Medicaid cut reversal bill submitted by Hawley, who voted for them just days ago
Hawley's proposed "Protect Medicaid and Rural Hospitals Act" repeals the changes that Trump's bill, which was signed into law on July 4, made to both Medicaid state-directed payments and taxes states could impose on healthcare providers. It also doubles the federal Rural Health Transformation Program's funding to $10 billion starting in 2031.
"Now is the time to prevent any future cuts to Medicaid from going into effect,' Hawley said in a press release. 'We should also increase our support for rural hospitals around the country. Under the recent reconciliation bill, Missouri will see an extra $1 billion for hospitals over the next four years. I want to see Medicaid reductions stopped and rural hospitals fully funded permanently.'
GET TO KNOW YOUR CITY
Find Local Events Near You
Connect with a community of local professionals.
Explore All Events
Hawley wrote up an opinion piece in the New York Times in May titled "Don't Cut Medicaid," in which he called cuts to the federal healthcare system "morally wrong." He then voted for the bill that made those cuts mandatory.
He recently defended his flip-flop on the issue of Medicaid cuts, saying he voted for the bill because the legislation made it so that Missouri's rural hospitals are going to get $1 billion in funding over the next four years.
But health policy expert Emily Gee, who used to work as an economist at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told KSDK, "That's plainly not true."
She said each state will actually have to apply and meet strict criteria to qualify for those competitive nationwide funds.
"There's no guarantee that that will be the slice of the pie that Missouri gets," Gee said.
View KSDK's full report here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
36 minutes ago
A Georgia Republican governor candidate questions legality of rival's $10M campaign loan
ATLANTA -- A Republican candidate for Georgia governor asked a state ethics body Thursday to determine whether his GOP rival illegally lent $10 million to a campaign committee to evade restrictions under state campaign finance law. Attorney General Chris Carr's campaign lawyer asked the Georgia Ethics Commission for a legal opinion saying Lt. Gov. Burt Jones was prohibited from making the loan to his leadership committee, a special fundraising vehicle that allows the governor, lieutenant governor and legislative leaders to raise unlimited funds. A spokesperson for Jones called the complaint a 'weak attempt to get attention' in a statement. Carr and some other candidates for state office cannot have the so-called leadership committees for campaign fundraising under a 2021 state law that created the committees unless they win their party's nomination for governor or lieutenant governor. Instead, they are limited to candidate committees, which can raise a maximum of $8,400 from each donor. Opponents say that's an unfair advantage for incumbents. Jones and Carr are competing for the Republican nomination to succeed Gov. Brian Kemp, who legally can't run again after two terms. The GOP primary is next May, followed by the general election in November 2026. Jones filed documents showing he made loans of $7.5 million and $2.5 million to the WBJ Leadership Committee when he announced his long-anticipated run for governor on July 8. The cash infusion was part of Jones' strategy to set himself up as the front-runner in the race. Carr announced his run for governor last year, saying he needed a long runway to raise money because he isn't personally wealthy. Carr's campaign has been voicing concerns for months that Jones will use his leadership committee and his family wealth from a string of gas stations to win the primary. Bryan Tyson, a lawyer for Carr's campaign, on Thursday requested an advisory opinion from the Ethics Commission on whether the loans are legal. Tyson argued that under Georgia law, loans can be made only to a candidate committee, not to a freestanding political action committee, or even a leadership committee, which is allowed to coordinate with a candidate committee. Carr's campaign cited a 2022 federal judge's ruling that a leadership committee for Gov. Brian Kemp could not spend money to get Kemp reelected during the Republican primary that year. U.S. District Judge Mark Cohen found that the 'unequal campaign finance scheme' violated challenger David Perdue's First Amendment right to free speech. Jones spokesperson Kendyl Parker said in a statement she was 'not surprised by this weak attempt to get attention — it's exactly what you'd expect from a campaign that's losing steam with many months to go until Election Day.' Tyson suggested that if Jones could make a loan to the leadership committee and then raise unlimited sums to repay himself, he could give the repaid money to his candidate committee to spend in the primary. That would evade Cohen's ban on the use of leadership committee money in the primary. Tyson warned that such laundering would 'wash away contribution limits entirely.' The Ethics Commission must issue an advisory opinion within 60 days under state law. In a related complaint to the commission on Thursday, Tyson alleged that Jones broke state law because his previous financial disclosures didn't show that he had $10 million in cash or securities to be able to afford such large loans. Tyson pointed to a 2022 financial disclosure that showed Jones had a net worth of $12.4 million, but only $700,000 in cash and securities. The rest was tied up in the value of real estate and Jones' insurance agency, the disclosure stated. Tyson noted that Jones' 2024 disclosure showed he hadn't sold real estate or his business, arguing 'it appears he could not have sufficient liquid assets to loan his leadership committee $10 million.' Ethics complaints can take years to resolve, but Tyson said it was 'imperative' that the commission move quickly to determine the source of the loan, whether it was properly reported and whether Jones planned to spend from his leadership committee in the primary.
