
How healthcare cuts in the ‘big, beautiful bill' will affect Americans
The passage of President Trump's 'one big, beautiful bill" has left some hospitals, doctors and patient-advocacy groups reeling. Millions of people will lose health-insurance coverage, and struggling hospitals across the country may have to close, lay off staff or shut down some services, they say. States will also face difficult budget choices as federal funds are reduced.
'The magnitude of these reductions—and the number of individuals who will lose health coverage—cannot be simply dismissed as waste, fraud, and abuse," Rick Pollack, president of the American Hospital Association, said after the House narrowly passed the bill. Trump signed the bill into law on Friday, Independence Day.
The act slashes over $1 trillion in healthcare spending over the next decade, mostly from Medicaid, the joint federal and state program that provides health insurance to poor Americans. It is the biggest cut to federal healthcare spending—and to Medicaid—in history.
The legislation's health provisions, including work requirements for Medicaid recipients, represent a fundamental shift in the federal government's approach to healthcare for its poorest citizens, both Republicans and Democrats have said.
'This is a much more conservative approach to healthcare," said David Mansdoerfer, a former health official in the first Trump administration. 'The big beautiful bill would represent a significant mindset change for federal safety-net programs."
There will be nearly 8.7 million fewer people covered by Medicaid over the next decade because of the bill, according to an analysis by Manatt Health, a consulting firm that advises states and healthcare providers on Medicaid policy.
Other provisions in the bill, including more-stringent requirements for people to enroll and retain health-insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, are projected to drive up the number of uninsured, healthcare experts said.
Many who study healthcare policy say that people who lose insurance, or people who live in rural areas where doctors and hospitals are closing up shop, often delay preventive care, sometimes costing the system more later.
Many of the Medicaid policy changes target the 40 states that expanded eligibility for Medicaid to low-income able-bodied adults. Those enrollees will now have to prove their incomes are below a certain threshold every six months to remain on Medicaid, instead of annually, as well as show that they have spent 80 hours a month working, volunteering or attending school.
People in the lowest 10% of income distribution in the U.S. stand to lose noncash government benefits such as Medicaid coverage and food stamps worth nearly $1,600 annually on average, according to an analysis of an earlier version of the bill by the Congressional Budget Office.
Hospitals say they are big losers under the new legislation. More uninsured people will mean more uncompensated healthcare costs, they say. And many hospitals now face reductions in some supplemental payments that most states have come to rely on to augment low Medicaid payment rates.
Over the next decade, Medicaid payments to hospitals will be reduced by nearly $665 billion, an 18.2% reduction, according to analysis by Manatt. Meanwhile, hospitals' uncompensated care costs are projected to increase by upward of $84 billion in 2034, according to an analysis of the bill by America's Essential Hospitals, which represents some 350 hospitals nationwide. That number takes into account lower Medicaid payments and Medicaid payment shortfalls, as well as costs from caring for the uninsured.
'It is a double-whammy. We're going to have many millions more uninsured individuals showing up needing care," said Beth Feldpush, the group's senior vice president of advocacy and policy. 'But at the same time, hospitals won't be able to backfill financial holes."
Medicaid payment rates are notoriously low compared with other types of insurance. States have increasingly boosted these rates in recent years through so-called state-directed payments, which can raise Medicaid payment rates to levels comparable with Medicare or even average commercial insurance rates.
The bill clamps down on these payments. States that have expanded their Medicaid programs under Obamacare to include more low-income adults would have state-directed payment rates capped at 100% of Medicare rates; states that haven't adopted expansion would be capped at 110% of Medicare rates. The change will reduce federal spending by $149.4 billion over a decade, according to a CBO analysis.
Hospitals in about 30 states will likely see reductions in the state-directed payments they receive once cuts go into effect, according to an analysis by KFF, a health-policy nonprofit.
State hospital associations said these payments are lifelines for hospitals, many of which operate at or near a loss. Even before the bill's passage, several hospitals across the country laid off employees, froze hiring and tightened spending, citing the impending cuts to Medicaid as a factor. Providence, one of the country's largest health systems, said last month that it had implemented a restructuring plan that would lead to 600 employees losing their jobs.
