
Medicaid cuts in Trump's 'big beautiful' bill will leave millions uninsured, threaten rural hospitals
The Senate on Tuesday voted 51-50 to pass the controversial spending measure after a marathon overnight voting session on amendments. But the bill will face another major test in the House, where Republicans have a razor-thin majority and some members have already raised objections to the legislation.
Recent changes to the bill would cut roughly $1.1 trillion in health-care spending over the next decade, according to new estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. More than $1 trillion of those cuts would come from Medicaid, a joint federal and state health insurance program for disabled and low-income Americans. The funding cuts go beyond coverage: the loss of that funding could gut many rural hospitals that disproportionately rely on federal spending.
The CBO estimates that the current version of the bill would result in 11.8 million people losing health insurance by 2034, with the majority of those people losing Medicaid coverage.
But the implications could be even bigger. Trump's bill combined with separate policy changes could result in an estimated 17 million people losing health insurance, said Robin Rudowitz, director of the program on Medicaid and the uninsured at health policy research organization KFF, in an interview. She said those other changes include new regulations that would dramatically limit access to Affordable Care Act Marketplace coverage and expiring enhanced ACA tax credits.
"If all of this comes to pass, it would represent the biggest roll back of health insurance coverage ever due to federal policy changes," Cynthia Cox, KFF's director of the program on the ACA, said in an analysis published on Tuesday.
Approximately 72 million Americans are currently enrolled in Medicaid, about one-fifth of the total U.S. population, according to government data. Medicaid is the primary payer for the majority of nursing home residents, and pays for around 40% of all births.
The Trump administration and its allies insist the cuts in the bill aim to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. Democrats have said they break the president's repeated promises not to touch the Medicaid program. Medicaid has been one of the most divisive issues throughout negotiations in both chambers, and some House Republicans have expressed reservations about how deep the cuts are.
"I get that they want to cut fraud, but taking a swipe across the top is not going to solve the issue," Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, president of the American Nurses Association, said in an interview.
She said the cuts could shutter hospitals and health centers in rural areas and lead to job losses for health-care staff like nurses.
The cuts in the bill come from several different provisions, but the lion's share of Medicare savings will come from two changes.
One would establish a new, strict national work requirement for certain Medicaid beneficiaries ages 19 to 64. It would require childless adults without disabilities and parents of children older than 14 to work, volunteer or attend school for at least 80 hours a month to keep their insurance coverage, unless they qualify for an exception.
Current law prohibits basing Medicaid eligibility on work requirements or work reporting rules, according to KFF.
The new work requirement in the bill won't kick in until 2026. It is projected to save about $325 billion over a decade, the CBO said.
An analysis published last week by the UC Berkeley Labor Center said that the work requirement would cause the most people to lose insurance and "poses an especially draconian barrier to older adults." The center said there is a steady drop-off in employment after age 50 due to factors "outside [people's] control," including deteriorating health, age discrimination and increasing responsibility to provide care for aging family members.
"These same factors make older adults particularly vulnerable to coverage loss under Medicaid work requirements," the analysis said.
People living in rural communities, such as seasonal farmers, may also struggle to find employment for parts of the year, said Mensik Kennedy of the American Nurses Association.
AARP, an advocacy group focusing on issues affecting those 50 and older in the U.S., sent a letter over the weekend to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., opposing another provision that would disqualify people who fail to meet Medicaid work requirements from receiving premium tax credits to purchase coverage through the ACA Marketplaces.
"This creates a steep coverage cliff for those in their 50s and early 60s – particularly for those nearing retirement or working part-time – who may be left with no affordable coverage option at all," the group said.
Another driving source of Medicaid savings will come from a provision that will cap and gradually reduce the tax that states can impose on hospitals, health plans and other medical providers. Those provider taxes are designed to help fund state Medicaid programs, with the federal government matching a portion of the state's spending.
Some members of the Trump administration and conservative lawmakers argue that it is a loophole for states to receive disproportionately more federal funds than they contribute.
The bill's restrictions on provider taxes and another strategy called state-directed payments would cut spending by a combined $375 billion, according to the CBO report.
