logo
How Trump's tax bill could cut Medicaid for millions of Americans

How Trump's tax bill could cut Medicaid for millions of Americans

USA Todaya day ago
The Senate cleared President Donald Trump's domestic spending and tax cut bill that will enact steep cuts to the nation's safety-net health insurance program for low income families.
In addition to delivering tax cuts and increasing immigration enforcement, what Trump has called the "Big Beautiful Bill" would cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid, the state-federal health program for low-income families and the disabled. The bill is projected to eliminate insurance coverage for 11.8 million people over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Another 5 million could lose coverage if Congress doesn't extend the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits that have made Affordable Care Act plans more affordable for consumers.
The legislation amounts to "the biggest rollback in health care coverage in the history of the United States," said Joan Alker, a research professor and executive director and co-founder of Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families.
Vice President JD Vance, who cast the tiebreaking vote July 1 to pass the Senate bill 51-50, said in social media posts the Medicaid cuts are "immaterial" compared to savings the bill will fund through bolstered immigration enforcement. The House is scheduled to consider the legislation on July 2 in advance of Trump's self-imposed July 4th deadline for his signature domestic policy legislation.
How will the legislation cut Medicaid?
The legislation would require states to double eligibility checks to twice a year. And states, which administer Medicaid, would have to set up systems to verify a person's employment or exemption status.
The legislation requires "able-bodied" Medicaid recipients to work 80 hours a month or qualify for an exemption, such as being a student, caregiver or having a disability. The original House version limited the work requirement to low-income adults without children, but the Senate version added the work requirement to parents of children older than 13.
The legislation defines "able-bodied" people as those not medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment. The legislation also would strip coverage from undocumented immigrants who get Medicaid through state-funded programs.
Health policy experts say more frequent eligibility checks and red tape will add administrative costs and cut off people who qualify but fall through the cracks because of administrative miscues.
What do hospitals and doctors think of bill?
Medicaid insures 83 million low-income children and adults, according to KFF, a health policy nonprofit. That represents more than 1 in 5 Americans.
Health policy experts have warned the cuts could harm rural hospitals and doctors who serve a higher percentage of people enrolled in Medicaid. The Senate bill added a $50 billion rural health care fund, double the amount that an earlier version of the legislation proposed.
Still, hospitals are "deeply disappointed" the bill cleared the Senate, said Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, a trade group.
Pollack said the $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts would cause "irreparable harm to our health care system," and reduce access to care for all Americans.
Hospitals are required to diagnose and stabilize anyone who visits an emergency room. Eliminating coverage of nearly 12 million Americans will "drive up uncompensated care for hospitals and health systems," Pollack said.
Pollack said hospitals might be forced to cut services and staff, and patients could face longer wait times in emergency rooms. Some rural hospitals and facilities in underserved communities could close, Pollack said.
Dr. Richard Besser, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said the cuts to Medicaid and a federal food assistance program "will make our country sicker, put children at risk of going hungry and make it harder for families to afford basic necessities" while delivering tax cuts.
When will the Medicaid cuts take effect?
Medicaid recipients won't immediately be impacted by the legislation. The bill sets a Jan. 1, 2027, deadline for states to begin twice-a-year eligibility checks and verify work or exemption status of non-disabled enrollees.
However, some states already have submitted waivers to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to begin Medicaid work requirements. CMS might choose to approve the waivers and allow some states to launch Medicaid work requirements before January 2027, Alker said.
A KFF survey found nearly 2 in 3 people on Medicaid are employed full or part time, and others would qualify for an exemption from the work requirement because they are caregivers or students. Just 8% were not working due to inability to find work, retirement or other reasons, KFF said.
While the bill doesn't mandate work requirements before January 2027, states will likely need to plan for big changes before then, said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the KFF program on Medicaid and the uninsured.
States will need to prepare for smaller Medicaid payments from the federal government while adding the extra administrative duties of verifying an enrollee's work or volunteer status.
"Some states are anticipating this reduced revenue," Tolbert said. "At the same time, they are also required to make pretty costly changes to their eligibility systems."
'Death by a trillion cuts': Health care workers lobby Republicans in Congress
Johannah Alabi's days usually consist of feeding, bathing, and caring for residents at two nursing homes in Bloomfield, Conn. She said most of her patients depend on government health insurance programs, so she is concerned about what will happen to them and her job if Trump signs the bill into law.
Medicaid is the primary payer for 63% of nursing home facility residents and an additional 13% rely on Medicare as their primary payer, according to KFF, a health policy nonprofit headquartered in San Francisco.
'If some of that money is going to be taken away, something has to give,' Alabi said. 'It's going to come down to the resident care. It's going to come down to the food. It's going to come down to the activities.'
That's why she was inspired to join Service Employees International Union members to lobby lawmakers to vote against the bill last week.
They arrived at the Capitol with signs reading, 'Death by a trillion cuts,' and wearing shirts with the message, 'Republican cuts kill.'
Jennifer Woods, another SEIU member who works in the claims department at Kaiser Permanente, ran into Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, during her trip to Washington. She said she tried to explain how cuts could 'ruin people's lives' and potentially lead to some patients' deaths as she followed him through the Capitol building.
'He just shook his head and would keep going,' Woods said. 'He didn't really say anything. None of them did.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Israel's Iran strategy heavily banks on US getting good nuclear deal, sources say
Israel's Iran strategy heavily banks on US getting good nuclear deal, sources say

