Centre County officials give more funding to local nursing home
This is not the first time the commissioners donated to Centre Care. Earlier in 2025, the board gave a $900,000 grant to the facility. This new funding for the nursing home is from officials buying a 13,483 acre parcel of land from Centre Care.
Centre Care says they are not operating at a deficit, but keeping over 150 Medicaid beds in use comes with a cost.
New partnership in Centre County gives support for sexual assault victims
'We lose approximately $115 per bed per day on Medicaid residents and 70% at least of our population being Medicaid, that adds up real fast,' Chair of Centre Care's Board Betsy Boyer said.,
Commissioner Chair Mark Higgins describes this $600,000 check as a 'gentleman's agreement,' with Centre Care being given the chance to buy back the land in the next year or so if 'things go even better for them financially than planned.' In the meantime, he says the county has no plans to do anything with the newly purchased land.
Commissioner Steve Dershem says he has seen other counties struggling to meet the demand for Medicaid beds and does not want Centre County to fall into that group.
'I don't see any time in the future that our area is going to be lowering its population of seniors and other folks that need those services,' Dershem said.
The money comes from the American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA fund. After these large donations, that fund is now dried up. However, the board sees this as a worthy investment. Commissioner Amber Concepcion called the funding 'crucial' to maintaining Centre Care as the 'healthy, thriving' organization it is now.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
How one tax change in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' that even Gov. JB Pritzker supports will work
Gov. JB Pritzker and his fellow Democrats have been unrelenting in their criticisms of the tax and spending plan President Donald Trump signed July 4. But along with much-lambasted cuts to Medicaid, food assistance and education, the budget reconciliation plan Republicans pushed through Congress this summer includes a tax change that Democrats as well as some Republicans in high-tax blue states have backed for years. The measure temporarily raises the limit on how much of their state and local tax bills taxpayers can deduct when filing their federal income tax returns. Boosting the cap on the so-called SALT deduction to $40,000, from the previous $10,000, and extending its expiration date for five years will largely benefit those at the upper end of the income scale. But it's also seen as especially beneficial in states such as Illinois that have high property taxes. 'I think raising it is a good thing for the state of Illinois, and I think more needs to be done to kind of alleviate the pain that the Trump administration is visiting on states across the country,' Pritzker said last week at an unrelated event in Chicago. 'This is one way in which pain can be alleviated. So it's a positive thing overall. Large states, highly populous states like ours, tend to benefit from the SALT deduction, so whatever is good for the state of Illinois, I'm for.' Supporting the higher limit puts Democrats, who've decried the Republican plan as a boon for the rich, in an awkward position since it largely affects high earners. Yet it can also be good politics for those representing districts that span some of Chicago's wealthier neighborhoods and suburban communities — areas that have become increasingly Democratic in recent decades. The overall impact of the change, particularly for middle- and upper-middle-income homeowners in the city and suburbs, remains to be seen, however. Trump's new tax package leaves in place a higher standard deduction that was enacted alongside the original $10,000 SALT cap as part of his 2017 tax cuts. The higher standard deduction — $31,500 for married couples on 2025 taxes that will be filed next spring — makes it less likely households with property tax bills in the low five figures would choose to itemize on their federal returns and claim the SALT deduction. Because of that and other intricacies of the tax code, the effect of the change on individual tax bills in Illinois is likely to be very narrow, said Ralph Martire, executive director of the Chicago-based Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, a nonpartisan think tank. According to his group's analysis of the 2017 change, 'only 11 of the 1,229 ZIP codes in Illinois saw a majority of their taxpayers pay higher federal income taxes under the (SALT deduction) cap of $10,000,' Martire said. And as might be expected, those ZIP codes are concentrated in affluent suburbs such as Hinsdale and Wayne in DuPage County, Lake Forest, Barrington, Highland Park and Deerfield in Lake County, and Glencoe, Kenilworth, Winnetka, Wilmette and Western Springs in Cook County. 'There are communities that disproportionately impacts … and they are communities of wealth, for the most part,' Martire said. Still, Martire said, the previous cap of $10,000 likely put the squeeze on some upper-middle income families — think those earning around $250,000 per year, with a five-figure annual property tax bill and hopes of sending their kids to college without the help of need-based financial aid. 'You're upper-income … at that level, but you're not living entirely high on the hog,' Martire said. 