House passes bill to save Oregon Health Plan if Congress kills Medicaid funding
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – As the future of federally funded programs like Medicaid , Oregon lawmakers are working to preserve healthcare coverage for its residents.
On Thursday, the Oregon House of Representatives passed HB 2010, a bipartisan bill that would ensure ongoing funding for the state's Medicaid program known commonly as the .
Oregon State Police trooper shoots, kills person at Army Aviation Support Facility at Salem Airport
The state program is currently funded by a combination of state resources that are matched by federal dollars. But as , HB 2010 would cushion OHP in case federal officials double down on the decision.
House Speaker Julie Fahey said one out of every three Oregonians rely on OHP for their health coverage.
'HB 2010 will help ensure that those Oregonians continue to have access to care and that our hospitals and providers have the resources they need to serve all Oregonians,' Fahey said. 'Regardless of whether Congress cuts Medicaid funding this year, passing HB 2010 is the surest way to position us to accomplish those goals.'
According to state records, OHP covers 1.4 million Oregonians — including 57% of the state's children. The program also protects healthcare coverage for people of color, who make up 42% of its demographic.
'That means thousands of parents, regardless of their income, have access to vital services like regular check-ups, ultrasounds, screenings for complications, nutritional counseling, and maternity services at many of our community hospitals,' Rep. Andrea Valderrama said.
'Dangerous trend': Tillamook students are misusing Benadryl to get high, district says
The bill passed the Oregon House with a 40-15 vote, allowing it to advance to the Senate. If approved there, it will head to Gov. Tina Kotek's desk for her to sign.
By making it through the Oregon legislature, HB 2010 would ensure program coverage by extending the state's insurance and hospital assessments through 2032.
'While Congress debates cuts to Medicaid, Oregon is standing strong to protect OHP,' Rep. Lesly Muñoz said. 'Our state has led the way in making Medicaid work efficiently, ensuring healthcare access for 1.4 million people. Oregon won't back down when it comes to healthcare.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
‘Having Medicaid keeps me alive': Illinois residents anxiously watch as Congress considers Medicaid cuts
Across Illinois, millions of people are anxiously awaiting the next move on a bill that would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid across the country. The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' would slash the program, which provides health care coverage to people with low incomes, in order to help pay for tax cuts and border and national security. President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans say the bill would cut waste, fraud and abuse from Medicaid, providing coverage only to those who truly need it. But Democrats, health care leaders and patients say it would devastate those who rely on the program, and the hospitals that serve all patients. Across Illinois, 3.4 million people are on Medicaid — about one-fourth of the state's population. Depending on which proposals are adopted, Illinois could lose billions of dollars — a loss that could force the state to make difficult decisions about who gets coverage and what kind of coverage they get. Though the bill was still in flux as of Friday afternoon, multiple proposals in recent weeks have included work requirements for some people who receive Medicaid, changes to rules surrounding so-called provider taxes, and have threatened coverage for more than 770,000 Illinois residents who receive Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act's expansion of the program. 'No state, including Illinois, can backfill cuts in federal funding for Medicaid,' said the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, in response to Tribune questions. 'Cuts in federal funding will lead to reduced services and enrollment, putting the full range of Medicaid services at risk.' The Tribune spoke with three Illinois residents on Medicaid about what the cuts could mean to their lives. It's difficult to survive on $1,077 a month. That's how much Kristina Lewis receives in monthly Social Security disability payments. She gets disability payments from the federal government because she can't work due to mental health issues, heart failure and Type 1 diabetes, she said. The 64-year-old Alsip woman, however, has been able to stretch her small income, largely because she receives rental assistance from a local charity and because Medicare and Medicaid pay for her health care needs. She's one of nearly 400,000 people in Illinois who receive both Medicare and Medicaid because of disability, low income and/or age, according to KFF, a nonprofit organization focused on health policy. She's scared of what might happen if Medicaid, a state and federally funded program, is cut. She's on five different medications for heart failure alone. 'They do those cuts and I don't know how people like me on certain medications, how we're supposed to survive and live,' Lewis said. 'I know I'm not the only person out there that's terrified of what's going to happen.' House and Senate versions of the bill have included provisions that could make it more difficult for people who are enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid to keep their Medicaid coverage, according to KFF. Lewis is also one of millions of people in Illinois who may end up dealing with the fallout of Illinois receiving fewer federal dollars overall, if certain proposals become law. Both the House and Senate have proposed changes that could limit the amount of money Illinois and many other states collect in so-called provider taxes, which help boost the amount of money states receive from the federal government for Medicaid. Proponents of provider taxes say they're a necessary way of funding Medicaid, while critics say provider taxes are a way for states to inflate how much money they receive from the federal government. Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas recently called provider taxes a 'Medicaid money laundering scam.' Though the concept of provider taxes may seem obscure and bureaucratic, in Illinois, they account for about $11 billion a year spent on Medicaid — about 25% of the state's spending for medical services, according to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. Senate Republicans' proposal to reduce provider taxes suffered a major setback Thursday, after the Senate parliamentarian shot it down, saying it didn't follow procedural rules, according to The Associated Press. It was not yet clear Friday afternoon if changes to provider taxes would still be part of the final bill. Limiting provider taxes is a 'backdoor' way of cutting federal Medicaid funding for Illinois, said Kathy Waligora, a spokesperson for EverThrive Illinois, a nonprofit advocacy organization working to achieve reproductive justice. 