I'm a pediatric heart doctor. Medicaid cuts put half of Kentucky kids at risk.
Part of my job includes having hard conversations with expecting families about their child's abnormal heart, often trying to describe the complex heart diagnosis with a poorly drawn sketch on a sheet of printer paper. Through teary eyes and tissues in a claustrophobic exam room, I watch as plans for baby showers and nursery décor are quickly replaced by talk of heart surgery and hospital stays.
When this diagnosis pulls the rug out from under these families, I hope to offer a soft landing place, a team of specialized pediatric providers to take care of these children as they undergo heart surgery — sometimes, in the first week of life.
The reality, too, is that as families worry about their child's health, many are also often worried about the cost of care. This is a fear no family should face when it comes to getting the care their child needs.
Gerth: Shouldn't police only violently assault people who commit crimes? | Opinion
Many of these children will need access to specialized providers throughout their life to help them grow and thrive. Luckily, Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — here in Kentucky, called KCHIP — serve as the backbone for caring for children with special health care needs, and approximately half of children I care for with heart disease rely on these programs for specialized care.
Yet, right now these programs are at risk for sweeping cuts as Congress negotiates the budget. Any proposed funding cuts to Medicaid and CHIP would place these children at risk, and so many more in our state and across the country.
I wish that these conversations I had with families were a rarity. However, heart disease that children are born with is the most common birth defect, occurring in almost 1% of births. Approximately a quarter of children born with abnormal hearts will need heart surgery or other interventions to survive.
In Kentucky, Medicaid and KCHIP cover nearly half of children overall and more than half of children with special health care needs. These are the children whose hearts are represented by my drawings. I yearn for these children's smiling pictures as they live and grow with battle wounds of surgical scars, but I know that these heart warriors need our help.
As someone who sees the importance of Medicaid and CHIP first-hand, I urge our Kentucky lawmakers to reject cuts to these vital programs. Because of these programs, my patients and so many more Kentucky children grow up healthy in our communities.
Medicaid and CHIP are lifelines for children and families in our state, including the children who belong to these special hearts. We must protect these programs so patients like mine can thrive. Congress must do what's right and protect Medicaid and CHIP.
Opinion Ark Encounter offers top canine training to police. Bible studies are optional.
Allison K. Black, MD, FAAP is a pediatric cardiologist in Louisville.
This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Medicaid cuts could leave half of KY children without care | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Getting HIV is no longer a death sentence — but the fight is not over
In the next few weeks, Congress will vote on what may be the most important question lawmakers have had to decide about HIV this century: whether to continue on the path toward the elimination of the disease or to allow the country to slip back into the 1980s-era nightmare of an uncontrolled surge of the virus. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up HIV remains a threat in the United States. One in 300 Americans is already infected, and more than 30,000 new infections and 4,000 deaths occur annually. But 40 years ago, HIV was more than a threat — it was a death sentence. It was the Advertisement But an epidemic that started as a public health debacle turned into one of the field's greatest achievements: New drugs have been developed that are capable of cutting HIV Advertisement However, obstacles remain: Access to HIV care is not always easy. In order for patients to keep the virus in check, they must adhere to sometimes complex drug regimens over their lifetimes. What's more, people who get HIV are often unaware that they've been infected and can unknowingly spread the virus to others. As a result, as many as Still, policymakers remain hopeful that new cases of HIV in the United States can be eliminated entirely going forward. In his 2019 State of the Union address, President Trump announced the launch of an ambitious program he called ' However, these costs pale in comparison to the expense of managing a rise in cases that could result from funding cuts to prevention programs. It is much less expensive to prevent a case of HIV than it is to treat one. Advertisement The average American, thankfully, hears very little about HIV these days. That is a good thing — but it also means there is more opportunity for political will to keep the virus in check to wane. Or even for the basic tenets of what makes HIV deadly to be questioned. Enter Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In 2021, before he was made secretary of health and human services, he wrote in his book 'The Real Anthony Fauci' that he ' In a videotaped This past April, not long after Kennedy was confirmed as HHS secretary, Before long, Advertisement Then Kennedy took his most dramatic action. In his HIV is the most exhaustively studied virus in human history, and the vast body of evidence clearly indicates that it is an infectious cause of disease. It is deeply worrying that RJK Jr. would reclassify efforts to contain and treat HIV under an agency not responsible for infectious disease. RFK Jr.'s proposed reorganization is now before Congress. If his plan goes ahead, the consequences may not be immediately visible. HIV doesn't explode into outbreaks as soon as prevention lags. Initially, the spread of HIV infection will be invisible, particularly if our monitoring systems are shuttered. But we may wake up one day to discover that an HIV epidemic is once again raging — a scourge we worked so long and so hard to escape.
