logo
Kansas faces $3.77B in Medicaid cuts, thousands to lose coverage under Trump's bill: report

Kansas faces $3.77B in Medicaid cuts, thousands to lose coverage under Trump's bill: report

Yahoo12-06-2025
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Kansas will lose more than $3 billion in Medicaid funding, and thousands of Kansans will lose access to health insurance under Trump's proposed bill, according to a new report.
New modeling shows 13,000 fewer Kansans would be able to enroll in Medicaid under the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' recently passed by the U.S. House, and the state would lose $3.77 billion in total Medicaid funding.
Man charged in death of Platte County sports reporter shot on I-29
The modeling showed $2.29 billion in lost federal Medicaid funding alone—and $3.77 billion when combined with associated state funding losses over a 10-year period.
Such losses would likely lead to higher uninsured rates and more financial struggles for rural hospitals already on the brink of closure.
These results were recently released by Manatt Health, which conducted the analysis at the request of Kansas health philanthropies United Methodist Health Ministry Fund and REACH Healthcare Foundation. The two organizations wanted to better understand the financial and enrollment impacts of the bill, which would cut $700 billion from Medicaid and is awaiting a vote in the Senate.
Medicaid, the public health insurance program that covers more than 366,000 Kansans, is funded jointly by the state and federal government. It provides low-income parents, children, seniors and people with disabilities with health insurance. Adults who do not have children do not qualify for Medicaid in Kansas.
'If this bill passes, it will cause long-lasting harm to thousands of families across Kansas and seriously threaten the survival of rural hospitals across the state,' said Brenda Sharpe, president and CEO at REACH Healthcare Foundation.
The analysis shows Kansas will face significant coverage losses and funding reductions over the next 10 years.
Manatt said the losses are even greater than shown in the analysis, as data limitations made it unable to model all the provisions in the bill.
The estimates do not account for prohibitions on states setting up any new provider taxes or increasing assessments for other providers. That will cause Kansas health care providers, including nursing homes and other health providers, to lose critical funding over time and cause them to become even more financially vulnerable, Manatt said in a news release Wednesday.
Coverage losses due to the bill's changes to the Affordable Care Act's Health Insurance Marketplace also couldn't be modeled. However, they will result in additional Kansans losing health insurance, according to Manatt.
Not only will the bill remove people's health insurance, it also will remove food assistance. The bill includes $300 billion in cuts from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
'Congress is trying to rush a plan through the process that will take health care and food assistance away from tens of thousands of Kansans, including children, seniors and people with disabilities,' said David Jordan, president and CEO at the Health Fund. 'At a time when hospitals are trying to keep their doors open and working families are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables, we cannot afford these cuts.'
Kansas already has more hospitals at risk of closure than any other state in the country. A recent report from the University of Kansas School of Nursing highlights the growing 'maternal care desert' in Kansas.
Manatt said 63 rural hospitals are currently at risk, and 87% of Kansas rural hospitals are operating in the red. These hospitals struggle to survive with existing federal funding – and provisions in the bill would cause them to lose billions, making it even harder to stay open.
When rural hospitals close, it removes job opportunities and access to health care, creating a ripple effect in small communities, Manatt said.
You can read the full report below or by clicking here.
Medicaid-Cut-Impacts-to-KansasDownload
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Is Mexican Coke Healthier Than US Coca-Cola? What to Know
Is Mexican Coke Healthier Than US Coca-Cola? What to Know

Newsweek

time26 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Is Mexican Coke Healthier Than US Coca-Cola? What to Know

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump has announced that Coca-Cola will swap high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) with cane sugar in a win for Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative. Mexico is one of several countries where Coca-Cola already does this, but does it mean their Coke is healthier? The "short answer," according to Dr. Robert Lustig, who has spent more than a decade treating childhood obesity, is that "there is absolutely no difference between sucrose (Mexican Coke) and high-fructose corn syrup (U.S. Coke)." "They are both equally bad for you," Lustig told Newsweek. "They both cause mitochondrial dysfunction and chronic metabolic disease." Mexican Coke vs U.S. Coca-Cola Mexican Coke vs U.S. Coca-Cola Getty/Newsweek "The only difference is price," he added. "High-fructose corn syrup is half the cost, so manufacturers can afford to put more in, and make more profits. Otherwise, they're exactly the same." Coca-Cola has weighed in on this conversation itself, emphasizing that HFCS is safe. "The name sounds complex, but high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) – which we use to sweeten some of our beverages – is actually just a sweetener made from corn," the company said in a post on X discussing Trump's announcement. "It's safe; it has about the same number of calories per serving as table sugar and is metabolized in a similar way by your body." "The American Medical Association has confirmed that HFCS is no more likely to contribute to obesity than table sugar or other full-calorie sweeteners," the post continued. "Please be assured that Coca-Cola brand soft drinks do not contain any harmful substances." Why Is Coke Swapping Corn Syrup for Cane Sugar? On Wednesday, Trump announced on Truth Social that Coca-Cola would use cane sugar because it's "just better." "I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so," he said on his social media platform. "I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them — You'll see. It's just better!" Coca-Cola has not yet confirmed the move itself, telling Newsweek: "We appreciate President Trump's enthusiasm for our iconic Coca‑Cola brand. More details on new innovative offerings within our Coca‑Cola product range will be shared soon." Health Secretary Kennedy, who does not deny that cane sugar is also unhealthy, has long spoken out about HFCS as part of his campaign against ultra-processed foods. Discussing the sweetener on an episode of Dr. Phil earlier this year, he said: "If you want to drink Coke, drink a Mexican Coke because they don't allow it down there." Kennedy, and other campaigners, say that HFCS has slightly different metabolic consequences. For example, cane sugar is 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose, while corn syrup is often 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose, according to the Corn Refiners Association. This slightly higher level of fructose could put extra pressure on your liver, which has to convert fructose into glucose so you can use it for energy, according to Healthline. Newsweek has contacted the United States Department of Health and Human Services, via email, for comment. What Would Coke's Shift to Cane Sugar Cost? Replace HFCS with cane sugar in some of Coca-Cola's U.S. products could carry a steep price tag and reshape agricultural demand across the country. The move would require substantial investment in new infrastructure and supply chains, according to industry analysts cited by Reuters. Ron Sterk, a senior editor at SOSland Publishing, an information provider for the ingredients industry in the U.S., told the outlet: "Food and beverage industries started to use corn syrup in the U.S. in the past because of costs. It is cheaper than sugar." Similarly, the Corn Refiners Association told Reuters: "The resulting economic shock wave would lead to rural job losses and significant economic consequences to communities across the country." One analyst, Heather Jones of Heather Jones Research, estimated that Coca-Cola's switching to cane sugar completely would cost more than $1 billion "given the current price gap between (HFCS) and cane sugar and the probability of very large price increases for the latter." What Happens Next Coca-Cola has not issued formal confirmation of a planned switch to cane sugar in its U.S. products, nor has it released a timetable for any such change. The company indicated new product announcements are forthcoming but did not specifically mention reformulating its flagship Coca-Cola beverage. It is also unclear if any regulatory or industrywide changes will follow as a result of the MAHA initiative or the White House's advocacy for reformulated foods.

