Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst
The Senate's deep cuts to Medicaid in the tax and spending megabill are setting off alarm bells among some Republicans, complicating leadership's effort to get the legislation passed by July 4.
It seeks to clamp down on two tactics states use to boost Medicaid funding to hospitals: state-directed payments and Medicaid provider taxes. The restrictions are a major concern for rural hospitals, a key constituency for senators.
Republicans have set an ambitious July 4 deadline to pass the bill and send it to President Trump to be signed into law.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has been warning his colleagues about making cuts to Medicaid for weeks, said the changes took him by surprise.
'I had no idea that they were going to completely scrap the House framework with this. I mean, this totally caught me by surprise. And I've talked to other senators, and that's what I've heard consistently from everybody I've talked to, that no one was expecting this entirely new framework,' Hawley told reporters Tuesday.
States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then direct back to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements.
Critics argue it's a scheme for states to get more federal funding without spending any of their own money. But provider taxes have become ingrained into states' Medicaid financing systems. States and provider groups say the taxes provide a steady source of financing for hospitals that operate on thin margins and would otherwise face closure.
'The draconian Medicaid cuts contained in the Senate bill would devastate health care access for millions of Americans and hollow out the vital role essential hospitals play in their communities,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, an organization that represents hospitals that serve low-income patients.
The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027.
Nonexpansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities.
All states except for Alaska finance part of their share of Medicaid funding through health care provider taxes, and 38 states have at least one provider tax that exceeds 5.5 percent.
When asked if his concerns were enough to make him vote against the bill if it were brought to the floor as written, Hawley hedged.
'It needs a lot of work, so I would say maybe we could, I guess, try to fix it on the floor, but it'd be better to do it beforehand,' he told reporters.
Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate and still pass their bill if Democrats remain united in opposition.
Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.) said he was also surprised by the Senate's change. If provider tax changes are on the table, he said he wants leadership to keep the House version. Justice wouldn't say how he would vote if the provision was left unchanged but expressed some unease about the July 4 deadline.
'I promise you, I won't rubber-stamp anything,' Justice said. 'I want this thing to come out and come out quickly, but when it really boils right down to it, you may have to hold your nose on some things that you just absolutely don't like because we can't like everything.'
Similarly, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) indicated he would also prefer the House-passed freeze on provider taxes but was still analyzing the impact on his state. Louisiana expanded Medicaid in 2016.
Senate Republican leaders huddled with members Tuesday during a closed-door caucus lunch to talk through the details of the bill. Speaking to reporters afterward, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said leadership was listening to members' concerns, especially about provider taxes.
'We think [the changes] rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered,' Thune said. 'We continue to hear from members specifically on components or pieces of the bill they want to see modified or changed, and we are working through that.'
Members were also briefed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, who downplayed the impact of a lower provider tax cap.
'We do not believe that addressing the provider tax effort is going to influence the ability of hospitals to stay viable,' Oz told reporters.
Without weighing in on the exact details, Oz said some changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments should be included.
'The framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill, it should be in this bill,' Oz said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
28 minutes ago
- CNN
Protesters line highway in Florida Everglades to oppose ‘Alligator Alcatraz'
A coalition of groups, ranging from environmental activists to Native Americans advocating for their ancestral homelands, converged outside an airstrip in the Florida Everglades Saturday to protest the imminent construction of an immigrant detention center. Hundreds of protesters lined part of US Highway 41 that slices through the marshy Everglades — also known as Tamiami Trail — as dump trucks hauling materials lumbered into the airfield. Cars passing by honked in support as protesters waved signs calling for the protection of the expansive preserve that is home to a few Native tribes and several endangered animal species. Christopher McVoy, an ecologist, said he saw a steady stream of trucks entering the site while he protested for hours. Environmental degradation was a big reason why he came out Saturday. But as a South Florida city commissioner, he said concerns over immigration raids in his city also fueled his opposition. 