Other hospitals say they are bracing for the changes to come. Our Lady of the Angels Hospital, a safety-net hospital in Bogalusa, La., said it would have to consider closing its doors, and the University of Kentucky said it might have to pause construction on a new building dedicated to caring for cancer patients if state-directed payment cuts go into effect.
The cuts may also eat into the earnings of for-profit hospitals like HCA Healthcare and Tenet Healthcare that have enjoyed lucrative boosts to their bottom lines from state-directed payments.
The National Rural Health Association said it was worried that the bill's provisions would significantly hamper healthcare access in rural areas. Senate Republicans added a $50 billion relief fund to the bill at the last minute for rural hospitals, but Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine), who voted against the bill, said it wouldn't be enough to offset the other changes.
For insurers, the biggest impact of the legislation is clear: fewer customers. Though Medicaid is a government program, most enrollees get their benefits through insurers that are paid with state and federal money.
'From a health insurer's perspective, that's a lot of business to lose," says Cynthia Cox, a vice president at KFF, a health-research nonprofit.
The industry impact will be heaviest among companies with a focus on Medicaid. Among the largest are Centene, which has nearly 13 million Medicaid enrollees, Elevance Health, UnitedHealth Group, Molina Healthcare and CVS Health's Aetna. 'Revenue and profits will be pressured," said Sarah James, an analyst with Cantor Fitzgerald.
A Wellcare location in New York City, part of Centene Corp., one of the largest Medicaid insurers.
The cutbacks to Medicaid will come on top of blows to another key insurance market—Obamacare marketplace plans. Federal subsidies that help people pay for Obamacare plans are set to shrink next year, and the new legislation doesn't fill the gap. Along with other Trump administration changes to the rules for Obamacare plans, the reduction in subsidies is projected to reduce the number of people with coverage by another 5.1 million if Congress doesn't extend them.
In Obamacare and Medicaid, the shrinking rolls are likely to create another headache for insurers. When people drop out of insurance markets, the healthier ones are often the first to go. That leaves a sicker, more costly pool of customers for insurers, which then seek to get paid more to cover those expenses. They demand higher premiums, either from state Medicaid agencies or from Obamacare customers.
Nationally, states will have roughly $1.3 trillion dollars less in federal and state funds to spend on Medicaid over the next decade, according to Manatt. Most of the reductions—93%—will be in states that have expanded Medicaid to cover able-bodied adults.
One of the biggest impacts will come from the bill's crackdown on so-called provider taxes, which states levy on hospitals and other healthcare providers to trigger federal matching funds. Most hospitals receive back more than they pay in taxes through higher payment rates via state-directed payments and other mechanisms.
Currently, the taxes are capped at 6% of healthcare providers' net patient revenue, but will be reduced to 3.5% in expansion states. In non-expansion states such as Florida and Texas, tax rates will be frozen in place up to the 6% maximum on the date the bill is signed into law.
Healthcare workers last month protested the Medicaid cuts proposed in the bill that President Trump signed Friday.
The taxes have been criticized as a gimmick that exploits federal taxpayers without requiring states to put any skin in the game. President Obama twice proposed clamping down on provider taxes, including in his 2013 budget, which would have reduced the maximum rate to 3.5%.
States use provider taxes to fund state-directed payments to hospitals and other providers. Some, such as North Carolina, have also designed the taxes to fund their Medicaid expansions.
On a percentage basis, red and purple expansion states will be hit hardest since many of them tend to rely heavily on provider taxes, says Avi Herring, a Manatt managing director. Montana faces a 21% reduction in state and federal funds; Arizona, Kentucky and Virginia are each looking at reductions of about 18%.
The largest blue states, which tend to have more generous Medicaid programs, face far bigger dollar cuts, though they are somewhat smaller proportionally. California is expected to see a 13% reduction. New York's spending will be reduced by nearly 9%.