But some GOP senators and experts raised concerns that capping provider taxes would threaten a critical funding stream for rural hospitals, which could force them and other health centers to close. Mensik Kennedy said health-care providers in rural reas, particularly critical access hospitals, rely more on Medicaid funding to support them compared to those in urban areas.
"You're going to see closures of rural hospitals that are the backbone of their community and were already struggling financially. You're going to see half a million job losses," Mensik Kennedy said.
She said pregnant women in rural areas could be forced to drive 30, 40 or 60 miles to deliver a baby, while emergency medical services could have to drive an hour to reach a patient having a heart attack.
Patients in rural communities already have higher rates of chronic illnesses and mortality since they have limited access to care, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Senate Republicans have added a $25 billion fund to the bill to help rural hospitals stay open in the face of Medicaid cuts.
But Mensik Kennedy said that fund is "putting a bucket of water on the house fire," adding that it is not enough to offset the cuts from the cap on provider taxes and other provisions.
Cuts in overall Medicaid funding for rural hospitals would exceed 20% in more than half of states, according to a report from the the National Rural Health Association.
Senate Republicans handed a win to drugmakers after they added back a provision into the bill that would exempt more medicines from the Inflation Reduction Act's Medicare drug price negotiations.
Under the bill, medicines used to treat multiple rare diseases will be exempt from those price talks between Medicare and manufacturers. The Senate initially left out that provision, called the ORPHAN Cures Act, in its first draft of the bill last month.
The pharmaceutical industry argues that excluding those drugs from the negotiations will encourage more investments in treatments for rare conditions. Currently, only drugs that treat a single rare disease or condition can be exempted from price talks.
"The ORPHAN Cures Act will enable more options for Americans living with rare disease," the trade group Biotechnology Innovation Organization wrote in a post on X last week. The group also said only 5% of rare diseases have an approved treatment, while the economic toll of rare conditions in the U.S. surpassed $997 billion in 2019.
But on Tuesday, drug pricing group Patients For Affordable Drugs Now called on the House to remove the ORPHAN Cures Act from the bill and allow Medicare drug price negotiations to deliver more savings to patients.
The decision to include it in the legislation "moves us in the wrong direction, undermining hard-fought progress to lower drug prices," Merith Basey, executive director of the group, said in a statement.
"Pharma lobbyists will stop at nothing to maintain industry profits, and when a majority of the Senate caves to their interests, it's a reminder to Americans why they're paying the highest drug prices in the world. Simply put: it's because Congress allows it," Basey said.
She called it a "completely unnecessary $5 billion giveaway" to the pharmaceutical industry, referring to CBO estimates for how much the ORPHAN Cures Act would cost taxpayers over the next decade.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Number of Democratic voters who are ‘extremely motivated' to vote in next election skyrockets
Nearly three-quarters of Democratic voters say they are 'extremely motivated' to cast their ballots in the 2026 midterm elections, a dramatic uptick from four years ago, polling shows. Just six months after Republicans took control of the White House and Congress, 72 percent of Democrats and Democratic-aligned voters say they are 'extremely motivated' to vote in the next election, a CNN poll conducted by SSRS this month found. By contrast, only 50 percent of Republicans say the same. Democrats are now looking to enter midterm elections in 2026 under similar circumstances as 2018 in an attempt to break up the GOP's control of both chambers of Congress and the White House. During the 2018 elections, voters dealt a massive blow to President Donald Trump's first-term agenda, with House Democrats gaining 23 seats to take control of the House. In October 2022, two years into President Joe Biden's term when Democrats narrowly controlled the trifecta, just 44 percent of Democratic voters expressed the same motivation to vote in the midterm. That figure was just slightly higher for Republicans, with 48 percent saying they were eager to vote. In that election, Republicans clinched the House of Representatives while Democrats retained control of the Senate. Still, the poll shows Democrats could have some work cut out for them. Just 28 percent of respondents said they view the Democratic Party favorably. Meanwhile, 33 percent expressed a favorable view of the Republican Party. 'I think that the Democratic Party, we have a lot of work to do to make sure we are meeting voters where they are, listening to what they have to say, and talking to them about issues that they want us to take action on,' Virginia Democratic Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan told CNN in response to the poll. "What's going to matter is what we're doing on the ground in these districts.' Recovering from Kamala Harris' defeat to Trump in 2024, Democrats are looking to harness an electorate that they lost in the last election. A separate poll by Lake Research Partners and Way to Win analyzed 'Biden skippers,' those living in battleground states who voted for Biden in 2020 but sat out of the 2024 presidential election. The survey poked holes in the idea that Harris was 'too far left.' Progressive lawmaker Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez topped the list of public figures respondents viewed positively, with 78 percent having a favorable view of Sanders and 67 percent having a favorable view of Ocasio-Cortez. Republicans are also making moves ahead of the 2026 midterms. The White House is already strategizing to ensure the GOP retains the trifecta. The plan reportedly includes Trump returning to the campaign trail as well as him having a hand in advising which candidates run and which 'stay put' in the upcoming election, sources told Politico.