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump is checked for lower leg swelling and diagnosed with a common condition in older adults
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump recently had a medical checkup after noticing 'mild swelling' in his lower legs and was found to have a condition common in older adults that causes blood to pool in his veins, the White House said Thursday. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said tests by the White House medical unit showed that Trump has chronic venous insufficiency , which occurs when little valves inside the veins that normally help move blood against gravity gradually lose the ability to work properly. Leavitt also addressed bruising on the back of Trump's hand, seen in recent photos covered by makeup that was not an exact match to his skin tone. She said the bruising was 'consistent' with irritation from his 'frequent handshaking and the use of aspirin.' Trump takes aspirin to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke. She said during her press briefing that her disclosure of Trump's medical checkup was meant to dispel recent speculation about the 79-year-old president's health. Nonetheless, the announcement was notable given that the Republican president has routinely kept secret basic facts about his health. Trump in April had a comprehensive physical exam with more than a dozen medical specialists. The three-page report released then by the White House did not include a finding of chronic venous insufficiency. At the time, Trump's doctor, Sean Barbabella, determined that the president's joints and muscles had a full range of motion, with normal blood flow and no swelling. Leavitt did not say when Trump first noticed the swelling in his lower legs. As part of the president's routine medical care and out of an 'abundance of caution,' she said he had a 'comprehensive exam' that included vascular, lower extremity and ultrasound testing. She noted that chronic venous insufficiency is a benign condition that is common in people over age 70. She said the tests revealed no evidence of deep vein thrombosis, a more serious medical condition in which a blood clot forms in one or more of the deep veins in the body, usually in the legs. Nor was there any evidence of arterial disease, she said, reading a letter from Barbabella. People often are advised to lose weight, walk for exercise and elevate their legs periodically, and some may be advised to wear compression stockings. Severe cases over time can lead to complications including lower leg sores called ulcers. Blood clots are one cause, but was ruled out, Leavitt said. Leavitt said the condition wasn't causing the president any discomfort. She wouldn't discuss how he was treating the condition and suggested those details would be in the doctor's letter, which was later released to the public. But the letter was the same as what she read, and it did not include any additional details. Dr. Anahita Dua, a vascular surgeon at Mass General Brigham who has never treated Trump, said there is no cure for chronic venous insufficiency. 'The vast majority of people, probably including our president, have a mild to moderate form of it,' Dua said. People with the condition can reduce the swelling by wearing medical-grade compression socks or stockings, to help the blood circulate back to the heart, or by walking, she said. The exam the White House disclosed Thursday included other testing that found no signs of heart failure, renal impairment or systemic illness in Trump, Leavitt said. 'The president remains in excellent health, which I think all of you witness on a daily basis here,' she told reporters.
