Missouri continues to lag behind most states in children's health, report finds
(Rebecca Rivas/Missouri Independent).
Missouri ranked in the bottom third of all states for children's health, according to a report released Monday — due in part to a high rate of child and teen deaths.
The annual Kids Count Data Book from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which used data from 2023, evaluated all states on four metrics of child well-being: health, economic well-being, education, and family and community.
Missouri ranked near the middle of states for overall child well-being, at 27th out of 50, weighed down by poor performance in health and education.
Missouri's rankings in the four categories were:
13th in economic well-being,
33rd in education,
35th in health
And 25th in family & community.
'Children's health remains an area of concern,' noted a press release Monday from Family and Community Trust, the Missouri-based nonprofit partner to Kids Count.
Only nine states had higher rates of child and teen deaths in 2023 than Missouri, one of the factors considered in the health ranking. (Those were: Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alaska, Oklahoma and Montana.)
Missouri generally ranks among the states with the highest rate of firearm deaths for kids. Firearms became the leading cause of kids' deaths in the United States in 2020, surpassing car accidents.
While the national average in 2023 was 29 child and teen deaths per 100,000, that number was 37 deaths per 100,000 in Missouri.
The national average rose overall in 2023. The report notes that while covid deaths contributed to the increase, the rise was largely due to rising firearm deaths and drug overdoses, particularly among teens ages 15 to 19.
Also bringing Missouri's health ranking down: Missouri's rate of low-birth weight babies increased in 2023 from 2019 and is above the national average.
Other factors helped Missouri's score. For one, Missouri has seen major improvements in children's insurance coverage since the state implemented Medicaid expansion in 2021. The rate of uninsured kids fell from 7% in 2019 to 5% in 2023, which is now on par with the national average.
Nationally, Missouri saw among the sharpest declines in uninsured people overall from 2019 to 2023 with the expansion of Medicaid.
Those gains could be threatened by Congress' budget proposal to reduce Medicaid spending in part by imposing more barriers to care.
Teen births in the state have gone down, in line with national trends — though the state's average is still above the national one.
The rate of overweight or obese kids has also improved in Missouri and is down to 31% of kids in 2023, on par with the national average.
The rate of kids in poverty declined to 14% in the state in 2023, below the 16% national average.
Missouri's education ranking slipped in recent years.
In 2023, 77% of Missouri eighth graders were not proficient at math, according to the report, which is nearly 10 percentage points worse than 2019 and is worse than the national average.
The press release from Family and Community Trust said the data show a 'continuing need to invest in education in Missouri.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
GOP tax bill would mean 11.8 million people uninsured, $1.1 trillion in health cuts
The Senate Republicans' tax and spending bill, which is speeding through the chamber, would result in deeper health care cuts and more people without insurance than the version that passed the House, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The legislation would result in 11.8 million Americans losing insurance by 2034, CBO found: nearly 1 million more people without insurance than the House version. That amount includes an estimated 1.4 million people without 'verified citizenship, nationality, or satisfactory immigration status' who would lose their state-funded coverage. The legislation would also cut federal spending on Medicaid, Medicare and ObamaCare by $1.1 trillion, with more than $1 trillion coming from Medicaid. The CBO's analysis confirms that despite President Trump's repeated pledges to only cut waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, the legislation would enact an unprecedented reduction in the program currently used by more than 70 million low-income Americans. The bill would achieve its savings in various ways, but the bulk of the cuts come from a strict national work requirement and new restrictions on state-levied taxes on health providers. Under the bill, for the first time in the history of the Medicaid program, beneficiaries would need to prove they are working or in school at least 80 hours a month to keep their health insurance. The Senate version extends the requirement to low-income parents of children older than 14, in addition to childless adults without disabilities. The work requirements are projected to save about $325 billion over a decade. The provider taxes were the second-largest Medicaid cut in the House bill, after the work requirements. The cuts are even larger under the Senate design. Those changes would reduce spending by nearly $191 billion over a decade, according to the CBO estimate. The provider tax provisions have been among the most controversial in the Senate. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then redirect to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Limiting provider taxes is a long-held conservative goal, as they argue states are gaming the current system and driving up federal Medicaid spending. But senators representing states with poorer, rural populations have objected to the scale of the cuts, including Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). The House bill would freeze the tax rate for most states, but the Senate version would require many states to lower their existing rates. As an incentive for senators uncomfortable with the provider tax cuts, the bill includes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals. But that amount wasn't enough to sway Tillis, who voted with Democrats against a procedural motion late Saturday night. Hawley voted for the motion and said he would support the bill despite his misgivings over the Medicaid cuts. Additional details of the bill are in flux as negotiations between Republicans continue and the Senate parliamentarian reviews key pieces of the bill to determine if they follow the legislative rules. Lawmakers are facing down a White House-pushed July 4th deadline to pass the bill in the Senate, and then again in the House, before putting it on President Trump's desk. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Congress should look to Tennessee as an example for Medicaid reform