Hamilton Spectator
10 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
US organ donation system faces scrutiny and changes after reports of disturbing near-misses
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. is developing new safeguards for the organ transplant system after a government investigation found a Kentucky group continued preparations for organ donation by some patients who showed signs of life, officials told Congress Tuesday. While the organ removals were canceled, near misses that some lawmakers called horrifying should never happen. A House subcommittee asked how to repair trust in the transplant network for potential organ donors and families — some of whom have opted out of donor registries after these cases were publicized. 'We have to get this right,' said Rep. Brett Guthrie, a Kentucky Republican who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee and whose mother died waiting for a liver transplant. 'Hopefully people will walk away today knowing we need to address issues but still confident that they can give life,' Guthrie said, adding that he will remain a registered organ donor. The hearing came after a federal investigation began last fall into allegations that a Kentucky donation group pressured a hospital in 2021 to proceed with plans to withdraw life support and retrieve organs from a man despite signs that he might be waking up from his drug overdose. That surgery never happened after a doctor noticed him moving and moaning while being transported to the operating room — and the man survived. Lawmakers stressed most organ donations proceed appropriately and save tens of thousands of lives a year. But the federal probe – concluded in March but only made public ahead of Tuesday's hearing — cited a 'concerning pattern of risk' in dozens of other cases involving the Kentucky group's initial planning to recover someone's organs. The report said some should have been stopped or reassessed earlier, and mostly involved small or rural hospitals with less experience in caring for potential organ donors. The Kentucky organ procurement organization, or OPO, has made changes and the national transplant network is working on additional steps. But notably absent Tuesday was any testimony from hospitals – whose doctors must independently determine a patient is dead before donation groups are allowed to retrieve organs. Here's a look at how the nation's transplant system works. There's a dire need for organ donation More than 100,000 people are on the U.S. transplant list and about 13 a day die waiting, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Only about 1% of deaths occur in a way that allows someone to even be considered for organ donation . Most people declared dead in a hospital will quickly be transferred to a funeral home or morgue instead. How the U.S. organ transplant system is set up Several groups are involved in every transplant: the hospital caring for someone dead or dying; the 55 OPOs that coordinate recovery of organs and help match them to patients on the waiting list; and transplant centers that decide if an organ is the right fit for their patients. Adding to the complexity, two government agencies — HRSA, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — share regulatory oversight of different parts of the donation and transplant process. How deceased donation works Most organ donors are brain-dead – when testing determines someone has no brain function after a catastrophic injury. The body is left on a ventilator to support the organs until they can be retrieved. But increasingly organs are donated after circulatory death, called DCD – when people die because their heart stops. It usually happens when doctors determine someone has a nonsurvivable injury and the family withdraws life support. Donation groups don't provide hands-on patient care Hospitals are required to alert their area OPO to every potential donor who is declared brain-dead or once the decision to withdraw life support is made. The OPOs by law can't participate in that decision and 'we are not even in the room at that time,' said Barry Massa of Kentucky's Network for Hope. During the following days of preparation, hospital employees continue caring for the patient – while the donation team talks with the family about the process, gathers hospital records showing the patient is eligible, requests tests of organ quality, and make arrangements with transplant centers to use them. Once the hospital withdraws life support and the heart stops beating there's a mandatory wait – five minutes – to be sure it won't restart. When the doctor declares death, the organ retrieval process can begin. Organs are only considered usable if death occurs relatively quickly, usually up to about two hours. Sometimes that takes much longer and thus the organs can't be used – and HRSA's Dr. Raymond Lynch told Congress that doesn't necessarily mean anything was done wrong. Still, he said HRSA is investigating reports of possible mistakes elsewhere. 