Axios
23 minutes ago
- Axios
EU trade deal with Trump helps Europe ditch Russian fuels
The new trade deal that President Trump unveiled with the European Union includes a European pledge to buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy. Why it matters: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said it will help the bloc further wean itself off Russian gas. The $750 billion is spread across three years, she told reporters in Scotland on Sunday. The big picture:"We still have too much Russian LNG that is coming through the back door ... to our European Union," von der Leyen said, and also cited some continued oil shipments. "We want to absolutely get rid of Russian fossil fuels, and therefore it is much welcome to purchase the more affordable and better LNG from the United States," she said. EU pipeline imports of gas from Russia, once its dominant supplier, have fallen greatly. But imports of Russian LNG remain substantial. What we're watching: EU members' purchases of U.S. LNG and oil have risen sharply since Russia invaded Ukraine. And European energy companies have already been signing deals for future LNG volumes from U.S. projects that are planned or already under construction. The bottom line: Details are lacking. The big question is how much this increases purchases that would have occurred anyway. ClearView Energy Partners, in a note, said that even if the $250B annually includes existing U.S. energy exports to the EU of roughly $78B per year, it would still be a big jump. The total "would far outstrip" U.S. energy purchases in Trump's "phase one" deal with China, ClearView said.


New York Post
23 minutes ago
- New York Post
Good riddance to UNESCO — a hate-America shouting gallery
President Donald Trump is pulling America out of UNESCO for the third time. Maybe this time it'll be for good. Once lauded for its work in preserving important cultural sites, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizations became a platform for miseducation by every tinpot tyrant trying to score points by defaming America and its allies. It also adopted a full-on woke agenda, backing divisive DEI and social-justice causes that, as a Team Trump aide explained, conflicted with American values. Advertisement 'Continued involvement in UNESCO is not in the national interest of the United States,' the State Department declared. The agency's focus on the UN's 'Sustainable Development Goals,' for example, follows the Paris Climate Accords program of deindustrializing the developed world, while paying the Third World to help it catch up. It admitted the 'State of Palestine' as a full member, though the United States does not recognize such a state, believing the Palestinian issue should be decided by Israel and Palestinian Arabs, not the striped-pants brigade from third-party nations. Advertisement UNESCO has also politicized Jewish holy sites, calling Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem a 'mosque,' which it never was. And it's been China's running dog, promoting Beijing's domination of Tibetan and Uyghur culture — arguably genocidal — as perfectly fine. UNESCO's odious record goes back decades. Washington first withdrew from the group in 1984, under Ronald Reagan, when it sought to have US media companies submit to the control of a 'New World Information Order.' Advertisement Trump's withdrawal from UNESCO follows his exit from the UN's equally vile Human Rights Council, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's sanctioning of its 'special rapporteur' on Palestinian issues, Francesca Albanese, who was obsessed with falsely depicting Israel as a perpetrator of genocide. Those moves were well deserved. Call it a Turtle Bay trifecta.