Latest news with #CommonwealthFund
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Health care, food cuts won't only hurt Ohio's poor, but the entire economy, study says
U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks to reporters at the Capitol as lawmakers work on the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on June 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act is being sold on promises that it will save Ohioans money. But its safety-net cuts will cost Ohio and other states far more than it will save, according to a report published last week. The deep cuts to health care under Medicaid, and to food support under the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP, wouldn't only harm the most vulnerable, the report by the Commonwealth Fund and George Washington University says. It also would wipe out jobs, stifle state economies and diminish the tax revenue that state and local governments need to operate. The bill, which faces a Republican self-imposed July 4 deadline for passage, stands to destroy 1.2 million jobs in the United States by 2029 and shrink state economies by $154 billion, the analysis says. Proposed SNAP changes could swamp Ohio's overburdened system Some Ohio leaders have said that the changes proposed for SNAP would overwhelm an already overburdened system and increase hunger among children, the elderly, the disabled and the working poor. They say the Medicaid cuts would cost 770,000 mostly working Ohioans their health coverage. The Commonwealth Foundation-George Washington University report says the bill's blast radius is far wider than that. Ohio would lose $4.5 billion in federal funding, it says. The state's GDP, or economic output, would drop by $5.2 billion. State and local tax revenues would drop by $3.66 billion by 2029 as well, it said. Ohio job losses, roughly half of them in the health sector, would be 44,700, or 0.8% of the workforce, it added. Trump and congressional Republicans are justifying the cuts because they would shrink federal spending on Medicaid and SNAP by $1.2 trillion over 10 years. But that doesn't take into account the direct and indirect harm that would be done to the broader economy. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'Our study reveals another, less discussed consequence of the budget cutbacks: the damage to state economies and loss of hundreds of billions of dollars, amounts that greatly exceed any federal savings,' the Commonwealth Fund-George Washington University report says. 'More than a million people will lose their jobs, particularly in the health care sector. Hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes will close, many of them in rural and low-income communities. The need to compensate for the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding will mean that state and local governments will have to consider cuts in other public services, such as education or infrastructure, just as they lose billions of dollars in state and local tax revenue because of the economic dislocation these policies cause.' Meanwhile, the economic justification for Trump's proposed tax cuts is dubious. They're titled heavily in favor of the richest Americans. Of the $4.6 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years, the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School estimated that 70% of the benefit would go to the 'top 10% of the income distribution.' The Commonwealth Fund-George Washington University analysis said that the cuts under the Republican bill would suck money out of the pockets of poor families while it stuffs it into those of the rich — and as it plunges all of us deeper into debt. 'By cutting safety-net programs, the House budget bill reduces resources for low-income households (the lowest 10% of earners) by an average of $1,600,' it said. 'At the same time, the bill's tax cuts increase resources for high-income households (the highest 10% of earners) by $12,000. Despite the spending cuts, the bill would increase the federal deficit by $3 trillion, including about $500 billion in higher interest costs.' Tax cuts for the wealthy have long been sold on promises that they'll juice the economy and everybody will benefit. But there's little evidence to support that. For example, the Trump tax cuts of 2017 weren't even half the size of those contemplated under The One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Even so, they added $1 trillion to $2 trillion to the deficit, the Tax Policy Center estimates. Trump claimed the corporate tax cuts that were part of the package would add $4,000 to median household income. But it was found to add nothing at all for families making $114,000 a year or less, while it led to vast increases in executive salaries, the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities reported. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Miami Herald
4 days ago
- Health
- Miami Herald
Map Shows US States With Best - And Worst
