Medicaid made my brother's final weeks more peaceful
As I sat in my oldest brother's room at Moses Cone Hospital in Greensboro, listening to the alarm shriek that his oxygen levels were critically low, I kept batting away intrusive thoughts about the federal budget battle happening hundreds of miles away in D.C. None of the Washington policymakers in their fancy suits could possibly understand the position my family was in, seeing Medicaid dollars go toward making my brother more comfortable in the last minutes of his life.
Medicaid has been essential for multiple people in my family, but in particular my oldest brother. To call his health care needs complicated would be an understatement. He was born with Osteogenesis Imperfecta, also known as brittle bone disease. His birth parents originally thought he wouldn't survive due to fracturing most of his bones during the birthing process. But he survived and, due to numerous factors, his birth parents relinquished their parental rights.
He was sent to live in a pediatric nursing home. My parents adopted him at the age of four, and he grew up receiving orthopedic care through the private insurance my father received through his job at UNC-Greensboro. In high school, his care grew more complicated as he was diagnosed with other physical, mental health, and developmental disabilities, and my parents tried to help him transition into adulthood. They wanted all their children to enjoy as much independence as possible, and my older brother was no exception.
There was a lot of back and forth on where my brother would live as an adult. Eventually, it was decided he could be most independent at an assisted living facility. And for a while, that seemed to work out. However, after a year at the facility, he had multiple major medical issues, physical and mental, that threw that decision into question. My parents gained medical guardianship over him and were able to obtain a Medicaid waiver that allowed him to live in the community with a care attendant. And while his medical situation remained difficult over the years, we always knew we could count on Medicaid to help provide the care he needed to remain as independent as possible.
It felt ironic to see congressional Republicans once again jeopardize Medicaid at the same time that my brother was on a ventilator fighting for his life. Because of Medicaid, our choices surrounding my brother's emergency hospitalization and end-of-life comfort care were not hampered by concerns around expenses. Without Medicaid, our experience would have been much more difficult. Almost three million North Carolinians are covered under Medicaid, with a 2023 expansion allowing an additional 470,000 people to be covered in the first seven months. The state spent $27.8 billion to provide critical healthcare to those who needed it under Medicaid last year and received $18.9 billion from the federal government.
After my brother's passing, I think about those still receiving life-saving care through Medicaid. It's outrageous to think congressional Republicans want to line millionaires' pockets with money that's helped North Carolinians like my brother receive life-sustaining care, including two million people who live in districts governed by the same elected officials who are pushing for these cuts.
As the disability community continues to grow, it's imperative that Congress refrain from these harmful efforts to cut or limit benefits via burdensome proof of work, block grants, or lifetime caps. All the suggestions congressional Republicans have made to 'reduce costs' through Medicaid will leave more disabled people dead, homeless, or institutionalized.
Shame on them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Medicare Prior Authorization Getting WISeR? Five Essential Questions
Can doctors working with AI expedite prior authorization? On June 27, 2025, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced the WISeR model. This has generated an incredible number of discussions and questions. Here are answers to five of is WISeR?What are the goals? CMS wants to reduce fraud, abuse, and waste, including low-value care. The selected service codes no doubt are connected to these concerns. Here are just two is CMS adding prior authorization to Original Medicare? Contrary to a couple posts, prior authorization in Original Medicare is not new. Initially not part of the Social Security Act, the law was changed. Prior authorization has applied to Original Medicare for years. For a long time, it focused mostly on power mobility devices (very prone to fraud) and procedures that might be considered cosmetic. For example, is rhinoplasty (nose surgery) necessary because the person can't breathe or selective because he doesn't like his nose? In 2020 and 2024, CMS expanded the list. Just as with the WISeR model, the current list of codes subject to authorization includes some with questionable medical necessity or this push Original Medicare closer to Medicare Advantage? Some recent headlines reflect this concern. 'It's going to be just like Medicare Advantage, delay and deny.' 'CMS and insurers signed a pledge to reduce prior authorization and now they're doing this.' There is no way to know for sure whether WISeR will turn Original Medicare into an Advantage clone. But that may not happen because there are some significant differences between this system and that of Medicare there any big concerns? With any new project, there will be concerns. Besides the one about pushing Original MC toward Advantage, here are three that pop up quite regularly:There is no denying something needs to be done to control the fraud and waste in Medicare. CMS recognizes that it will take to come up with a system and guardrails to achieve the goals while reducing provider burden and avoiding beneficiary harm. CMS has six years to get this right. There is another WISER model. It stands for Watch, Pay attention, Interpret, Engage and Reflect, and helps to control strong emotions. It may be a wise thing to apply this model as we work through the CMS' attempt to become WISeR.