Write to Dominique Mosbergen at dominique.mosbergen@wsj.com, Joseph Walker at joseph.walker@wsj.com, Liz Essley Whyte at liz.whyte@wsj.com and Josh Ulick at josh.ulick@wsj.com
Hashtags

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


Economic Times
20 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump is already making the next Fed chair's job harder
Reuters U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testifies before a House Financial Services Committee hearing on "The Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress," on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump has acknowledged the intense pressure he's laying on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates is, in fact, making it harder for the central bank to do just he may also be sabotaging the person he picks to succeed Jerome Powell, whose term as chair expires next pledging to pick 'somebody that wants to cut rates,' Trump has potentially undermined the next chair's standing even before they're selected. The public and investors will likely question whether the nominee will safeguard the central bank's independence or bow to Trump's demands. 'People will wonder what sort of promises or implicit promises or winks or nods may have gone on in order to get the nomination,' said Jon Faust, a fellow at the Center for Financial Economics at Johns Hopkins University and a former special adviser to Powell. 'I think that's very bad for the next Fed chair. I think that's very bad for the credibility of the Fed.' Trump has pointed to recent tame inflation readings and lower policy rates in other countries in his calls for the Fed to reduce borrowing costs, while maintaining the central bank can raise interest rates should inflation re-accelerate. He's also argued the Fed — which was late to hike interest rates to counter the inflation surge that followed the Covid-19 pandemic — has often waited too long to adjust its policy. In an emailed statement, White House spokesman Kush Desai said it was Trump's First Amendment right 'to voice his concern about flawed policymaking, and that includes monetary policy that's holding our country's economic resurgence back.'Powell hasn't responded directly to Trump's badgering. Instead, he has emphasized that policymakers are squarely focused on doing what they judge to be in the best interest of the economy and within their legal mandate.'I have a little more than 10 months left on my term as chair and all I want, and all anybody at the Fed wants, is to deliver an economy that has price stability, maximum employment, financial stability,' Powell said on July 1. Right now, Powell and his colleagues have decided that means holding off on rate cuts. They want more clarity on how Trump's tariffs and other policies will affect inflation and employment. That's stoked Trump's ire, and others in his administration have ramped up the attacks in recent days.'I fully understand that my strong criticism of him makes it more difficult for him to do what he should be doing, lowering Rates,' Trump said of Powell on social media last LessonsIn recent decades, elected officials and Fed policymakers alike have aimed to insulate monetary policy from political interference. That's a result of painful lessons learned when central bankers yielded to outside Volcker, who became Fed chair in 1979, is remembered for waging a dogged fight to quell an inflation problem that many believe went unchecked because the Fed gave in to pressure from President Richard Nixon. Economic historians credit Volcker with reestablishing the Fed's credibility on price stability and setting the stage for a long period of low lesson, and similar examples from around the globe, have led researchers to broadly agree that economies perform better when central banks set rates independently. 'If you believe that the central bank is going to make decisions that even marginally tilt more toward political pressures, you're going to expect higher inflation, more volatility in the macroeconomy,' said Julia Coronado, founder of research firm MacroPolicy Perspectives. 'All of that has a price in the bond market and in financial markets generally.'Coronado said she expects the next Fed leader to be less invested in the central bank's independence than the last few chairs.'It's not going to be some arsonist that comes in and lights the institution on fire. I think it'll be more incremental, but still meaningful,' she said. 'At the margin, they're going to try to guide that committee to easier policy because that will be the political pressure and it will have some impact.'The CandidatesTrump has said he has three or four people in mind to succeed Powell and his pick will come 'very soon.''If I think somebody's going to keep the rates where they are or whatever, I'm not going to put them in. I'm going to put somebody that wants to cut rates,' he said last the White House spokesman, said the president 'will continue to nominate the most qualified individuals who can best serve the American people.' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent – who is reportedly among those under consideration – said on June 30 the administration will work on naming a successor over the coming weeks and months. Other candidates said to be in contention include Kevin Warsh, a former Fed governor, and a current governor, Christopher Waller. Kevin Hassett, the White House's National Economic Council director, and former World Bank President David Malpass are also said to be in the mix. Bessent, Hassett and Malpass have echoed Trump's view that the Fed should already be cutting rates. Waller, citing recent economic data, has said a rate cut could be appropriate as soon as this month. He has also touted the importance of central bank independence. While in wait-and-see mode for now, most Fed officials still expect the central bank will cut rates at least once this year. And some analysts have noted economic conditions could evolve in a way that makes the rate cuts Trump seeks a less contentious policy choice even before a new chair takes addition, checks on the Fed chief will remain regardless of whom Trump picks. The chair is just one of 19 policymakers on the Federal Open Market Committee, and one of 12 who vote on interest-rate next chair could still be viewed as having credibility if they offer a reasonable intellectual framework for lowering rates, said Derek Tang, an economist at LHMeyer/Monetary Policy Analytics in Washington. He said he'll be watching how investors' expectations for future inflation react once Trump names a pick as an indication of whether markets view the choice as credible.'The candidate has to thread a needle to be pleasing enough to Trump,' Tang said. 'But then at the same time be able to convince the market they're going to stand up for Fed independence and defend the inflation mandate. They have to do both things at once, which is hard.'


Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
What becomes of Republicans who cross King Donald?
DONALD TRUMP'S One Big Beautiful Bill act (BBB) is a Frankenstein's monster of hand-outs, carve-outs, tax cuts and ideological splurges and purges. Independent analysis suggests it will increase America's deficit , stunt the economy and hit the poorest hardest. A recent poll by YouGov and The Economist found that just over one in three Americans support the bill. Elon Musk, a big Republican donor and a former 'first buddy' of Mr Trump, is so unhappy that he is proposing to create a new political party. Even so, only five Republican members of Congress voted against it—fewer than any budget of Mr Trump's first term. Since becoming president for the first time in 2017, Mr Trump has reshaped the Republican Party in his image. Loyalty comes before all else in the Trump Party: Republicans who cross him could find themselves on the receiving end of a social-media rant or, worse, facing a Trump-endorsed primary challenger. After Thom Tillis (pictured) voted against the BBB , Mr Trump took to Truth Social, his social-media platform, to condemn the senator from North Carolina, calling for a loyalist to run against him. Mr Tillis chose to withdraw from his re-election campaign altogether. His exit is a boon for Democrats who hope to win his seat next year. After combing through 52,792 of the president's social-media posts, The Economist has identified 30 Republican members of Congress whom Mr Trump has publicly scorned or sought to displace since his first inauguration (see chart 1). Of those 30, ten went on to resign or decide not to run for re-election, including Mr Tillis. Nine faced a Trump-endorsed primary opponent. Five are standing for re-election in 2026. The data is reminiscent of the famous epigram 'divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived'. Of course, the parallel to Henry VIII is unfair. Unlike the murderous English monarch, Mr Trump shows clemency. He publicly reconciled with seven of the 30 (although the feud resumed in four cases). The president's ire has been directed at one in 20 Republicans who have served in the past eight years. That this number is not greater can be credited to the fear instilled by six occasions when a candidate endorsed by Mr Trump defeated a Republican incumbent. By this method, he dispatched four of the ten House Republicans who voted to impeach him in 2021, along with Representatives Mark Sanford, an early critic, and Bob Good, a hard-right conservative caught on tape implying that Mr Trump was not a 'true conservative'. His endorsement is so valuable that one Republican congressman from Kentucky took to airing ads in south Florida, aimed to reach Mr Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort. The president's ability to dislodge unfriendly colleagues is not absolute. Three Republicans have survived a Trump-endorsed challenge. Nancy Mace, a congresswoman from South Carolina, survived by embracing Mr Trump, recanting her previous, mild criticisms. Two of the remaining Republicans who supported Mr Trump's second impeachment—Senator Lisa Murkowski and Representative Dan Newhouse—defeated primary opponents under voting systems which allow voters to cross party lines. Ranked-choice voting in Alaska and the two-round system in Washington state meant they could draw on support from sympathetic or tactical Democrats and independents. Mr Trump appears to understand the limits of his powers. He has notably avoided feuding with Representative David Valadao of California, and despite calling her 'absolutely atrocious' in 2022 he has been relatively muted about Senator Susan Collins of Maine. Although both of them voted for his impeachment, they also represented constituencies that leaned towards the Democrats (Mr Valadao now represents a more Republican-leaning district). Maine uses ranked-choice voting and California uses a two-round system. Mr Trump's strategic restraint could be to preserve his record. 'I am 42-0 over the last two cycles and never even tried to run up the score,' he said of his endorsements in 2022. For their part, Democrats are happy to enjoy the red-on-red scraps. In 2022, Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, made the controversial decision to use Democratic campaign funds to boost pro-Trump Republicans. Though arguably corrosive for democracy, in a narrow sense the gamble paid off. In three of the six races where Mr Trump unseated his critics, the Republican replacements went on to lose the general election. Be careful what you wish for Republicans in competitive districts have to weigh the risks of crossing Mr Trump against the risks of being too closely associated with him as voters' dissatisfaction rises. Mr Trump's loyal base, who vote in Republican primaries, are pitted against moderate general-election voters. This dynamic is a gift for the Democrats, who have a narrow path to regaining the Senate in next year's midterm elections (see chart 2). In North Carolina, Mr Tillis will probably be replaced by a less popular Republican nominee. In Texas, the state's scandal-plagued hard-right attorney-general leads primary polls by double digits, taking advantage of the president's attacks on the incumbent senator, 'hopeless' John Cornyn (to use Mr Trump's epithet). The fracas substantially improves Democrats' chances of winning the two states, which are key to their Senate prospects. Mr Trump has made himself inextricable from the Republican Party. This gives him a lot of power. But from a tactical point of view, he can still be a liability for his party. What-becomes-of-Republicans-who-cross-King-Donald- What-becomes-of-Republicans-who-cross-King-Donald- What-becomes-of-Republicans-who-cross-King-Donald- What-becomes-of-Republicans-who-cross-King-Donald- What-becomes-of-Republicans-who-cross-King-Donald-

Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Can Donald Trump force a ceasefire in Gaza?