A new report by the Commonwealth Fund has revealed the states with the best and worst health care systems, based on 50 different measures. Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Hampshire and Rhode Island were at the top of the leader board for having the best health care systems in the country, meanwhile, Mississippi was ranked the state with the worst health care system. Access and affordability of health care is a pressing problem in the U.S.-with many Americans struggling to cover expensive costs, while finding it difficult to get medical help. Key factors affecting how well each state ranked included whether they had expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act (ACA)-with states that had not done so being among the worst performing. President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" did not include mention of renewing enhanced ACA tax credits, which are set to expire this year, while proposing major cuts to the Medicaid health program and new requirements for eligibility. Many critics of the tax bill have warned of its impact on health outcomes, while a report recently found that the ACA's Medicaid expansion significantly reduced mortality among adults with low incomes, saving an estimated 27,000 lives, according to the Commonwealth Fund. "When it comes to having affordable health coverage, access to good-quality care, and the ability to lead a healthy life, where you live matters," the Commonwealth Fund report said. For example, premature, avoidable deaths varied widely across states-in West Virginia, the rate was more than twice as high as the rate in Massachusetts. The rankings were obtained based on 50 measures of health care access and affordability, prevention and treatment, avoidable hospital use and costs, health outcomes and healthy behaviors, income disparity, and equity. The overall rankings were as follows: MassachusettsHawaiiNew HampshireRhode IslandDistrict of ColumbiaNew YorkMarylandVermontWashingtonColoradoConnecticutOregonPennsylvaniaVirginiaMinnesotaNew JerseyUtahIowaIdahoCaliforniaMaineNorth DakotaMichiganNebraskaDelawareWisconsinIllinoisMontanaNorth CarolinaOhioNew MexicoSouth DakotaKansasArizonaIndianaSouth CarolinaKentuckyAlaskaFloridaWyomingLouisianaAlabamaMissouriTennesseeGeorgiaNevadaWest VirginiaArkansasOklahomaTexasMississippi Explaining the reasons states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island performed so well in the rankings, Vivian Ho, chair in health economics at Rice University, Texas, told Newsweek that these states expanded Medicaid under the ACA. This "contributed to improved affordability of health care and health insurance," she said. She added that Massachusetts and Rhode Island have been "particularly proactive in monitoring and controlling the costs of hospital care, which is the most significant component of rising costs." "These states also aggressively support their state public health systems, which leads to better prevention of debilitating diseases," she said. Arkansas, West Virginia and Mississippi are in the highest Federal Medical Assistance Percentage category under Medicaid, according to KFF data, indicating that "household income is the lowest in the country," Ho said. "Therefore, a larger portion of their populations need financial assistance to access healthcare which they are too poor to afford," she added. However, even top ranking states did not do well across every measure, the Commonwealth Fund report noted. In the case of Massachusetts, while it was ranked the best state for health care, it ranked near the bottom on several measures of care for elderly patients-such as preventable hospitalizations and hospital readmissions. The reverse can be said about Mississippi, as while it ranked the lowest overall, it came in the top quartile of state spending on primary care. The report also noted that the disparity in the quality of health care overall varied in states because of policy choices made by state leaders, such as whether to expand Medicaid eligibility, whether to ensure women can access the full range of reproductive care services, or whether to boost investment in primary care. The report also revealed wider issues in the country-that avoidable mortality rates are higher in America than in other high-income countries, and rather than declining, the rates are increasing. Ho said that some of the reasons for this could be because the "opioid crisis is unique to America; vaccine misinformation seems more widespread in this country; and our lack of health insurance is unique among developed countries." There is also a significant racial disparity-as in 42 states avoidable mortality for Black people was found to be at least two times the rate for the group with the lowest rate. Vivian Ho, chair in health economics at Rice University, Texas, told Newsweek: "The American public doesn't understand that consolidated healthcare systems are charging prices that earn them extraordinary profits, which raises the costs of employer-provided health insurance. That's why so many Americans have to rely on Obamacare or Medicaid for health insurance, or go without coverage at all. Shopping for healthcare has become extremely complicated, and I blame employers for not being more aggressive in designing benefits for their workers that exercise better price sensitivity." Nicole Maestas, a professor of economics and health care policy and chair in the Department of Health Care Policy at Harvard Medical School, told Newsweek: "I think policy choices are the main explanation for the differences across states, and Medicaid policy is probably the most important policy choice, though not the only choice. States that chose to expand Medicaid under the ACA have had access to federal funds that enabled them to drive improvements in access, affordability, and health. The trends in avoidable mortality are worrying, and merit policy attention so that the U.S. doesn't lose further ground." As the report highlighted the major impact policymakers can have on the health care services in states, Trump's new bill proposing major changes to health programs could see the provision and access to care in states begin to change in coming months. Related Articles Mortalities From America's Top Cause of Death Have Dropped 66 Percent-StudyResearchers Sound Alarm Over Dolphin Bacteria That Causes 'Neurological Issues' in HumansHealth Insurance Change to Improve Service for 257 Million AmericansTrump Administration Says Health Insurance Move Will Save $12 Billion 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