'The truth of the matter is, from a policy standpoint, if you're going to have a cap, the cap should be relatively high, and maybe even higher than $40,000, so that those paying a higher overall tax bill are those at the very top of the scale,' he added. Taxpayers have been able to deduct what they pay to state and local governments since the permanent federal income tax was adopted in 1913. While policymakers have been chipping away at the deduction for decades, the $10,000 cap instituted in Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was the most stringent restriction to date, though it didn't meet the Trump administration's and congressional Republicans' original goal of eliminating the deduction entirely. Before the 2017 change, taxpayers, with a few exceptions, could deduct from their federal taxes the full amount they paid in local property taxes as well as either state income or sales taxes. Pritzker last week said the cap 'never should have been put in place in the first place.' Republicans who pushed for eliminating or at least limiting the deduction argued that the policy was a federal tax giveaway to Democratic-led states that had made political decisions to impose higher levies on their residents. Many Democrats in states such as New York, California and Illinois opposed the cap, arguing that their residents already send a greater share of tax dollars to Washington than their states receive back and that limiting the deduction would result in some people being taxed twice on the same income. The new cap became a contentious issue in some congressional races in the 2018 midterm election, particularly in suburban districts. U.S. Rep. Sean Casten of Downers Grove, for instance, campaigned heavily on the issue in his successful bid to unseat GOP Rep. Peter Roskam, a six-term incumbent from Wheaton who helped write the legislation creating the $10,000 cap. When Democrats took control of the House in 2019, they passed legislation that would have eliminated the cap. The measure was not taken up in the Republican-led Senate, though support for the limit didn't break cleanly along party lines. After Democrats took control of the Senate in 2021 with President Joe Biden in the White House, efforts to address the cap again faltered, despite efforts by Pritzker and other Democratic governors who wrote Biden a letter that spring calling for it to be eliminated. 'Like so many of President Trump's efforts, capping SALT deductions was based on politics, not logic or good government,' the letter said. 'This assault disproportionately targeted Democratic-run states, increasing taxes on hardworking families,' the governors said. Eventually, however, the issue was left by the wayside as the Biden administration worked to cobble together support for his scaled-down domestic policy agenda, in large part because eliminating the cap would have cost the federal government roughly $100 billion in lost revenue annually. Once Republicans took back control of Congress and the White House in the 2024 election, the GOP was forced to grapple with the issue as Trump and his supporters worked to push through his sweeping One Big Beautiful Bill Act. With few votes to spare thanks to a razor-thin majority and unified Democratic opposition to the overall package, several House Republicans from Democratic-led states, though none of Illinois' three GOP members, threatened to withhold their support if a higher limit for the state and local tax deduction wasn't included. Without any action from Congress, the cap would have expired completely at the end of the year. In the end, Trump signed a measure that raised the cap to $40,000 for the current year, with a 1% annual increase through 2029. In 2030, the cap will drop back to $10,000, unless Congress takes further action. The higher cap phases out for higher-income individuals, beginning with those earning more than $500,000 but doesn't drop below the $10,000 level for any taxpayer who claims the deduction. Despite the effort to scale back the cap for the highest earners, only about 7% of tax filers will see a benefit from the change, according to estimates from the Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, research associate Nikhita Airi said. Of the overall tax savings, nearly 85% will go to the top 20% of earners, with more than half going to those in the top 10%. 'It's a deduction with a pretty clear constituency, and that kind of explains why it's been so politically durable and what ended up happening within the reconciliation bill,' Airi said. Even though some Illinois Democrats have been pushing for the cap on the deduction to be raised, they weren't in a celebratory mood when Republicans did so as part of their massive $3.4 trillion package. 'If I served you a big bowl of poison and there's a Skittle in it, you shouldn't eat the Skittle,' Casten, the Downers Grove Democrat, said at a recent forum hosted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Planned Parenthood, cut off from Medicaid payments, is seeing patients for free, but some are still missing care
Advertisement 'I've been here for almost 10 years now,' said Anne McGovern, chief operating officer of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, 'and this is easily the hardest thing we've had to deal with.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up For the time being, Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts is offering free care to Medicaid patients as legal challenges to the funding cuts move through the courts. Last week, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from withholding Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood clinics that don't provide abortions or receive less than $800,000 from the government insurance program. The ruling, however, doesn't help Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts, which last year billed Medicaid for $14 million, or roughly half of the health care provider's operating budget. About 40 percent of the patients at Massachusetts clinics are insured by Medicaid, according to Planned Parenthood. Advertisement A sign for more information about Medicaid was displayed in the patient waiting area at the Greater Boston Health Center location of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. Suzanne Kreiter/Globe Staff The state earmarked $2 million for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts in the fiscal 2026 budget, but that is still only a fraction of the cuts. It's unclear how long the organization can provide free care to patients covered by Medicaid. 