'The provider tax is absolutely going to shrink the size of the Medicaid program in Illinois,' Waligora said of proposed cuts. 'Exactly what benefits are cut, what provider rates are cut, what eligibility will be cut remains to be seen, but it will be across Medicaid.' Lewis is worried about any kind of reduction to her Medicaid benefits. She said she first got on Medicaid about 10 to 15 years ago when she was living in a nursing home because of health issues. Eventually, her health improved to the point where she could live independently. She worries that if her health issues again become unmanageable, she might have to one day return to living in a nursing home. 'I would really, really struggle,' she said of if her Medicaid benefits were cut. 'My biggest fear is to end up in another nursing home. You lose your independence.' If she did have to live in a nursing home again, Medicaid may end up footing the substantial bill. In Illinois, Medicaid pays for about 68% of all nursing home care, according to the state Department of Healthcare and Family Services. Cornelia Simms, 60, of Auburn Gresham, fears work requirements could make it difficult for her to stay on Medicaid — even though she has a job. Under the bill, childless, able-bodied adults ages 19 to 64 would be required to spend at least 80 hours a month working, doing community service or going to school, in order to stay on Medicaid. Simms already works about 80 hours a month as a home health care aide — a profession she got into after spending years caring for her ailing mother. She discovered that she enjoys helping elderly people and stuck with it after her mom passed away. About 70% of Illinois residents on Medicaid already work, according to KFF. But Simms worries about the paperwork, and the potential problems it could create if she's subject to work requirements. The bill would require states to verify at least twice a year that Medicaid beneficiaries are meeting work requirements. Simms is concerned about being asked to prove that she's eligible twice a year, especially because she said she prefers to verify her eligibility in person, which can require time away from work. It can be tough for her to take days off from work because the person she cares for relies on her help, Simms said. 'I'm mainly her sole person to take her to the hospital, grocery stores and do all those things with her,' Simms said. 'If I have to take off work to see about my Medicaid then she will be lacking the daily things that she needs.' The extra paperwork can also create administrative complications. Once, Simms said she forgot to submit paperwork to verify her continued eligibility for Medicaid. Simms lost her coverage, and it took more than six months to get it back, she said. During that time, she canceled doctor appointments and generally tried not to get medical care. 'I tried not to catch a cold,' Simms said. 'I just prayed and held out.' In Illinois, anywhere from 270,000 to 500,000 people on Medicaid may end up losing coverage for administrative reasons, if work requirements proposed by House Republicans went into effect, according to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. 'What we see in other states where there are work requirements is that having the hoops to jump through, the red tape and the administrative burden keep people from accessing and enrolling in health care,' said Anusha Thotakura, executive director of Citizen Action/Illinois, a public interest coalition that's been working with partners across the state to hold events and drive action to fight Medicaid cuts. 'Many eligible people who are working will still lose access if these requirements are put into place,' Thotakura said. Without Medicaid, Simms said it would be difficult for her to afford health care. She's in the process now of getting about $4,000 worth of dental work, most of which is being paid for by Medicaid, she said. 'No person, unless you've got some money, can afford it, not on a 9-5 (job), not the lower class or middle class,' Simms said of health care. 'It's impossible.' Isaiah Rogers was up in a tree, wielding a chain saw when his vision began to blur. He didn't know what was wrong with him, but he knew he couldn't continue his work trimming trees. Dizzy and in pain, Rogers went home, rested and popped ibuprofen. Eventually, Rogers' son convinced him to go to the hospital. There, he was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes and told that if he had waited a couple of more days to seek care, he might have died. The hospital helped sign Rogers up for Medicaid, he said. Since that scare several years ago, Rogers has faithfully been going to his doctor appointments and taking insulin and other medications, he said. He has not been able to return to his job trimming trees, and has been working small side jobs. He and his son have been staying with a friend to help them get by. The 61-year-old West Pullman man relies on Medicaid to pay for his doctors' visits and the medications that 'keep me above water.' Rogers is now worried about losing that lifeline. A recent version of the bill proposed work requirements not only for childless able-bodied Medicaid recipients, but also for adults with children older than 14. Rogers' son is 12. The single father is concerned that there might come a point when he would be subject to the proposed requirement to work 80 hours a week or lose his Medicaid coverage. Between his health issues and caring for his son, as well as his lack of a high school diploma, Rogers doesn't think it would be possible for him get a job working 80 hours a month. Rogers drops his son off and picks him up from school each day, taking city buses with him to and from the school. He doesn't envision letting his son take the buses himself. 'At 14, no, not in Chicago,' Rogers said of his son taking the bus alone. 'People who don't ride the bus and don't live in our 'hood, they don't know what's going on. I'm not going to subject my son to that danger.' He knows the dangers all too well. Rogers was incarcerated when he was younger, saying he was once a 'destroyer' of his community. He's since tried to turn his life around, working with Community Organizing and Family Issues to create positive change. But his life now, as he knows it, depends on having Medicaid. He's confident he'll lose Medicaid if he's required to work 80 hours a month. He worries that if he loses Medicaid, he'll no longer be able to afford insulin and his other medications, and he may slip into a diabetic coma or suffer a stroke. 'Having Medicaid keeps me alive,' Rogers said. 'It keeps me going, with the consistent doctors appointments, with the different types of medications. 'Having Medicaid helps me stay healthy to let me take care of my son,' Rogers said.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Why a G.O.P. Medicaid Requirement Could Set States Up for Failure
