty line to pay out-of-pocket copays for most Medicaid services, like lab tests or doctor visits. States will be allowed to charge up to 5 percent of a person's income per year, though some Democratic-led states may opt for a smaller amount.
Primary care, mental health and substance abuse services are exempted, and prescription drugs would only have a nominal copay.
The bill could also limit the number of clinics available to patients who need abortions, even in states where it's legal. It targets Planned Parenthood without explicitly mentioning the organization by banning federal Medicaid funds from going to clinics that offer abortions.
Nearly 200 Planned Parenthood health centers in 24 states across the country are at risk of closure, the organization said. More than 90 percent of those closures would occur in states where abortion is legal.
The legislation will make it more difficult for people to sign up for and afford health plans on ACA exchanges.
It will limit eligibility for premium subsidies to people living in the U.S. who are not eligible for any other federal insurance program. It will also bar most immigrants and lawful permanent residents from receiving the subsidies.
The bill will require real-time verification of eligibility before a person can receive those subsidies to help afford premiums.
Currently, anyone who purchases a subsidized plan can begin using it almost immediately. The state or federal government has 90 days to determine eligibility. But under the new bill, people won't have access to cheaper premiums until they are deemed eligible.
In addition, people who sign up for ACA coverage during some special enrollment periods will not be eligible for subsidies.
The bill will also end automatic reenrollment ahead of the 2028 sign-up period, meaning enrollees will need to update their income, immigration status and other information each year.
According to health research group KFF, 10 million people were automatically reenrolled in ACA plans in 2025.
The GOP bill could pose a major problem for rural hospitals, and subsequently the patients who rely on them.
Changes to state-levied provider taxes would reduce spending by nearly $191 billion over a decade, according to the CBO estimate. An analysis of an earlier version introduced in the Senate by the National Rural Health Association and Manatt Health found the legislation generates $58 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next ten years for rural hospitals.
The bill that passed includes a five-year, $50 billion rural health relief fund, but provider groups say it's a band-aid compared to the overall cost of the cuts.
Hospitals would see a spike in uncompensated care and overcrowding of emergency rooms.
'Millions of Americans will see their health care coverage vanish through burdensome Medicaid work requirements and other eligibility changes throughout the bill. Hospitals across the country have been destabilized, affecting their ability to serve patients and their communities. We are in a crisis,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, a group that represents hospitals serving primarily low-income patients.
'Widespread coverage losses plus weakened hospitals is a recipe for disaster, and patients will pay the price.'
Hashtags

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


Associated Press
31 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Israeli airstrikes kill 33 Palestinians in Gaza
DEIR al-BALAH, Gaza Strip (AP) — Israeli airstrikes killed at least 33 Palestinians in Gaza, hospital officials said on Sunday, as Israel's military said it has struck over 100 targets in the embattled enclave in the past day. The fighting came as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was preparing to fly to Washington for talks at the White House aimed at pushing forward ceasefire efforts. President Donald Trump has floated a plan for an initial 60-day ceasefire that would include a partial release of hostages held by Hamas in exchange for an increase in humanitarian supplies allowed into Gaza. The proposed truce calls for talks on ending the 21-month war altogether. Israel strikes dozens of targets Twenty people were killed and 25 wounded after Israeli strikes hit two houses in Gaza City, according to Mohammed Abu Selmia, the director of Shifa Hospital that services the area. In southern Gaza, 13 Palestinians were killed by strikes in Muwasi, an area on Gaza's Mediterranean where many displaced people live in tents, officials at Nasser Hospital in neaby Khan Younis told The Associated Press. Five of the dead belonged to the same family according to the hospital. The Israeli military had no immediate comment on the individual strikes, but said it struck 130 targets across the Gaza Strip in the last 24 hours. It said the strikes targeted Hamas command and control structures, storage facilities, weapons and launchers, and that they killed a number of militants in northern Gaza. The war began when Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing some 1,200 people and taking 251 others hostage. Israel responded with an offensive that has killed over 57,000 Palestinians, more than half of them women and children, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. The ministry, which is under Gaza's Hamas government, does not differentiate between civilians and combatants. The U.N. and other international organizations see its figures as the most reliable statistics on war casualties. Ceasefire deal being discussed The strikes occur as efforts to reach a ceasefire deal appeared to gain momentum. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 's office said his government will send a negotiating team to talks in Qatar on Sunday to conduct indirect talks, adding that Hamas was seeking 'unacceptable' changes to the proposal. The planned talks in Qatar comes ahead of Netanyahu's planned visit on Monday to Washington to meet U.S. President Donald Trump to discuss the deal. It is unclear if a deal will be reached ahead of Netanyahu's White House meeting. Hamas has sought guarantees that the initial truce would lead to a total end to the war and withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. Previous negotiations have stalled over Hamas demands of guarantees that further negotiations would lead to the war's end, while Netanyahu has insisted Israel would resume fighting to ensure the militant group's destruction. ___ Chehayeb reported from Beirut.