Atlantic
4 hours ago
- Atlantic
How Medicaid Cuts Will Bleed Emergency Medicine
If you have a heart attack in the United States, you might assume that an ambulance will bring you to an ER and its staff will take care of you. But hospital closures over the past 20 years and physician shortages were undermining that assumption even before President Donald Trump signed his 'One Big Beautiful Bill' into law. Now that legislation—which will cut Medicaid spending by an estimated $1 trillion over 10 years, puts the entire emergency-medicine safety net at risk. The destabilizing effects will be felt not only by those who lose access to Medicaid, but also by those who have private health insurance. As an ER doctor in New York City, I am terrified about the coming cuts. A recent study from the Rand Corporation confirms that ERs across the entire country are dangerously overstretched and underfunded. About a fifth of emergency visits each year are never paid for, amounting to nearly $5.9 billion in care costs absorbed by hospitals. The uninsured and underinsured were already more likely to have to seek treatment in the ER when they fell ill. With the changes to Medicaid eligibility, their ranks are set to swell. Medicaid provides coverage to more than 71 million Americans; in addition, the Children's Health Insurance Program (which provides low-cost coverage for children of families that do not qualify for Medicaid) covers 7 million children. Trump's legislation is expected to deprive som 12 million people of Medicaid by 2034, and an additional 5 million will lose insurance because of changes to provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The cost of replacing this lost coverage for some 17 million Americans will be especially daunting for low-income families: On average, health-insurance premiums add up to nearly $9,000 a year, whereas a full-time minimum-wage job generates just $15,000. I went into frontline medicine to help people, not to bankrupt them—yet I am acutely aware that medical debt is a major factor in nearly three-fifths of bankruptcy cases in the United States. When someone who does not have insurance comes into the ER, I am forced to discuss with the patient what necessary care they may have to delay or forgo if they cannot afford it. These conversations will become only more frequent when millions of people are kicked off their health insurance. Jonathan Chait: The cynical Republican plan to cut Medicaid The 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, one of the most important public-health measures ever enacted in the United States, mandates that every emergency department must provide treatment to anyone who comes through the door, regardless of their ability to pay or their insurance status. 'People have access to health care in America,' President George W. Bush once declared. 'After all, you just go to an emergency room.' But the treatment mandate is unfunded. Bush neglected to say that patients are still charged for that visit once they receive the care they need. When they can't pay, they get hounded by a collection agency. If they still can't pay, the hospital ends up eating the cost. The downstream effect is lower staffing and fewer services. The burden of uncompensated emergency care unquestionably contributes to hospital closures. Even before Trump's huge budget-reconciliation bill passed, many people living in rural communities were at risk of losing access to health care. Of 25 hospitals that closed last year, 10 were in rural America, the industry publication Becker's Hospital Review reported; according to a nonpartisan health-policy center, another 700 rural hospitals are financially distressed and at risk of closure. Nearly half of all children and one in five adults in small towns and country areas rely on Medicaid or CHIP; half of all births in these communities are financed by Medicaid. This makes rural hospitals highly dependent on the reimbursement that they receive from Medicaid for treating those patients. The more patients who lose coverage, the greater the threat to these institutions. A report from the National Rural Health Association and the research firm Manatt Health finds that, because of Trump's BBB, rural hospitals 'will lose 21 cents out of every dollar' they'd previously received in Medicaid funding. The inevitable result will be more service cuts and more hospital closures, which will endanger everyone in these areas—even people with insurance. The rational course would be for the government to put more resources into Medicaid, so that patients in need could access care in an optimal setting, instead of visiting the ER, where treatment is more expensive to provide and less comprehensive. Supporters of the BBB purport to have data showing that patients with Medicaid misuse the ER by seeking unnecessary treatment, and they argue that visit volume will go down once they are uninsured. My own experience is that although uninsured patients see me less, they typically show up much sicker—and need more resource-intensive care. One of my regular patients has both Crohn's disease and a debilitating psychiatric condition. He has no family support, usually lives in a shelter, and only sometimes has a job. After requiring an emergency intestinal surgery last year, he now comes into the ER every few days to have his ostomy bag changed, because the only clinic that takes Medicaid is in another borough. In an ideal world, he would have access to a clinic with wound-care nursing and social support. In this far-from-ideal world, taking away his Medicaid will not stop him from having chronic disease. This patient could try to skip