'People I know are in tears, and I wasn't far from it,' he said. Florida officials have forged ahead over the past week in constructing the compound dubbed as 'Alligator Alcatraz' within the Everglades' humid swamplands. The government fast-tracked the project under emergency powers from an executive order issued by Gov. Ron DeSantis that addresses what he views as a crisis of illegal immigration. That order lets the state sidestep certain purchasing laws and is why construction has continued despite objections from Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava and local activists. The facility will have temporary structures like heavy-duty tents and trailers to house detained immigrants. The state estimates that by early July, it will have 5,000 immigration detention beds in operation. The compound's proponents have noted its location in the Florida wetlands — teeming with massive reptiles like alligators and invasive Burmese pythons — make it an ideal spot for immigration detention. 'Clearly, from a security perspective, if someone escapes, you know, there's a lot of alligators,' DeSantis said Wednesday. 'No one's going anywhere.' Under DeSantis, Florida has made an aggressive push for immigration enforcement and has been supportive of the federal government's broader crackdown on illegal immigration. The US Department of Homeland Security has backed 'Alligator Alcatraz,' which DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said will be partially funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. But Native American leaders in the region have seen the construction as an encroachment onto their sacred homelands, which prompted Saturday's protest. In Big Cypress National Preserve, where the airstrip is located, 15 traditional Miccosukee and Seminole villages, as well as ceremonial and burial grounds and other gathering sites, remain. Others have raised human rights concerns over what they condemn as the inhumane housing of immigrants. Worries about environmental impacts have also been at the forefront, as groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity and the Friends of the Everglades filed a lawsuit Friday to halt the detention center plans. 'The Everglades is a vast, interconnected system of waterways and wetlands, and what happens in one area can have damaging impacts downstream,' Friends of the Everglades executive director Eve Samples said. 'So it's really important that we have a clear sense of any wetland impacts happening in the site.' Bryan Griffin, a DeSantis spokesperson, said Friday in response to the litigation that the facility was a 'necessary staging operation for mass deportations located at a preexisting airport that will have no impact on the surrounding environment.' Until the site undergoes a comprehensive environmental review and public comment is sought, the environmental groups say construction should pause. The facility's speedy establishment is 'damning evidence' that state and federal agencies hope it will be 'too late' to reverse their actions if they are ordered by a court to do so, said Elise Bennett, a Center for Biological Diversity senior attorney working on the case. The potential environmental hazards also bleed into other aspects of Everglades life, including a robust tourism industry where hikers walk trails and explore the marshes on airboats, said Floridians for Public Lands founder Jessica Namath, who attended the protest. To place an immigration detention center there makes the area unwelcoming to visitors and feeds into the misconception that the space is in 'the middle of nowhere,' she said. 'Everybody out here sees the exhaust fumes, sees the oil slicks on the road, you know, they hear the sound and the noise pollution. You can imagine what it looks like at nighttime, and we're in an international dark sky area,' Namath said. 'It's very frustrating because, again, there's such disconnect for politicians.'
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
The '12-Day War,' World War III, and how we describe what's happening in Iran
USA TODAY interviewed experts about what is happening in the world, and how it should be described. Here's what they said. President Donald Trump wants to call the most recent round of fighting between Iran and Israel the "12-Day War," but he may not get his wish. That's because journalists and historians are usually the ones who put names on wars, and they often don't choose the titles that government officials put on them. It's even less likely that the conflict could be named World War III, even though Trump has been warning about it for more than a decade, and even told the leader of Ukraine this year he was risking starting it. 'There's no official naming body, international or national,' said David Sibley, a military historian for Cornell University who is based in Washington, D.C. 'It's really just kind of agreed on by historians, by countries, and sometimes not even that.' USA TODAY interviewed experts on international relations and military history to talk about what is happening in the world, and how it should be described. Here's what they said. The '12-Day War' Howard Stoffer, a professor at the University of New Haven in Connecticut, said the most recent fighting between Iran and Israel marks a "historic turning point in the Middle East,' comparable to the Six-Day War in 1967 or the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Trump's suggested title might be a way to invoke 1967, "where Israelis used a preemptive airstrike to defeat the Arab countries around them," Sibley said. Israel emerged politically stronger and with more land. 'It certainly would invoke that in Israel and in the Middle East," Sibley said. "It certainly has that sort of pithiness that is appealing, and so it would be interesting to see. I don't know. It might stick." On June 26 and June 27, the news wire Reuters used the phrase '12-day war' to describe the sparring between the two countries earlier in the month, but not as the official name of the war, which would have a capitalized the "D" and "W." USA TODAY has used the term in quotation marks. Bryon Greenwald, a professor at National Defense University in Washington, D.C., questioned whether the attacks between Iran and Israel amounted to a war at all, or just a flare-up of a long-simmering conflict the countries have engaged in for decades. He pointed to airstrikes between Iran and Israel in March, predating the most recent conflict that led the United States to drop bombs on nuclear facilities. 