TWO WEEKS after Israel's dramatic war against Iran, Binyamin Netanyahu is arriving in Washington to bask in glory alongside Donald Trump. But to receive a victor's reception at the White House, Israel's prime minister may have to yield to America's president on another matter. As the two leaders meet on July 7th, Mr Trump is hoping to be able to announce an end to the war in Gaza. Thousands of kilometres from Washington, in Doha, negotiators for Israel and Hamas, the Islamist movement that began the war with its surprise attack and massacre 21 months ago, will be in feverish talks to seal a deal in time for Mr Netanyahu's visit to America. The parties have agreed in principle on the framework of an agreement. During an initial 60-day truce, half of the estimated 50 Israeli hostages still held in Gaza, 20 of whom are believed to be alive, will be released in exchange for more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. During the same period there will be further talks aimed at a permanent ceasefire. But a number of important details are still in dispute. Hamas wants Israel to withdraw from most of the areas it currently holds in Gaza and to allow international organisations to distribute aid in the strip, rather than rely on the distribution hubs Israel has set up (hundreds of Palestinians have been killed trying to reach these hubs since they began operating in early June). The group also wants clear guarantees that the 60-day truce will indeed bring an end to the war. A similar ceasefire earlier this year collapsed when Israel resumed military operations and closed Gaza to aid deliveries after the first phase had ended. Mr Netanyahu has said the group's demands are 'unacceptable'. Before taking off for Washington he told reporters that he is determined that 'Hamas will not be [in Gaza]' once the war is over. Yet there are reasons to be optimistic that this round of talks will indeed end in a deal. Mr Trump, flush from the ceasefire he imposed on Israel and Iran after America's strikes on Iran's nuclear programme, likes the idea of himself as an unparalleled peacemaker. He has made it clear that he expects both sides to accept the deal, claiming he will be 'very firm' with Mr Netanyahu. Mr Netanyahu, for his part, wants Mr Trump's backing for more strikes if Iran tries to revive its nuclear and missile programmes, as Israeli intelligence fears it is trying to do. Mr Trump may not want to be dragged into another round of fighting with Iran, so Mr Netanyahu has more of an incentive to accept a deal in Gaza this time. At the same, the threat from his far-right coalition partners to leave the government should he decide to end the war is becoming less compelling. Israel will have to hold an election by October 2026 at the latest. For Mr Netanyahu, whose public image has been boosted by the strikes against Iran, an earlier one may not seem like a bad bet. Hamas, too, is under increasing pressure to compromise. With Iran drastically weakened, it has lost one of its main backers in the region. It still has the support of Qatar and Turkey, but both are anxious to remain in Mr Trump's good books and have made it clear to the Hamas leaders they expect them to play along. Within Gaza, Hamas has lost ground, both to Israel and to local gangs. A ceasefire now could be its best chance to retain some of its power. Yet even if a deal is reached this week, the reprieve is likely to be temporary. For the 60-day truce to lead to an end of the war, Mr Trump will have to keep up pressure on both sides. And the would-be peacemaker-in-chief is not known for his attention span.