The Hill
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Parliamentarian rejects GOP attempt to prohibit federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortion services
The Senate parliamentarian ruled on Wednesday to reject Republican language in the Senate megabill that would prohibit federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) from going to qualified health plans that cover abortion services. The Republican language in the bill would restrict the ACA's cost-sharing subsidies from lowering the costs of plans that cover abortion services in about a dozen states, according to the Commonwealth Fund, an independent health research and policy group. The provision would have had an 'outsized impact' on states such as Connecticut, Michigan and New Mexico, where insurers now cover abortion services voluntarily but would have incentive to drop abortion coverage to become eligible for federal cost-sharing payment under the Republican proposal, according to a Commonwealth Fund analysis. The Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, rejected another provision to end 'silver loading' under the Affordable Care Act, which would change the longstanding practice of allowing insurers to increase premiums to cover the cost of subsidies that resulted in larger premium tax credits and made marketplace premiums more affordable for millions of consumers. The Brookings Institution estimated that eliminating silver loading could cause large price increases for people with ACA-subsidized health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that several hundred thousand people could lose health coverage as a result of ending silver loading. MacDonough also ruled against a section of the bill that removes federal student aid eligibility from certain immigrants who are not citizens. The Department of Education classifies non-citizens who are refugees, granted asylum or paroled as eligible for federal student aid. She also rejected a section of the bill that would have expanded federal Pell Grants to programs at unaccredited and for-profit institutions of higher education. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, touted the rulings. 'The Byrd Rule must be enforced, and Republicans shouldn't get away with circumventing the rules of reconciliation,' he said in a statement. 'Democrats will continue to make the case against every provision in this Big, Beautiful Betrayal of a bill that violates Senate rules and hurts families, students and workers,' he said. Senate Republicans are still drafting final changes to the massive budget reconciliation package, which Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) hopes to bring to the floor on Friday. The parliamentarian still needs to render rulings on the tax and Medicaid provisions that make up the core of the bill.
Newsweek
4 days ago
- Health
- Newsweek
Map Shows US States With Best - And Worst
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new report by the Commonwealth Fund has revealed the states with the best and worst health care systems, based on 50 different measures. Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Hampshire and Rhode Island were at the top of the leader board for having the best health care systems in the country, meanwhile, Mississippi was ranked the state with the worst health care system. Why It Matters Access and affordability of health care is a pressing problem in the U.S.—with many Americans struggling to cover expensive costs, while finding it difficult to get medical help. Key factors affecting how well each state ranked included whether they had expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—with states that had not done so being among the worst performing. President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" did not include mention of renewing enhanced ACA tax credits, which are set to expire this year, while proposing major cuts to the Medicaid health program and new requirements for eligibility. Many critics of the tax bill have warned of its impact on health outcomes, while a report recently found that the ACA's Medicaid expansion significantly reduced mortality among adults with low incomes, saving an estimated 27,000 lives, according to the Commonwealth Fund. What To Know "When it comes to having affordable health coverage, access to good-quality care, and the ability to lead a healthy life, where you live matters," the Commonwealth Fund report said. For example, premature, avoidable deaths varied widely across states—in West Virginia, the rate was more than twice as high as the rate in Massachusetts. The rankings were obtained based on 50 measures of health care access and affordability, prevention and treatment, avoidable hospital use and costs, health outcomes and healthy behaviors, income disparity, and equity. The overall rankings were as follows: Massachusetts Hawaii New Hampshire Rhode Island District of Columbia New York Maryland Vermont Washington Colorado Connecticut Oregon Pennsylvania Virginia Minnesota New Jersey Utah Iowa Idaho California