USA Today
44 minutes ago
- USA Today
Most Americans think Medicare covers long-term care. Are they right?
Most Americans think Medicare covers long-term care, the regimen of daily help that many seniors will eventually require. It does not. That basic misunderstanding has retirement experts worried. It suggests millions of Americans may have no plan to cover the high costs of aging. Long-term care is a range of services for people who need help with everyday activities, such as bathing, dressing or eating. More than 80% of us will need that help at some point, according to a recent study from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. Americans are badly misinformed about the basics of long-term care, a point driven home in numerous surveys and studies. One of the latest, released in June by Nationwide, found that 58% of U.S. adults wrongly believe Medicare covers long-term care. 'Seventy percent of the people who reach 65 are going to need long-term care,' said Holly Snyder, president of Nationwide Life Insurance. 'And if you get there, people seem to think there are public safety nets that will take care of you.' Long-term care costs can be staggering Many seniors need long-term care for years. Costs can be staggering. The average assisted living facility charges $5,350 a month, according to T. Rowe Price. A typical nursing home charges $9,733. Those prices should alarm older Americans. The problem, according to Snyder and others, is that many people assume Medicare will cover them. 'People just don't distinguish between long-term care and health care,' said Gal Wettstein, a senior research economist at Boston College. Some confusion is natural. Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors, does cover some short stays in nursing homes. But Medicare generally does not cover longer stays. The reason: Most long-term care is not considered medical care. 'Someone to make sure Mom eats her food, takes her medicine and, when she wakes up, she doesn't walk out the door: That's custodial care,' said Patrick Simasko, an elder law attorney in Michigan. And here's where things get really confusing: While Medicare doesn't cover most long-term care, Medicaid does. Medicaid, the government health insurance program for Americans of limited means, generally covers long-term care for seniors who spend down their assets. In fact, Medicaid is the nation's largest payer of long-term care. Many Americans 'confuse Medicare and Medicaid,' Simasko said. Why don't more Americans have long-term care insurance? The pervasive belief that Medicare covers long-term care may also help explain why so few Americans own long-term care insurance. Long-term care insurance does just what the name implies: It covers costs of long-term care. Yet, by one industry estimate, only about 4% of older Americans hold policies. Why do so few Americans purchase long-term care insurance? 'Because so many people think Medicare covers it,' Wettstein said. 'They don't want to buy a product that they think they already have.' The notion that Medicare covers long-term care is one of several prevalent misconceptions about the costs of aging. In the Nationwide survey, 41% of respondents said they doubt they will live long enough to use long-term care insurance. In fact, most seniors will eventually need it. The Nationwide survey reached 1,324 adults, ages 29 and up, with household incomes of at least $75,000. Another survey, fielded in 2024 by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), found that only four in 10 workers believed they would need long-term care. In that survey, employees also vastly underestimated the costs of long-term care, with most believing the tab would not exceed $50,000. 'There's been so much focus on saving for retirement, accumulation, but there's not much talk about addressing the risks associated with aging,' said Bridget Bearden, research and development strategist at EBRI. Americans underestimate long-term care as a retirement risk Many older Americans underestimate long-term care as a retirement risk. In one 2024 survey of affluent older Americans, Boston College researchers found, long-term care ranked fifth among financial worries in retirement, behind stock market turbulence, Social Security cuts and other concerns. Many Americans don't grasp the implications of tapping Medicaid to cover long-term care, Wettstein said. To qualify for the benefit, as a rule, you must spend all of your money. 'It's an insurance product that has 'everything you own' as a deductible,' Wettstein said. 'You have to spend everything you own in order to use it.' Medicaid requirements yield a long-term care industry of haves and have-nots, according to Wettstein and others. Only affluent Americans can easily afford long-term care costs out of pocket. And only impoverished Americans get it for free. 