Yahoo

time32 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Israel's Iran strategy heavily banks on US getting good nuclear deal, sources say

Israel also hopes that Trump can successfully place limits on Iran's ballistic missile supply, but this is even more uncertain. Israel is feeling ascendant after its significant achievements against Iran during the June 13-24 war. Still, sources have said that the current strategy going forward is overwhelmingly banking on the US nailing Tehran down to a tough and long new nuclear deal. If the US does not secure such an airtight deal, Israel is unclear on what its strategy or next steps would be. In contrast to the ceasefire deal and end of the war with Hezbollah on November 27, 2024 which in and of itself set clear limits on Hezbollah's right to rearm and clearly outlined how Israel could proactively enforce those limits, the Iran ceasefire simply stopped the fighting between the sides with zero provisions regarding the future. This lack of a clear plan and certainty is true about how much Israel thinks it can hold back the Islamic Republic from rebuilding its heavily damaged nuclear weapons program, and sources have indicated that the plan may even be less clear regarding imposing and enforcing limits on Iran's ballistic missile program. Jerusalem's ideal world would be a US-brokered deal that ends Iran's nuclear program or ends its uranium enrichment and advanced centrifuges for a period of multiple decades, as well as keeps its quantity of ballistic missiles with a range to hit Israel down at the current 500-1,000 total missiles level. But what if Iran only agrees to certain concessions, but not others? For example, Iran could agree not to enrich uranium for the next year or two, during a period of time when it may not in any event be able to do so after the Israeli and American attacks, followed by enriching uranium at "low levels" like it did under the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal. This would basically be accepting the offer that US President Donald Trump was offering them before the war, except now they would be "losing" nothing because they cannot, at least for some period of time, do very much uranium enrichment right now anyway. Would Trump reject such a deal and potentially allow Iran to rebuild its nuclear program with no limits and no IAEA inspectors? The part about the IAEA inspectors is not theoretical, as since June 13, the UN nuclear inspectors have had no access to any aspects of the Iranian nuclear program. In fact, as of Wednesday, Iran also formally announced that it has indefinitely cut ties with the IAEA. This does not mean that Jerusalem and Washington are blind about what is happening in Iran. On Tuesday, The Jerusalem Post reported that Israeli satellites took tens of millions of photos of Iranian territory leading up to and ruing the 12-day war. But wherever the IAEA had electronic surveillance, it had 24-7 surveillance even indoors, even underground, something which is difficult even for top intelligence agencies to achieve. In short, IAEA inspections have never been sufficient by themselves, but they are crucial and invaluable. If the world was partially blind regarding Iran's nuclear program when Iran rolled back cooperation with the IAEA in 2021 and again in 2022, it is truly blind now. The only good news so far on the nuclear front is that even Iran is starting to admit that its nuclear facilities, including Fordow, were badly damaged. This means that even if the world is blind, there could be several months or more of little new progress by Iran toward reconstituting its nuclear program, no matter how hard it tries. Prior to the war, the Islamic Republic's ballistic missile program was not even on the table. Now, Israel will try to inject it onto the table, arguing that Iran's three massive ballistic missile attacks on the Jewish state in April 2024, October 2024, and this month make it a new existential threat. What if Trump settles for a nuclear deal, but with no limits on ballistic missiles? Israel was worried about Iran building a facility which could jump its missile inventory from 2,500 to 4,000 in around a year or so, and to 8,800 in around two years. Such numbers could overwhelm Israel's missile shield in a far more devastating way than even the 28 Israelis killed and 1,250 wounded from the 12-day war. Presumably, then, Israel would attack before the numbers ballooned that much. But how soon would Israel attack? When will the numbers get back to the pre-war 2,500 level? Earlier, such as when Iran builds and starts to operate a new ballistic missile production facility? Or yet earlier, as soon as it starts to build such a facility? Or maybe Israel can agree to Iran building unlimited ballistic missiles as long as their range falls below the 1,500 kilometer range to hit the Jewish state, given that many Iranian missiles do fall below that range. Will Jerusalem really risk ballistic missile attacks on hospitals, universities, and central Israel just to stop a facility from being built? And if it won't, will it get harder to respond even as the process goes forward because Israeli leaders will need to admit they are afraid of the Iranian response? Jerusalem has some time to let Trump try to resolve these issues. But if Trump cannot resolve them in the coming weeks or months, Israel will likely need to make some clear, hard, and uncompromising decisions about being ready to enforce certain limits, with coordination with the US and a yellow light to strike, even if there is not full-throated approval.