As Congress wrestles with the need to trim spending, attention has turned to Medicaid, and to a lesser extent, Medicare. These are hardly new issues. Within seven years of the 1965 enactment of Medicaid, for those eligible for federal income support (largely those in poverty), and Medicare, primarily for those eligible for Social Security, Congress in 1972 turned its attention to concerns about containing costs in those programs. Tennessee has been a pioneer in managing its Medicaid costs, and Congress might benefit from the Tennessee experience with TennCare, the state's Medicaid program. About 30 years ago, Tennessee faced unsustainable annual increases in its Medicaid program. A popular Democratic governor, Ned McWherter, called the state's Medicaid program the Pac Man of the state's budget. He sought to find a way to pay for the Medicaid increases through a state income tax (Tennessee does not have one) but failed. The TennCare program was designed to address the issue by containing the rate of increase in costs. Tennessee received a waiver so that it could implement a universal and mandatory managed care program. Tennessee had no managed care in Medicaid, and a move to 100 percent managed care was projected to reduce costs by 20-25 percent on a recurring basis. Support from patient advocates was secured by agreeing that cost savings would be used to increase access to Medicaid to previously uncovered persons. The mandatory Medicaid managed care program was deemed such a success that, in 1997, Congress allowed states to implement Medicaid managed care without a waiver. Managed care introduced economic considerations into the process of medical decision-making. While the cost savings projections were pretty much on target; once those savings were fully realized, the projections recognized that the rate of cost escalation would be restored, albeit from a lower cost basis. That projection also turned out to be pretty accurate. A Republican governor, Don Sundquist, succeeded McWherter and unsuccessfully sought to implement an income tax. Another wonderful Democratic governor, Phil Bredesen, was elected to succeed Sundquist under a promise not to seek an income tax. Bredesen was determined to find a way to manage down the rate of increase of Medicaid spending. I served as his outside counsel. A reform team determined that the target for reform should focus on the concept of 'medical necessity.' That insight was informed by work I had done as part of an Institute of Medicine study group, which looked at hospital staffing in a system that had recently merged three hospitals. There were three distinct models, and no consensus about which was the 'right' one. Traditionally, the concept of 'medical necessity' was the term used to define the scope of benefits under health plans, including Medicaid. The concept assumed that there was a single correct way of practicing medicine, and that it had a justification based on scientific consensus. But the existence of clinical uncertainty called into question that traditional view. As it turned out, many alternatives were available at varying costs, and evidence of superiority of one particular approach was often lacking. Those insights led to the policy conclusion that, if a more expensive alternative were proposed, the state should not pay for that more expensive alternative unless there was good scientific evidence that it was superior and worth the additional cost. If an aspirin were adequate, it should be used instead of a more expensive prescription-based alternative. If an adequate outpatient procedure were available at lower cost, TennCare should not pay for a more expensive inpatient option. These insights resulted in a TennCare definition of 'medical necessity' that could serve as a national model at considerable (but hard to measure) cost savings. That definition has been in place for nearly 20 years and has been approved by a federal court. TennCare has kept costs manageable so that the state has been able to live within existing sources of revenue, and the state even proposed to accept financial risk if it could share in the cost savings from TennCare above a projected baseline. The TennCare definition includes the traditional requirement that a medical item or service be recommended by a treating physician (no doctor shopping) and that it be 'safe and effective.' The reasonably anticipated medical benefits must 'outweigh' the reasonably anticipated medical risks 'based on the enrollee's condition and scientifically supported evidence' to be covered under TennCare. That is, a medically based risk-benefit calculation is a requirement as part of medical decision-making. The innovative aspects have three components. First, a medical item or service must be required 'in order to diagnose or treat an enrollee's medical condition.' That circumscribes the type of item or service covered under the program. Second, the medical item or service must be the 'least costly alternative course of diagnosis or treatment.' That expressly incorporates economic factors into medical decision-making. An alternative course of diagnosis or treatment 'may include observation, lifestyle or behavioral changes, or, where appropriate, no treatment at all.' If an item or service can be safely provided in an outpatient setting at lower cost, then that is what TennCare will pay for. More expensive inpatient treatment is not 'medically necessary.' Third, the less costly alternative need only be 'adequate for the medical condition of the enrollee.' The yardstick is not the best possible standard or some comparison with private plans. The standard of 'adequacy' means that sub-standard medicine is not acceptable, but that some differences between benefits for TennCare