'This is the first time that something is really shaking our foundation,' said Dr. Luu Ireland, chief medical officer of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. Most patients at Massachusetts' Planned Parenthood locations — in Boston, Worcester, Marlborough, and Springfield — are not seeking abortions, but rather primary care such as annual check-ups and testing for sexually transmitted diseases. Recently, Ireland said a teenager came in with her mother to get birth control for the first time. Birth control, Ireland noted, 'is trial and error,' and patients might need to try several brands of the medication before finding the right prescription. Because the teen is insured by the state's Medicaid program, called MassHealth, Ireland couldn't promise her that she would be able to come back to Planned Parenthood for follow-up visits. Another MassHealth patient who has come to Planned Parenthood for years for STD testing was 'at a loss' when Ireland told him about changing policies. 'Where am I going to go to get tested?' Ireland recalled him asking. 'What if I need treatment? How much will that cost?' The Massachusetts Planned Parenthood offices are typically able to get patients into the office within seven days, which is much faster than other gynecology and primary care providers in the region. Advertisement Many of the patients who go to Planned Parenthood for routine care have seen the same providers for years. Shaking up that care can be jarring, said Irem Girmen, who leads the team that answers patient questions at the Boston clinic. 'They like coming here. They prefer to come here,' said Girmen. 'Gynecological exams are vulnerable, and they trust us.' Dr. Luu Ireland is the chief medical officer at the Boston Health Center location of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. Suzanne Kreiter/Globe Staff MassHealth patients seeking abortion care are not affected by the changes in federal law. States have long been prohibited from using federal Medicaid money to cover abortions, but Massachusetts uses its own funds to cover abortion care for patients insured by MassHealth. While the organization is seeking alternative funding options, Ireland said, Planned Parenthood's top priority remains getting patients in the door so medical care goes uninterrupted. 'We are providing care and we are absorbing the cost of that health care,' Ireland said. 'That is our temporary plan for now to ensure that our patients suffer as little as possible during this transition.' Marin Wolf can be reached at
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
One of America's most at-risk GOP governors gets a Democratic challenger
'It was Medicaid that enabled my son and me to have the health care we needed in order to be able to survive. It was food stamps that kept us fed,' Ford said in an interview, explaining that he and his son used these programs for a year and a half when he was a single father attending college. 'It hits me … particularly hard to know that people are about to be hit in those areas.' If he wins the primary, Ford will likely face Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, who is expected to run for reelection. Lombardo surprised many by unseating incumbent Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak in 2022, and is widely considered to be the most at-risk incumbent Republican governor headed into 2026. Ford, an outspoken AG who has sued the Trump administration on everything from education funding to AmeriCorps over the last six months, is not the only Democrat vying for the governor's office. Washoe County Commission Chair Alexis Hill also said she plans to run for governor, setting up a competitive primary. Nevada is a purple state that likes to split tickets: Both President Donald Trump and Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen won Nevada in 2024 — Trump with just under 51 percent of the vote. The state joins Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin as one of the five toss-up gubernatorial races in 2026, according to the Cook Political Report. Medicaid has become a major campaign point for Democrats across the country, and Ford is already framing his race through that lens. In a conversation with POLITICO the week before announcing his campaign, Ford talked about the negative effects the megabill will have on Nevadans and criticized Lombardo's response to the legislation — accusing him of being silent on cuts that would harm Nevadans. Lombardo in February asked the White House not to slash Medicaid funding, and in May was one of just seven governors who did not sign a letter in support of the bill. But in July, Lombardo complimented other parts of the legislation, including a provision that removes taxes on tips and overtime. The tip tax policy could have a big impact in a state like Nevada, where many residents work in the service and hospitality industries. 'While my administration continues to assess this bill as it moves to get signed into law, Nevadans should be excited about the potential impacts of tax cuts, investments in small businesses and American manufacturing, and efforts to help secure our border,' Lombardo said in a statement provided to the Las Vegas Review-Journal after the bill's passage. Ford last week attacked that statement, arguing that nobody should be 'excited about the fact that over 100,000 people in Nevada are about to lose their health insurance.' The AG argued that Medicaid cuts will have a larger long-term impact on Nevadans than the benefits of removing taxes on tips. 'One of the fascinating parts about Nevada is that it is notoriously purple,' Ford said. 'And it is not at all adverse to jettisoning an incumbent that's not doing his job.'