Maine North Dakota Michigan Nebraska Delaware Wisconsin Illinois Montana North Carolina Ohio New Mexico South Dakota Kansas Arizona Indiana South Carolina Kentucky Alaska Florida Wyoming Louisiana Alabama Missouri Tennessee Georgia Nevada West Virginia Arkansas Oklahoma Texas Mississippi Explaining the reasons states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island performed so well in the rankings, Vivian Ho, chair in health economics at Rice University, Texas, told Newsweek that these states expanded Medicaid under the ACA. This "contributed to improved affordability of health care and health insurance," she said. She added that Massachusetts and Rhode Island have been "particularly proactive in monitoring and controlling the costs of hospital care, which is the most significant component of rising costs." "These states also aggressively support their state public health systems, which leads to better prevention of debilitating diseases," she said. Arkansas, West Virginia and Mississippi are in the highest Federal Medical Assistance Percentage category under Medicaid, according to KFF data, indicating that "household income is the lowest in the country," Ho said. "Therefore, a larger portion of their populations need financial assistance to access healthcare which they are too poor to afford," she added. However, even top ranking states did not do well across every measure, the Commonwealth Fund report noted. In the case of Massachusetts, while it was ranked the best state for health care, it ranked near the bottom on several measures of care for elderly patients—such as preventable hospitalizations and hospital readmissions. The reverse can be said about Mississippi, as while it ranked the lowest overall, it came in the top quartile of state spending on primary care. The report also noted that the disparity in the quality of health care overall varied in states because of policy choices made by state leaders, such as whether to expand Medicaid eligibility, whether to ensure women can access the full range of reproductive care services, or whether to boost investment in primary care. The report also revealed wider issues in the country—that avoidable mortality rates are higher in America than in other high-income countries, and rather than declining, the rates are increasing. Ho said that some of the reasons for this could be because the "opioid crisis is unique to America; vaccine misinformation seems more widespread in this country; and our lack of health insurance is unique among developed countries." There is also a significant racial disparity—as in 42 states avoidable mortality for Black people was found to be at least two times the rate for the group with the lowest rate. The Intensive Care unit at a California hospital is seen in this file photo. The Intensive Care unit at a California hospital is seen in this file photo. Damian Dovarganes/AP What People Are Saying Vivian Ho, chair in health economics at Rice University, Texas, told Newsweek: "The American public doesn't understand that consolidated healthcare systems are charging prices that earn them extraordinary profits, which raises the costs of employer-provided health insurance. That's why so many Americans have to rely on Obamacare or Medicaid for health insurance, or go without coverage at all. Shopping for healthcare has become extremely complicated, and I blame employers for not being more aggressive in designing benefits for their workers that exercise better price sensitivity." Nicole Maestas, a professor of economics and health care policy and chair in the Department of Health Care Policy at Harvard Medical School, told Newsweek: "I think policy choices are the main explanation for the differences across states, and Medicaid policy is probably the most important policy choice, though not the only choice. States that chose to expand Medicaid under the ACA have had access to federal funds that enabled them to drive improvements in access, affordability, and health. The trends in avoidable mortality are worrying, and merit policy attention so that the U.S. doesn't lose further ground." What Happens Next As the report highlighted the major impact policymakers can have on the health care services in states, Trump's new bill proposing major changes to health programs could see the provision and access to care in states begin to change in coming months.
Axios
5 days ago
- Health
- Axios
Florida's uninsured rate declines by double digits
Florida's uninsured rate fell by 13.4 percentage points between 2013 and 2023 — the fifth largest drop in the nation. In 2013, the uninsured rate was 28.9%. In 2023, it was 15.5%. Why it matters: Uninsured rates hit record lows in all U.S. states by 2023, driven by coverage expansions under the Affordable Care Act and related policy changes. Although a greater share of people now have some form of health insurance, many remain uninsured — particularly in states that haven't expanded Medicaid access. By the numbers: The uninsured rate for working-age U.S. adults dropped from 20.4% in 2013 to 11% in 2023, according to an analysis of census data from the Commonwealth Fund, a health care foundation. California (-15 percentage points), New Mexico (-14.9) and Louisiana (-14.7) had the biggest drops over that period — meaning more residents are now insured. Between the lines: About 5 million uninsured people are ineligible for coverage under ACA expansions because of their immigration status, affecting the overall numbers in states with many residents lacking legal status.