enrollees and those on private plans are acceptable. These innovations were controversial 20 years ago, when proposed and enacted, but they have become part of the fabric of TennCare and have been in place successfully for two decades. They help shape the medical decision-making culture that costs are to be considered and that the issue is the adequacy of care not what might be available in some private plans. That type of modest stratification, by the way, is expressly endorsed in the Affordable Care Act. Section 1302(b)(5) expressly allows for supplementation by health plans beyond the essential health benefits mandated by the Affordable Care Act. In the discussions that led to these reforms, the estimated range of savings was from 1 percent to 5 percent of total Medicaid spending. In an environment in which a program entails large expenditures, even a 1 percent per year savings could be considerable. James F. Blumstein is University Distinguished Professor at Vanderbilt Law School and the director of Vanderbilt's Health Policy Center. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Republicans defend cuts to Medicaid and renewable energy in Big Beautiful Bill: ‘absolutely out of control'
Key Republican senators pushed back Sunday against criticism of cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill, including Medicaid work restrictions and the elimination of many green energy subsidies. The Senate version of President Trump's signature tax and spending legislation imposes 80 hours a month work requirements on able-bodied adults, including those with children ages 15 and up. It also reduces the health care provider tax, which helps fund state Medicaid plans. Critics argue that those changes could result in millions of people losing access to Medicaid, which provides health care to over 70 million low-income Americans. 'There's 35 million people under the poverty line inside the United States, and there's 70 million people that are signed up for Medicaid,' Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) told NBC's 'Meet the Press' Sunday. 'What we are focused on is making sure that Medicaid is there for people in the future that need it and get rid of the fraud, waste and abuse.' 5 Progressive activists have protested against the Medicaid reform provisions in the megabill. Getty Images 5 President Trump has lashed out at senators who have opposed advancing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Getty Images Medicaid reform is the largest source of savings in the megabill, with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimating the legislative bundle would reduce Medicaid costs by about $930 billion over the next decade. Several senators have been uneasy about the Medicaid reform in the Senate bill, which goes further than the House version of the megabill. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), for example, voted against proceeding with the bill Saturday, citing Medicaid as his top concern. 'I cannot support this bill in its current form. It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities,' Tillis said in a statement Saturday. 'This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population.' 5 Sen. Markwayne Mullin defended the Medicaid reforms as reasonable. REUTERS Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) had raged against the Medicaid provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but stopped short of opposing the measure. 'We can't be cutting health care for working people and for poor people in order to constantly give special tax treatment to corporations and other entities,' Hawley told NBC News last week. The Senate bill includes bigger cuts to business taxes, including a permanent deductions for R&D spending. Despite those concerns, key senators defended the Medicaid reforms on the Sunday shows as the Senate forges ahead with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 'The entitlement spending in this nation is absolutely out of control. You can rewind back to the 1960s, when actual mandatory spending, which is what these entitlements are, only made up about a third of federal spending,' Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) told CNN's 'State of the Union' Sunday. 'Now, if you take that, plus the interest on our debt, it's about 73 percent of what we spend.' 5 Sen. Katie Britt called the reforms reminiscent of Clinton-era policies. Bloomberg via Getty Images Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) also touted plans to consider an amendment that would ensure illegal immigrants don't get access to Medicaid. 'Remember, the Medicaid reforms in this bill are about work requirements and taking illegals off of Medicaid,' Banks told 'Fox News Sunday.' Another closely watched amendment from Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) would lower the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), which determines the percentage of Medicaid costs covered by Uncle Sam. Scott's amendment would lower FMAP for able-bodied, childless adults. The amendment has been used to win over fiscal hawks such as Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who had threatened to vote against the megabill due to concerns about the deficit. 5 Sen. Jim Banks hailed the legislative bundle for slashing green energy subsidies. Getty Images In addition to the Medicaid reform, senators also defended the cuts to Biden-era renewable energy subsidies, something that has infuriated tech mogul and one-time Trump 'first buddy' Elon Musk. 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!' Musk fumed on X Saturday. 'Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' The Senate version of the megabill significantly rolls back tax credits for green energy in the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act and requires key projects to go into service by the conclusion of 2027 to qualify. It also features an excise tax that takes aim at solar and wind projects. 'Again, $1.6 trillion in spending cuts by eliminating the Green New Deal tax credits. Those scams that were passed during the Biden administration,' Banks added. 'Much of it is phased out in a quick period of time over the next two or three years.'