How House Republicans could bypass their own budget
How House Republicans could bypass their own budget

Politico

time36 minutes ago

  • Politico

How House Republicans could bypass their own budget

Mike Johnson is staring down the legislative challenge of his career. As soon as this morning, the speaker will attempt to ram the Senate-passed megabill through the House as dozens of Republicans threaten to vote it down. The detractors come from across the Republican conference after the Senate sent over a bill with deeper Medicaid cuts, steeper deficit hikes and less onerous clean-energy provisions than expected. And he's gunning to deliver by President Donald Trump's self-imposed July 4 deadline, as severe thunderstorms in Washington threaten full attendance. 'We'll see. I've got to play the cards that are dealt to me,' Johnson said Tuesday, after admitting he was 'not happy' with the Senate's changes to the bill. 'And we're working through that. … But we remain optimistic we're going to land it at this point.' Johnson has 24 to 48 hours to persuade reluctant fiscal hawks and Medicaid moderates to swallow the Senate's bill. He spent Monday on calls with concerned lawmakers and caucuses, scrambling to figure out how to pass it this week without making changes to the bill. (John Thune and Johnson have been in contact through much of the process but did not speak in the hours leading up to the Senate vote, the majority leader told POLITICO.) But the Senate bill will be tough to sell. House Freedom Caucus members like Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) blasted the Senate's bill Tuesday for adding to the deficit and softening clean energy tax credits. Roy and Norman both voted against the bill in the Rules Committee overnight. House moderates are worried about the steep cuts to Medicaid, which Johnson has privately said could cost Republicans the House in 2026. Sen. Thom Tillis' (R-N.C.) speech torching the Senate's Medicaid provisions for similar reasons shook many vulnerable Republicans. And a substantial cross section of the two groups of holdouts would rather take time to rework the package and send it back to the Senate, instead of jamming the Senate version through the House under a self-imposed deadline. Norman said the House should go back to the original bill, leave town and come back when Senate Republicans are 'serious.' Some signs of progress for Johnson: Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) appeared more likely to support the bill Tuesday night after previously refusing a deal on a state and local tax deduction. Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), previously a strong no on the bill over the Medicaid provider tax, told POLITICO a local provider tax tweak in the wraparound amendment for New Jersey and other states has him feeling better about the bill. But it would still be a gamble for Johnson to put it on the House floor: Many Republicans think the bill would fail without additional changes. However, the speaker has previously succeeded in putting bills on the floor without the votes — and relying on Trump to pressure holdouts to fold. What else we're watching: — Weather problems could delay House vote: Over 200 flights into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport were either canceled or delayed Tuesday amid thunderstorms in Washington, according to the flight-tracking service FlightAware. Johnson said Tuesday night that the travel issues could push back the House vote on the GOP megabill, which is expected as early as Wednesday. — More reconciliation packages: As the House looks to pass the current reconciliation package without further tweaks, Johnson is suggesting there could be future opportunities for lawmakers to get their priorities into party-line packages. In an interview on Fox News on Tuesday night, Johnson said the House will plan to do two more reconciliation bills during this session of Congress, which ends in 2026. Jordain Carney, Meredith Lee Hill and Benjamin Guggenheim contributed to this report.