'When you get old, you'd better have a lot of money, or you'd better be broke,' Simasko said. 'It's those in-between people who are having a hard time.' If this report has you worried about long-term care, here are a few expert tips. Consider long-term care insurance Many Americans consider long-term care insurance prohibitively expensive, Snyder said. In fact, long-term care policies come in many varieties. Costs rise and fall dramatically according to the dollar amount of the benefit, the length of care covered, and other variables. A typical policy, providing a $165,000 benefit for a single adult of 55, might cost $950 a year for a man, $1,500 for a woman, the National Council on Aging reports. One big drawback to many traditional long-term care policies: You collect no money if you get no care. But the industry is evolving. Under various 'hybrid' policies, if you don't exhaust the long-term care benefits, they go to your beneficiaries when you die. Shop around for long-term care Long-term care costs vary widely depending on where you live. Assisted living costs average $8,093 a month in Albany, N.Y., but only $4,600 in Boulder, Colorado, according to the National Council on Aging. If you live in a high-cost city, look at prices in the suburbs, or in the next county. Consult a cost-of-care calculator. You could buy yourself more years of care. 'Find the best place for the best price,' Simasko said. Meet with a retirement planner Financial planners are trained to help people budget for all the potential costs of retirement, including long-term care. A retirement planner can help you unpack the complexities of long-term care and craft a plan to pay for it. 'It really is about talking to your financial professional,' Snyder said.

Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
A conservative crackdown on advertisers has forced a 'brand safety' reset
Conservative media company The Daily Wire is celebrating the downfall of " brand safety," and benefiting from the new state of play in the ad business during the second Trump era. Last week, The Daily Wire's commercial team received a request for proposal, or RFP, from Omnicom, one of the world's biggest ad agency groups. An RFP typically indicates an agency or advertiser's interest in buying ad space. The RFP was a huge win for The Daily Wire. It was only the second time it had received an inbound ad request from Omnicom. The first was in May, but the latest was a much bigger buy. Last year, The Daily Wire's famous cofounder and podcaster, Ben Shapiro, testified that the site had been unfairly shunned by major advertisers and ad agencies who, he said, had deemed its content unsafe for their brands. "Brand safety was being defined by people with a severe bias against a certain point of view," The Daily Wire's editor in chief, Brent Scher, told Business Insider in an interview. But since President Donald Trump's return to the White House, the power dynamics around "brand safety" — the practice of brands seeking to avoid their ads appearing next to, or otherwise supporting, "unsafe" content — have shifted, with some advertisers scrambling to avoid any whiff of anti-conservative bias. The situation is particularly acute for Omnicom, making its outreach to The Daily Wire both unprecedented and unsurprising. Last month, Andrew Ferguson, chairman of the Republican-led Federal Trade Commission, gave conditional approval to a proposed $13.5 billion merger of Omnicom and fellow ad company IPG, which would create the world's largest ad agency. It had an unusual caveat: Omnicom agreed to a consent order that would prevent it from colluding with other companies to encourage its advertiser clients to boycott media based on publishers' "political or ideological viewpoints." 'Brand suitability' versus 'brand safety' The FTC's move is the latest victory in the battle against brand safety waged by US conservatives. Brand safety in 2025 has become such a political flash point that some ad execs are changing the way they talk about the topic. "I hear the phrase 'brand suitability' far more than 'brand safety' now," said Liam Brennan, a marketing consultant and former ad agency director. "It makes it sound like a cop out, but it's a shift in the approach brands are taking. Before it was 'block, block, block,' now it's more about where my brand should be appearing. It's a more positive approach." While the Trump administration's actions have turned up the heat on brand safety practices, a broader backlash has been building for some time. Brand safety began as a seemingly innocuous practice of preventing brands from appearing next to the worst of the internet, such as violence, pornography, and illegal content. But it gradually expanded, with brands seeking to avoid a wide variety of political issues, or platforms that supported them. In investigations and lawsuits, lawmakers