Raskin notes ‘bipartisan urgency' for DOJ to release all Epstein files
Raskin notes ‘bipartisan urgency' for DOJ to release all Epstein files

The Hill

time28 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Raskin notes ‘bipartisan urgency' for DOJ to release all Epstein files

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said Thursday that he thought the Trump administration would have to turn over all the 'Epstein files' due to what he characterized as significant bipartisan support for their release. 'We need total disclosure of the complete file, redacting only the names and the identities of the minor victims,' the Maryland Democrat said during an appearance on MSNBC. 'There is overwhelming bipartisan, popular demand, Congressional demand, to release all of this stuff.' Without control of the chamber, House Democrats are unable to do much on their own to force the release of any evidence held by the federal government. However, a resolution spearheaded by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to force a House vote on the matter has garnered bipartisan support from figures as wide-ranging as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.). Raskin is not an official co-sponsor on the resolution. The Maryland lawmaker, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, instead said Tuesday that Bondi and other top administration officials should testify about Epstein, and floated the possibility of a subpoena. 'I think the cat is out of the bag and they're going to have to turn everything over to us,' Raskin said on MSNBC Thursday. Many Democrats have seized on the controversy roiling the MAGA-verse to demand that the Trump administration release documents related to the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender. 'In other words, we're asking for exactly what Donald Trump was demanding and exactly what Pam Bondi was demanding before they got into power and got to look at everything,' Raskin said.

Democrats: Public ‘deserves to know' if Colbert was canceled for political reasons
Democrats: Public ‘deserves to know' if Colbert was canceled for political reasons

The Hill

time28 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Democrats: Public ‘deserves to know' if Colbert was canceled for political reasons

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) blasted CBS for announcing it will cancel comedian and host Stephen Colbert's 'Late Show,' pressing for more transparency on the decision. The move comes shortly after Colbert publicly took CBS's parent company Paramount Global to task for settling a $16 million lawsuit with President Trump. 'CBS canceled Colbert's show just THREE DAYS after Colbert called out CBS parent company Paramount for its $16M settlement with Trump — a deal that looks like bribery,' Warren wrote Thursday on social platform X. 'America deserves to know if his show was canceled for political reasons.' Schiff, who was a guest on Colbert's show Thursday — when the news broke — echoed his colleague's concerns in his own X post. 'If Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better,' he wrote. Warren posted a clip from Colbert's monologue Monday in which he blisteringly mocked Paramount Global over its payout to Trump in a dispute over a '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential election. Paramount is seeking approval from Trump's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for its merger deal with entertainment giant Skydance, Colbert noted. 'I believe this kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles: it's big fat bribe,' Colbert quipped. CBS announced the surprising move Thursday evening with a statement calling it 'purely a financial decision.' 'It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount,' the network said in a statement. 'Our admiration, affection and respect for the talents of Stephen Colbert and his incredible team made this agonizing decision even more difficult.' Colbert has helmed 'The Late Show' since 2015, when he took the reins from veteran host David Letterman. The program is the most-watched talk show during the 11:35 p.m. timeslot, averaging nearly 2.5 million viewers during the second quarter of this year. The comedian also has been one of Trump's fiercest late-night TV critics and frequently features Democratic guests who oppose the president, including Warren and Schiff. The looming merger and Trump-Paramount settlement had raised some speculation about Colbert's future in the shake-up. 'CBS should terminate his contract and pick almost anyone, right off the street, who would do better, and for FAR LESS MONEY,' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post last year. Colbert said during Thursday's episode that he learned the news a day earlier. 'It's not just the end of our show, but it's the end of 'The Late Show' on CBS. I'm not being replaced,' he said. 'This is all just going away.'

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