'This is a technically demanding form of care' that requires 'good collaboration between the OPO and the hospital,' he said. What happens next At issue is how doctors are sure when it's time to withdraw life support from a dying patient — and the delicate balance of how OPOs interact with hospital staff in preparing for donation once death occurs. In May, HRSA quietly ordered the U.S. transplant network to oversee improvements at the Kentucky OPO and to develop new national policies making clear that anyone – family, hospital staff or organ donation staff – can call for a pause in donation preparations any time there are concerns about the patient's eligibility. Lynch said the government now wants more proactive collaboration from OPOs to give hospital staff 'a clear understanding' of when to at least temporarily halt and reevaluate a potential donor if their health status changes. Kentucky's Massa said his group only received HRSA's reports this week – but that after learning about last fall's allegations, it made some changes. Massa said every hospital doctor and nurse now gets a checklist on caring for potential donors and how to pause when concerns are raised — and anyone can anonymously report complaints. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Forbes
10 hours ago
- Forbes
17 Million Americans May Lose Health Coverage Under The One Big Beautiful Bill
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - 2025/05/29: Participant seen holding a sign at the protest. New ... More Yorkers gathered outside House Representative Nicole Malliotakis office in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn to protest her decision to vote in favor to pass the so called Big Beautiful Bill, a bill that contains severe cuts to social services like healthcare, housing and food assistance federally funded programs and big tax cuts to billionaires and big corporations. (Photo by Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images)About 17 million Americans could lose their health insurance coverage in 2026. That's when the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' the flagship budget reconciliation package Trump signed on July 4, is expected to be fully implemented. Twelve million of those at risk are Medicaid enrollees. An additional 5 million people stand to lose coverage due to changes in the Affordable Care Act marketplace coverage. Overall, these changes will lead to significant increases in out-of-pocket healthcare costs, lapses in coverage, and total losses for the most vulnerable Americans. Here are five things you need to know about key health care coverage provisions in the bill. Women Will Lose Access To Trusted Reproductive Health Care Providers Due to a prohibition on Medicaid funds to nonprofit organizations and community health centers that offer family planning and reproductive health care services, including abortion care with private or non-federal funds, underserved and hard-to-reach communities are likely to see gaps in access to vital health care. Planned Parenthood, a trusted and long-standing reproductive health care provider, is targeted through this provision of the bill. However, the effects will have far-reaching impacts on additional providers and millions of patients. This is just the latest target by Congressional Republicans and President Trump of reproductive health care providers. In March, the Trump administration withheld tens of millions in funding from Planned Parenthood and other front-line family planning clinics. More than 1 million Americans seeking care from Planned Parenthood alone could lose access to essential services such as sexually transmitted infections testing, cancer screenings, and contraception. Some Planned Parenthood clinics also provide prenatal care to expectant parents. Due to a decades-old federal restriction on abortion coverage under the Hyde Amendment, Medicaid enrollees are already prohibited from using their health care coverage for abortion (except in the cases of rape, endangerment to the life of the mother, and incest). On July 7, a judge temporarily barred the Trump administration from withholding Medicaid funding to Planned - Supporters of Planned Parenthood and pro-choice supporters rally outside the US Supreme ... More Court on April 2, 2025, in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which could decide if states can strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funds. The case addresses whether Medicaid beneficiaries can seek relief in federal court to enforce Medicaid's "free-choice of provider provision," which allows Medicaid beneficiaries to seek care from any provider that is qualified and willing to participate in the program. While the case focuses on this specific question, it has its origins in broader efforts by anti-abortion policymakers to exclude Planned Parenthood