The strict Medicaid work requirement at the center of the Republicans' major policy bill wouldn't just require millions of poor Americans to prove they are employed to sign up for health insurance. It would also require dozens of states to quickly build expensive and complex software systems to measure and track who is eligible. This new responsibility for states, whose existing Medicaid computer systems are often outdated, would be accompanied by reduced federal funding through other changes in the bill. The result, according to state officials, software developers and policy experts, could be major failures in state systems for enrolling people in Medicaid. 'That's how happens,' said Julie Brinn Siegel, a former top Biden administration budget official, referring to the Obama administration's botched launch of the online Affordable Care Act enrollment portal in 2013. Ms. Siegel and others familiar with Medicaid systems envision problems like websites that don't load or incorrectly tell applicants they are not eligible. And Medicaid workers may be overwhelmed as they try to run call centers and process applications. The fallout could mean eligible Americans will have their coverage dropped. Republicans contend that the work requirement achieves twin goals: It ensures that the government directs resources to Americans who are contributing to society, while saving money to help finance an extension of President Trump's tax cuts. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Planned Parenthood isn't the only loser in Supreme Court case. Women lose, too.
While Democrats have shied away from talking about abortion since the 2024 presidential election, it is still an issue Republicans are rallying around. Almost three years to the day since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the justices have once again made a decision that will limit access to reproductive care. This time, they're explicitly coming after Planned Parenthood. On Thursday, June 26, the Supreme Court ruled in a decision that could allow states to keep Medicaid dollars from the organization. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices determined that individuals could not sue to choose their health care provider after a patient sued South Carolina to receive reproductive care from Planned Parenthood. By making this decision, the courts are potentially shutting Planned Parenthood out of millions of dollars that would go to necessary health care options like birth control, cancer screenings and testing for sexually transmitted infections. It's a ruling that, like Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out in her dissent, is going to harm people who rely on Planned Parenthood for their care. The plan was always to end abortion in every state It's just another instance of conservatives ignoring the realities of women's health care in favor of their beliefs, and a reminder that abortion continues to be a Republican target. It's also a reminder that we'll be living in this dystopian health care nightmare for a very, very long time. While Democrats have shied away from talking about abortion since the 2024 presidential election, it is still an issue Republicans are rallying around. They were never going to be satisfied with simply returning abortion rights back to the states, the plan was always to eradicate the health care procedure nationwide. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. In May, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the Food and Drug Administration to review mifepristone, an abortion medication, because of a study from a conservative think tank that relies on flawed data. The majority of abortions in 2023 were medication abortions. If mifepristone were suddenly taken off the market, it would have huge ramifications for patients across the country. Planned Parenthood was also already struggling after President Donald Trump froze federal funding to more than 100 clinics earlier this year. It has led clinics across the country to shut down. His One Big Beautiful Bill Act also would block Medicaid patients from seeking care at Planned Parenthood, which could lead to more closures. None of this is happening in a vacuum. All of these Republican attacks amount to a nationwide assault on abortion rights, no matter where one is located in the country. Millions of people could soon lose access to the care they need because of the Republican agenda. Abortion bans aren't working. Defunding Planned Parenthood won't change that. Despite these targeted attacks on abortion, the procedure hasn't become less popular in the years following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. In 2024, there was actually an increase in abortions, with a quarter of those procedures occurring via telehealth for medication. Public opinion on abortion has remained steady, with Pew Research Center reporting that 63% of Americans supported abortion in all or most cases in 2024. Opinion: Democrats don't need to move to the center. Mamdani proves progressives can win. Clearly, Republican leaders are only listening to a small subset of their constituency when they decide to go after Planned Parenthood. They do not listen to the millions of people who have benefited from the wide range of services that the organization provides. Instead, they would rather spread falsehoods about abortion and how it is funded. They will not be happy until abortions are nearly impossible to obtain, even when someone's life is at risk. The Supreme Court's latest cruel decision shows that we are still living with the long-term repercussions of having Trump nominate three justices to the bench. And this is just the beginning. It's clear nothing is going to stop Republicans from attacking Planned Parenthood until it's unable to function because of a lack of government funding. It's shameful that they continue to put a political agenda ahead of the health care needs of women. It's also not changing anytime soon. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