and other high-profile conservatives have argued that ad practitioners, brand safety tech vendors, and industry groups forced the brand safety pendulum to swing too far into partisan areas, unfairly depriving right-leaning outlets of ad dollars. Media companies on the left have said they, too, have been harmed by advertisers who deemed news sites as unsafe for brands. "What may have started as a good idea expanded, and then became too broad," said Mark Penn, CEO of the advertising holding company Stagwell. "Consequentially, it wasn't really about brand safety — it became almost brand censorship." The emergence of brand safety The practice of brand safety arose as advertisers shifted from analog media buying — placing deals directly with the TV stations, billboard owners, or newspaper proprietors they wished to buy space with — toward digital. Using technology, advertisers could target their audiences across swaths of websites, social platforms, and apps with just a few clicks. However, this meant they had less visibility about the content their ads were likely to appear next to. Brand safety technology was created to give advertisers more control over the types of content they wanted to fund or avoid. Keyword block lists were an early but somewhat blunt tool, helping advertisers avoid appearing in articles about grisly news topics like murders or natural disasters. However, marketers often didn't maintain good block list hygiene. Mike Zaneis, CEO of ad industry accreditation organization the Trustworthy Accountability Group, said he was recently reviewing brand block lists that still had the term "Ariana Grande" on them, years after the deadly terrorist attack that took place at the pop star's Manchester Arena, UK, concert in 2017. "Never mind that she's won two Grammys since then," Zaneis said. Enter: The conservative backlash The scrutiny on brand safety notably dialed up in 2024 and took on a partisan tone. Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, released an investigation that accused advertisers of illegally colluding to withhold ad dollars from conservative-leaning media like The Daily Wire, X (after Elon Musk's takeover of the company), and "The Joe Rogan Experience." The report took aim at an initiative called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which developed brand safety frameworks and common definitions that advertisers and Big Tech platforms like Meta and YouTube could universally adopt. Elon Musk's X then sued several major brands, including Mars and CVS Health, alleging their participation in GARM involved a conspiracy to withhold ad dollars from the platform formerly known as Twitter. The conservative video platform Rumble also sued GARM and some of its members, making similar claims in its suit. GARM shut down shortly after X's suit was filed. Its parent organization, the World Federation of Advertisers, denied wrongdoing but said GARM didn't have the resources to fight the legal action. In a May legal filing seeking to dismiss the X case, the defendants said the lawsuit was an attempt to use the courts win back business X had "lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers." In a statement, the WFA said GARM provided tools to help advertisers better exercise their freedom to choose where to place their ads in the best interests of their brands, and that it was always voluntary and pro-competitive. "WFA will continue to fight these allegations, and we are confident that the US judicial system will find in our favor," the statement said. While GARM is no more, the lawsuits and the Judiciary Committee's investigation continue, and the FTC has joined the brand safety battle under the Trump administration. Ferguson, the FTC chair, has said that maintaining a free ad market and free speech is a top priority and that he hopes other ad companies will adopt policies similar to those in the Omnicom-IPG consent decree. That notice extends to other advertising vendors in the brand safety sphere. In May, the FTC sent sweeping civil investigative demands to media watchdogs and rating firms, including Media Matters and Ad Fontes Media, seeking information about their brand safety practices. In one such letter, viewed by BI, the FTC sought documents related to relationships with GARM, the publicly traded ad verification firms Integral Ad Science and DoubleVerify, and other entities that track and characterize "misinformation," "hate speech," "false" or "deceptive" content, and other similar categories. While the FTC's actions have made many in the ad industry nervous, some execs consider much of brand safety to be, as Stagwell's Penn puts it, a "fabricated issue." Penn said there were only limited situations in which brands might really be negatively affected by where their ads appeared. "From the polling I've done, conservatives think that they were