'Does that shift the start date to the left, so it is now longer (than) 12 Days?' he asked. Peter Singer, a political scientist and author specializing in 21st-century warfare, said if Trump wants the name to catch on, he needs "better marketing." Graphic: How 70 years of history led to the U.S. bombing in Iran Who names wars? Even if the the name a president or military leader catches on, names catches on, journalists and historians may change them over time. 'WWI was commonly called the Great War until the media needed to name its successor,' said Don Ritchie, a former Senate historian. 'Historians are usually writing long after the fact and follow the common usage.' Wayne Lee, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, points to the usage by President George H.W. Bush's administration of 'Operation Desert Shield" and 'Operation Desert Storm' to describe early 1990s conflicts in the Middle East. Most people refer to those conflicts as the Gulf War, the First Gulf War, or the Persian Gulf War. When President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, his administration named it 'Operation Iraqi Freedom,' but most people call it the Iraq War. 'Sometimes even the names of wars aren't agreed on,' said Sibley, from Cornell. 'What we call the American Civil War, it depends on where you are what you call it − 'The War Between the States,' 'The War of Northern Aggression,' things like that.' Is World War III happening? When the U.S. bombed Iran on June 21, Americans grew anxious that World War III had started. Experts caution against declaring armed conflicts worldwide "world war." 'I would be really surprised if this morphed into something that looks anything like the past world wars we've had,' said Will Todman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'But that does not mean peace is likely around the world. … I just don't think those will all be connected in the same way it was in World War I or World War II.' Russia has been at war with Ukraine for more than three years, at times threatening to use nuclear weapons but never following through. Experts said tensions between North Korea and South Korea could escalate. Or they said China, another nuclear country, could invade Taiwan. 'Forces were fighting just about everywhere around the globe,' during both world wars, Sibley said. 'So even a conflict in the Middle East between two sets of alliances, I don't know that that would rise to the level. I don't know. It retroactively could be labeled that if it gets bad enough.' Sibley said nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to attack, because countries fear having those weapons used against them. But he said, if two major powers exchanged nuclear weapons it could warrant the moniker "World War III." Sibley said countries tend to be more cautious about invading or attacking nuclear powers because they fear having those weapons used against them. But he said, if two major powers exchanged nuclear weapons it could warrant the moniker "World War III." 'Post-1945, the assumption has been that World War III is going to be a nuclear one,' Sibley said. 'And, so, short of that, it's hard to see something getting that label.' Singer pointed to the massive casualties from world wars, numbers that the world has not seen in several of the most recent conflicts combined. "As many as 22 million people died in World War I and 85 million people in World War II,' he said. 'Stop trying to make World War III happen.'
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
The businesses that are, and aren't, shifting production under Trump's tariffs
New York-based manufacturer Gear Motions purchases the majority of its parts from U.S. suppliers, with roughly 4% of inputs imported from other countries. It's a small fraction, but with a 10% base tariff in effect since early April, President and CEO Dean Burrows said his company, which specializes in custom cut and ground gears, will have to pass down those price increases to customers. That's not for lack of trying to find new suppliers. 'We have not been able to find a U.S. source that can make the product, and we have searched globally,' Burrows said. Tariffs are meant to fix that, with the Trump administration aiming to 'reverse the decades of globalization that has decimated our industrial base,' according to an April White House press release. But reviving the U.S. manufacturing base would take years, and economists have doubts that President Donald Trump's tariffs will be enough to bring it back to its former glory. Meanwhile, many U.S. manufacturers that rely on imports may be more likely to pass on tariff costs to consumers than reshore their supply chains. Nearly one-third of U.S. manufacturers' intermediate inputs are imported from other countries, according to a 2022 report from the Commerce Department. 'In the short run, it's going to hurt manufacturers. It's going to hurt the factory owners. It's going to hurt the workers,' said Nancy Qian, an economics professor at Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management. 'And that's on top of the pain the workers will feel when they go to the store and need to pay more for their imported (items).' Why shifting to US suppliers isn't always an easy solution Trump's tariffs are meant to position the U.S. as a 'global superpower in manufacturing' by drawing in new factories and manufacturing investments. 'The president has said early and often that the best way to avoid tariffs is to just come here and produce," Trump's top trade adviser, Peter Navarro, told CNBC in early April. 