visits, but he will have to come to the ER when he gets an infection or his illness flares again, and then he will also be stuck with a bill that will hurt his credit rating and set back his efforts to pull himself out of poverty. The hospital, too, will be worse off—forced to absorb the cost of his treatment when previously it did receive at least small payments for his visits. In short, any appearance of less demand on health-care resources is a mirage; the real outcome will be worse health for the patient and higher costs for his health-care providers. Imagine various such scenarios replicated all across the country, when millions of people lose Medicaid coverage. In a letter to Senate leadership last month, the American Medical Association's chief executive, James Madara, warned that the proposed law 'could lead to delays in treatment, increases in emergency room visits and hospitalizations, and other expensive forms of care.' His appeal went unheeded, as Congress passed the legislation on largely party-line votes. As Alison Haddock, the president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, put it: 'The very idea of emergency medicine as we now know it—lifesaving care available for anyone at any time—is under direct threat.' The threat is dire, but a stay is still possible. The majority of health-care cuts in the act will not go into effect until after the midterm elections in November 2026. Lawmakers have at least a theoretical opportunity to change course and save our emergency-medical system—if enough voters make them pay attention.
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Planned Parenthood wins partial victory in legal battle with Trump admin over defunding efforts
BOSTON — Planned Parenthood won a partial victory Monday in a legal fight with President Donald Trump's administration over efforts to defund the organization in his signature tax legislation. A provision in that bill ends Medicaid payments for one year to abortion providers that received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023, even to those like Planned Parenthood that also offer things like contraception, pregnancy tests and STD testing. But U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston granted a preliminary injunction Monday that, for now, blocks the government from cutting Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood member organizations that either don't provide abortion care or didn't meet a threshold of at least $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements in a given year. Advertisement 5 Planned Parenthood has won a partial victory Monday in a legal fight with the Trump's administration's efforts to cut funding. Getty Images 5 Protestors holding a 'I fight for Planned Parenthood' banner in front of the Supreme Court. REUTERS It wasn't immediately clear how many Planned Parenthood organizations and clinics would continue to get Medicaid reimbursements under that decision and how many might not. Planned Parenthood said in a statement after the injunction that it's thankful the court recognized 'the harm' caused by the bill. Advertisement But it said it's disappointed that some of its members will lose this funding, 'risking chaos, confusion, and harm for patients who could now be turned away when seeking lifesaving reproductive health care.' 'The court has not yet ruled on whether it will grant preliminary injunctive relief to other members,' the statement added. 'We remain hopeful that the court will grant this relief. There will be nothing short of a public health crisis if Planned Parenthood members are allowed to be 'defunded.'' The lawsuit was filed earlier this month against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. by Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its member organizations in Massachusetts and Utah. Advertisement Planned Parenthood argued that allowing the provision to take effect would have devastating consequences nationwide, including increased rates of undiagnosed and untreated sexually transmitted diseases and cancer. 5 U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks the government from cutting Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood member organizations. Getty Images 'With no reason other than plain animus, the law will prevent Planned Parenthood Members from providing vital — indeed, lifesaving — care to more than one million patients,' they wrote. 'This statute is unconstitutional and will inflict irreparable harm on Planned Parenthood Members and their patients.' Lawyers for the government argued in court documents that the bill 'stops federal subsidies for Big Abortion.' Advertisement 'All three democratically elected components of the Federal Government collaborated to enact that provision consistent with their electoral mandates from the American people as to how they want their hard-earned taxpayer dollars spent,' the government wrote in its opposition to the motion. 5 Planned Parenthood filed the lawsuit earlier this month against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Getty Images 5 It wasn't immediately clear how many Planned Parenthood organizations and clinics would continue to get Medicaid reimbursements under that decision and how many might not. Getty Images The government added that the plaintiffs 'now want this Court to reject that judgment and supplant duly enacted legislation with their own policy preferences. … That request is legally groundless.' Hours after the lawsuit was filed, Talwani issued a temporary restraining order that prevented the government from enforcing the cuts. That order had been set to expire Monday.