being censored and demonetized, and liberals think they were being censored, so nobody was particularly happy about what was going on," Penn said. (Stagwell owns the public opinion and advisory firm The Harris Poll.) Will the brand safety crackdown benefit news publishers? Execs at The Daily Wire say the scrutiny on brand safety was warranted and has gotten results. "My team is inside of the bigger agencies, having discussions, whereas the door was automatically shut 12 to 16 months ago," said The Daily Wire's SVP of ad revenue, Christine Hoffmann. "We're getting business from Fortune 500 companies, like Chevron, like Amazon, like Paramount, and that was business that was nonexistent to us." Other conservative news outlets, including Fox News and The National Review, have also noticed a bump in advertising interest since Trump took office for the second time. Ad industry insiders previously told BI this reflected advertisers' realization that half of the country voted for Trump, but that it could also be a signal of advertisers hedging against political risk. The notion that the crackdown on brand safety will provide a long-term bump to news publishers is untested and, for many industry insiders, feels unlikely. An executive from the media buying giant GroupM testified in a House Judiciary Committee hearing last year that just 1.28% of its clients' global ad budgets went toward news outlets. Meanwhile, Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon — with their superior scale and adtech — are set to take in more than half of global ad spending outside China this year, according to the latest forecast from the World Advertising Research Center. Omnicom has agreed to be audited to demonstrate its compliance with the FTC's proposed consent decree, which also includes an agreement not to create block lists, unless requested to do so by clients. The FTC's provisional agreement says Omnicom-IPG can't collude with other firms to steer client ad spend based on political ideologies, which might cause some advertisers to simply opt to avoid news altogether. As BI previously reported, some ad industry insiders and analysts think the government's crackdown on brand safety is an overreach that will hurt publishers of all kinds while further consolidating power with the tech giants. New tools could help brands avoid the censorship label, but there's no room for GARM 2.0 Some in the ad industry tell BI they're hopeful that brand safety could enter an apolitical era, powered by tech rather than individual decisions over blunt filters. "My view is that AI will bring greater nuance to brand safety — making it more effective for buyers and less restrictive for sellers," said David Kohl, cofounder of the performance marketing firm Symitri. Kohl said startups like Mobian are building models that assess context, user sentiment, and real-time ad performance to identify which media environments deliver and which don't. Elsewhere, Stagwell is creating what Penn describes as a politically neutral news marketplace, in partnership with the adtech company The Trade Desk, enabling advertisers to buy multiple news sites at once, according to demographics. While brand safety might become more tech-enabled, it seems unlikely there will be a GARM 2.0 for some time yet. "It would be far too easy to become a target," said Lisa Macpherson, a former marketing executive who now serves as the policy director of Public Knowledge, a tech policy consumer advocacy group. Just ask the advertising agency group Dentsu. Late last year, Dentsu quickly exited its involvement with the creation of a new coalition that had intended to encourage ad investments in "credible" news. Days after the press release about the coalition was published, the House Judiciary Committee requested documents from the ad firm, having noticed similarities to GARM. In response, Dentsu said it had decided "not to pursue the initiative" nor "pursue any other effort with similar aims." Macpherson said advertisers would continue to do what's necessary to protect their investments in their brands. Yet, as the threat of lawsuits and document demands related to GARM rumbles on, people in the ad industry will likely avoid using the phrase "brand safety" in emails or marketing materials. "They may describe it differently," Macpherson said. "They will be very careful to couch it in language that evokes their constitutional right" to send ad dollars or not spend money on certain media outlets based on the suitability for their individual brands, she added. Zaneis of TAG said the recent government and legal scrutiny of brand safety practices might have been the jolt the industry needed, forcing marketers to pay closer attention to an issue that had gotten out of hand. "We may not like how we got here as an industry, but it's where we should have been all along," Zaneis said.