'We're going to get to a place where America makes stuff again.' But moving supply chains to the U.S. can be costly. Nearly two-thirds of 380 surveyed companies say building a new domestic supply chain would at least double their current costs, according to an April CNBC survey. Sixty-one percent said it would be more cost-effective to relocate to a lower-tariffed country. 'If the U.S. continues its focus on China, it will be successful in moving production out of China to some extent, but it won't move so much of it back to the U.S.,' Qian said. 'There are many other countries out there that can manufacture at costs lower than the U.S.' Even if tariffs boost U.S. manufacturing, it'll take years for new factories to get up and running. That could leave U.S. companies searching for domestic suppliers struggling in the meantime. Take 000Skin, a beauty company launched by Hannah Chang earlier this year. While 000Skin is based in New York, Chang has been sourcing the containers for her skin care products in China, where she says manufacturing capabilities are unmatched. 'I think people are not aware how much work and infrastructure even creating a plastic jar takes,' Chang said. But rising import costs from tariffs have thrown her for a loop. Chang has looked for alternative suppliers in the U.S., but says she has yet to find options that match the quality and price of what Chinese manufacturers can supply. She's considered shifting to a Mexican producer, but said it's been difficult finding one willing to work with smaller businesses. 'I'll probably just continue to look at China-based partners,' Chang said, adding that she's considering raising prices to cover at least some of the 30% tariff rate. Courtney Rivenbark looked into working with U.S. manufacturers when she created her apparel and jewelry brand, Coco Clem, in 2018. The high production costs turned her away, and she eventually pivoted to a partnership with a Chinese factory she said aligned with her ethical and environmental goals. 'China is just very advanced with their machines and equipment and technology,' Rivenbark said. 'The whole supply chain exists in China – the knits, the yard, the GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) certified organic cotton yarn.' After Trump announced new tariffs earlier this year, Rivenbark said she compared pricing from China with U.S. manufacturers. She said it would cost her three times more to create the same sweater in the U.S., and local manufacturers didn't have the technology to create certain garments in plus sizes. 'I would move (production to the U.S.) if the infrastructure was here,' Rivenbark said. But 'it's just so much more expensive. ... I'm not really interested in moving it outside of China because of a potential short-term policy switch.' How many factories, jobs are coming to the US? That's not to say tariffs aren't pressuring some businesses to increase their investments in the U.S. Whether those moves will lead to a dramatic influx of manufacturing jobs is another question. Cra-Z-Art – a New Jersey-based manufacturer that produces toys, activities and school supplies – in March announced plans to grow production space by 50% to 1.5 million square feet to combat the cost of tariffs. Lawrence Rosen, chairman of Cra-Z-Art, said it's too early to say how many jobs the move will create, but the company is looking to use automation 'wherever possible' to reduce direct labor costs. 'I need to control my 102-year-old company's destiny by controlling its future and not relying on global tariffs when things could change daily,' Lawrence said. 'By manufacturing in the USA, we save on freight, we save with automation. ... With automation, we can produce many of our products at a similar cost compared to increased costs with even 10% tariffs on freight.' A White House website claims Trump's policies have spurred trillions of dollars in new U.S. manufacturing investments that are 'fueling job growth, innovation, and opportunity across every corner of the country.' A number of those investments were in the works before Trump took office. A $5 billion investment from automaker Stellantis, for instance, includes plans to restart an idled plant in Belvidere, Illinois, to make trucks, a deal first announced in 2023. While there were talks of delays in 2024, the company in January confirmed that it would stick to the 2027 opening agreed to in union negotiations years prior. And a spokesperson for German medical technology company Siemens Healthineers, another company listed on the website, told USA TODAY that several of the initiatives included in its $150 million investment in new and expanded U.S. facilities have been underway for 'well over a year," although projects were accelerated to address rising economic and geopolitical uncertainty. Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, doesn't expect to see much reshoring tied to tariffs. 'For a business to set up a factory in the United States, that's a 10-year investment or longer,' Strain said. 'How can a business possibly know whether or not that would be profitable if tariff rates are changing every week?" Some data suggests the domestic manufacturing industry has actually taken a hit from tariffs, with trade policy uncertainty prompting some companies to tighten their purse strings. Economic activity in the manufacturing sector contracted in May for the third consecutive month to reach its lowest level since November, with both orders and output contracting, according to a survey by the Institute for Supply Management. Meanwhile, the manufacturing sector lost about 8,000 jobs between April and May despite an overall increase in employment, according to the Labor Department. Susan Helper, an economics professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio who served on the White House staff in both the Obama and Biden Administrations, believes tariffs can be a useful tool, but the uncertainty surrounding trade policy has been 'a real problem.' "I think what companies are doing is just not investing anywhere in anything and just waiting to see how things shake out,' she said.