FDA vaccine official restricted COVID vaccine approvals against the advice of agency staff
FDA vaccine official restricted COVID vaccine approvals against the advice of agency staff

Chicago Tribune

time36 minutes ago

  • Chicago Tribune

FDA vaccine official restricted COVID vaccine approvals against the advice of agency staff

WASHINGTON — The government's top vaccine official working under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently restricted the approval of two COVID-19 vaccines, disregarding recommendations from government scientists, according to federal documents released Wednesday. The new memos from the Food and Drug Administration show how the agency's vaccine chief, Dr. Vinay Prasad, personally intervened to place restrictions on COVID shots from vaccine makers Novavax and Moderna. Both vaccines were approved by the FDA in May after months of analysis by rank-and-file FDA reviewers. But internal correspondence show Prasad disagreed with staffers who planned to approve the shots for everyone 12 and older, similar to previous COVID vaccines. The scientists had concluded the benefit from the vaccines and the risk of COVID-19 outweighed the risk of possible side effects, which are rare. Instead Prasad decided the shots should be limited to those who face special risks from the virus— seniors or children and adults with underlying medical issues. Prasad explained that the COVID vaccine benefits must be reconsidered in light of falling rates of death and hospitalization and the possibility for vaccine side effects. It's the latest in a series of vaccine restrictions imposed by officials working under Kennedy, who has long questioned the benefits of vaccines. 'Even rare vaccination related harms both known and unknown now have higher chance of outweighing potential benefits' Prasad wrote in a five-page memo explaining his decision. COVID-19 remains a public health threat, resulting in 32,000 to 51,000 U.S. deaths and more than 250,000 hospitalizations since last fall, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most at risk for hospitalization are seniors and children under 2 — especially infants under 6 months. Top FDA leaders are typically not involved in the review of individual products. Officials like Prasad can overrule staffers, but such cases are rare and often controversial. News of the FDA documents was first reported by the New York Times. Prasad was hired to lead the FDA's vaccine center in May, after the previous director, Dr. Peter Marks, was forced to resign over disagreements with Kennedy. An academic researcher specializing in cancer therapies, Prasad came to prominence during the pandemic for criticizing public health measures, including the FDA's approval of COVID boosters for healthy adults and children. Since arriving at the agency he has worked with FDA Commissioner Mark Makary on new guidelines that will limit approvals of future COVID boosters to higher-risk Americans, mainly seniors and those with medical conditions like asthma and obesity. Those limits match the terms FDA recently approved for Novavax's shot, Nuvaxovid and Moderna's mNexspike. Novavax's vaccine is the only protein-based coronavirus vaccine available in the U.S. Moderna's vaccine is an updated, lower-dose version of its existing mRNA-based vaccine. The review team for the Novavax vaccine pointed to data from a study in 30,000 adults, concluding that 'the risk-benefit assessment for this vaccine technology remains favorable.' FDA staff reached a similar conclusion for the Moderna vaccine, deeming it similar in safety and effectiveness to the company's original shot. Last week, the FDA finalized new warning labeling about the risk of myocarditis, a rare form of heart inflammation, on shots from Moderna and Pfizer, the other maker of an mRNA-based shot for COVID. In his 'override memo,' reversing FDA staff's decision on the Moderna shot, Prasad pointed to the ongoing risk of myocarditis and questions about its frequency. The agency ordered Moderna to conduct further studies of the risk as a condition for the approving its updated shot. A spokesman for the administration said Prasad 'has raised serious concerns' about the issue. 'We will not ignore these risks and will ensure that the gold standard of science is used for any decisions,' said Andrew Nixon, in an emailed statement. Outside researchers have noted that cases of the heart condition tend to resolve quickly and are less severe than those associated with COVID infection itself, which can also cause myocarditis.

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