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Louisiana cancels $3 billion coastal restoration project funded by oil spill settlement
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Louisiana on Thursday canceled a $3 billion repair of disappearing Gulf coastline, funded by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement, scrapping what conservationists called an urgent response to climate change but Gov. Jeff Landry viewed as a threat to the state's way of life. Despite years of studies and reviews, the project at the center of Louisiana's coastal protection plans grew increasingly imperiled after Landry, a Republican, took office last year. Its collapse means that the state could lose out on more than $1.5 billion in unspent funds and may even have to repay the $618 million it already used to begin building. The Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group, a mix of federal agencies overseeing the settlement funds, said that 'unused project funds will be available for future Deepwater Horizon restoration activities' but would require review and approval. A plan to rebuild disappearing land The Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion Project aimed to rebuild upward of 20 square miles (32 kilometers) of land over a 50-year period in southeast Louisiana to combat sea level rise and erosion on the Gulf Coast. When construction stalled last year because of lawsuits, trustees warned that the state would have to return the hundreds of millions of dollars it had already spent if the project did not move forward. Former Louisiana Rep. Garret Graves, a Republican who once led the state's coastal restoration agency, said that killing the project was 'a boneheaded decision' not rooted in science. 'It is going to result in one of the largest setbacks for our coast and the protection of our communities in decades,' Graves said. 'I don't know what chiropractor or palm reader they got advice from on this, but — baffling that someone thought this was a good idea.' Project supporters stressed that it would have provided a data-driven, large-scale solution to mitigate the worst effects of an eroding coastline in a state where a football field of land is lost every 100 minutes and more than 2,000 square miles (5,180 square kilometers) of land have vanished over the past century, according to the U.S. Geological Survey . The project, which broke ground in 2023, would have diverted sediment-laden water from the Mississippi River to restore wetlands disappearing because of a range of factors including climate-change-induced sea level rise and a vast river levee system that choked off natural land regeneration from sediment deposits. 'The science has not changed, nor has the need for urgent action,' said Kim Reyher, executive director of the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana. 'What has changed is the political landscape.' The Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group last year had noted that 'no other single restoration project has been planned and studied as extensively over the past decades.' A perceived threat to Louisiana culture While the project had largely received bipartisan support and was championed by Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards, his successor has been a vocal opponent. Landry recoiled at the rising price tag and amplified concerns that the massive influx of freshwater would devastate local fisheries. Landry has said the project would 'break' Louisiana's culture of shrimp and oyster harvesting and compared it to government efforts a century ago to punish schoolchildren for speaking Cajun French. 'We fought this battle a long time, but Gov. Landry is the reason we won this battle,' said Mitch Jurisich, who chairs the Louisiana Oyster Task Force and sued the state over the project's environmental impacts, including likely killing thousands of bottlenose dolphins due to the onslaught of freshwater. Landry said in a statement that the project is 'no longer financially or practically viable,' noting that the cost has doubled since 2016. 'This level of spending is unsustainable,' Landry said. The project also 'threatens Louisiana's seafood industry, our coastal culture, and the livelihoods of our fishermen — people who have sustained our state for generations.' The project's budget had included more than $400 million for mitigating the costs to local communities, including to help the oyster industry build new oyster beds. Project proponents said that the rapid loss of coast meant communities would be displaced anyway if the state failed to take action to protect them. 'You either move oysters or move people, and there's only one answer to that question,' Graves said. State seeks a smaller, cheaper solution Louisiana's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, the lead agency overseeing the project, said in a statement that the project was 'no longer viable at this time based on a totality of the circumstances' including costs, litigation and a federal permit suspended earlier this year after the state halted work on the project. Chairman Gordon 'Gordy' Dove said that 'our commitment to coastal restoration has not wavered' and that the state plans to pursue a smaller-scale diversion nearby. Dove told lawmakers earlier this year that the state could save at least $1 billion with a different plan to channel river water into the Gulf Coast at a rate 5 to 30 times less than the Mid-Barataria project's 75,000 cubic feet per second. Conservation groups bristled at the change in plans. The Mid-Barataria project's termination marked 'a complete abandonment of science-driven decision-making and public transparency,' Restore the Mississippi River Delta, a coalition of environmental groups, said in a statement, adding that the state was 'throwing away' money intended to protect its coastal residents and economy. The coalition said alternative measures proposed by the state, such as the smaller-scale diversion or rebuilding land by dredging, were insufficient to meaningfully combat land loss and did not undergo the same level of scientific vetting as the Mid-Barataria project. 'A stopgap project with no data is not a solution,' the coalition said. 'We need diversion designs backed by science — not politics.' ___ Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