clinics from the Medicaid program and, ultimately, eliminate all federal payments to Planned Parenthood centers. (Photo by Drew ANGERER / AFP) (Photo by DREW ANGERER/AFP via Getty Images)The Bill Imposes Stringent Work Requirements On Medicaid Enrollees The bill enacts new conditions on Medicaid eligibility, requiring individuals between the ages of 19 and 64 to work at least 80 hours per month and undertake onerous reporting requirements. The final version, as signed by President Trump, does include exemptions for Medicaid enrollees who are the parents of children under the age of 13. KFF estimates that 64% of adults on Medicaid already work full time or part time. The remainder simply cannot work due to caregiving responsibilities (12%), illness or disability (10%), or because they are pursuing education (7%). The work requirement could knock people out of much-needed insurance coverage, especially low-income, vulnerable individuals. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that while work requirements could result in federal savings over the long term, policies such as this would greatly increase the number of uninsured Americans and do nothing to spark increases in employment rates. Out-of-pocket Health Care Costs Are Expected To Rise Medicaid enrollees who maintain coverage given the new changes can expect to feel it in their pocketbooks. The bill will require states to impose cost sharing of up to $35 per service for adults with incomes between 100% to 138% of the federal poverty line. It includes exemptions for primary care, substance use disorder treatment, and mental health care, and maintains limits on cost sharing for prescription drugs from the previous law, along with prior exemptions (i.e., long-term care, family planning, etc.). Those managing chronic health conditions could see the greatest burden in out-of-pocket costs over a year. The average annual expense for all Medicaid enrollees is about $542, and up to $1,248 for those managing three or more chronic conditions. For people with limited incomes, an increase in expenses of this magnitude could completely derail household budgets and cause families to forgo necessities. The Bill Cuts Biden-Era Incentive For State Medicaid Expansion The budget reconciliation bill eliminates the American Rescue Plan's temporary financial incentive for states opting to expand Medicaid. Forty-one states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid, broadening the population of individuals and families with slightly higher household incomes eligible for Medicaid (up to 138% of the federal poverty line, or $21,597 for an individual, $44,367 for a family of four). Under the American Rescue Plan, 90% in federal matching funds had been awarded to state populations with Medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion has been key in increasing access to health coverage and essential care for millions of Americans, improving access to services such as long-term care, treatment of chronic conditions such as diabetes, behavioral health, pregnancy-related care (including in the vulnerable postpartum period), care for people with disabilities, and much more. Certain Groups Of Immigrants Are No Longer Eligible For Subsidized Health Insurance Coverage The bill eliminates subsidized health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace for all immigrants residing in the country lawfully with incomes under 100% of the federal poverty line. In 2025, this is just $15,650 annually for an individual and $32,150 annually for a family of four. The new law places further limitations on subsidized coverage for immigrants with green cards, refugees, asylees, and people with Temporary Protected Status. It also severely or altogether limits Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program coverage for many of these groups of immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are already ineligible for subsidized health insurance coverage. Uninsured rates among immigrants tend to be high, especially among the undocumented. These groups are also most likely to delay much-needed healthcare or forgo it altogether. Despite high rates of employment within the immigrant population, it's uncommon for them to have access to employer-sponsored health insurance, making subsidized coverage critical to ensuring access to essential health care services. Many of these provisions take effect in 2026, but the government is already beginning to implement them. In the meantime, the individuals and families affected by ensuing changes to their health care coverage must keep a close eye on not only their health plans but also their pocketbooks. While the health implications for the uninsured cannot be overstated, so too are the implications of those already experiencing economic hardship. The One Big Beautiful Bill will make it harder for already struggling individuals and families to make ends meet and stay healthy.
