From left: U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, President Donald Trump, Senator Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, and Senate Majority Chief John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, converse to the media on Jan. 8, 2025.
Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg/Getty Pictures
cover caption
toggle caption
Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg/Getty Pictures
Congressional leaders need to make huge reductions to federal spending to pay for President Trump’s priorities, and so they’ve singled out Medicaid as a program the place they may discover vital financial savings.
Trump stated final month that he would not make cuts to the nation’s public medical health insurance program for low-income and disabled Individuals. However the White Home and Republicans in Congress are contemplating a menu of choices that might add as much as $2.3 trillion in potential cuts to Medicaid over the following decade.
Conservative Medicaid consultants famous that a number of the cuts would probably overlap, making it deceptive to easily add all of them up. Different consultants stated a number of the proposals might scale back Medicaid spending much more than congressional leaders estimate, that means they may nonetheless quantity to greater than $2 trillion in cuts — and will doubtlessly push hundreds of thousands of individuals off this system.
Medicaid supplies medical health insurance to 80 million low-income and disabled Individuals and, in 2023, value taxpayers $870 billion in 2023.
Many conservatives and libertarians have lengthy believed {that a} smaller Medicaid program that covers fewer individuals can be a greater Medicaid program.
“Medicaid will not be working for Individuals,” stated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. final week at his affirmation hearings to turn out to be Trump’s secretary of well being and human companies.
“We’re spending $900 billion and our persons are getting sicker each single yr,” he added later. (In different components of the hearings, Kennedy confirmed minimal understanding of the fundamentals of Medicaid.)
The well being podcast Tradeoffs interviewed 13 consultants who collectively have a long time of expertise engaged on Medicaid for conservative assume tanks, Republican presidents, members of Congress or state Medicaid applications. They didn’t agree on every part, however a number of themes emerged that illustrate why many Republicans wish to shrink this system.
Questioning whether or not Medicaid makes individuals more healthy
Some conservatives cite the extremely regarded Oregon Medicaid Experiment that discovered Medicaid does little to enhance individuals’s bodily well being.
“Each member of Congress ought to be asking questions on either side of the aisle about, hey, we’re spending a whole lot of billions of {dollars} [on Medicaid]. What are we getting for it?” stated Josh Archambault, a senior fellow on the Cicero Institute.
Archambault and others place a whole lot of worth on the Oregon experiment as a result of it is the one randomized research (the gold normal in analysis) of the impacts of Medicaid.
In 2008, Oregon used a lottery to develop its Medicaid program, which allowed researchers to match outcomes after two years for individuals who acquired Medicaid and those that did not.
They discovered that folks on Medicaid had been extra probably than these with out medical health insurance to get preventive care and to report being in higher well being. These on Medicaid had been additionally much less more likely to be depressed or get hit with huge medical payments. However the researchers turned up no variations between the 2 teams on three particular measures of bodily well being: levels of cholesterol, blood stress and protecting diabetes beneath management.
“I believe that ought to increase some very huge questions in our thoughts in regards to the effectiveness of Medicaid,” Archambault stated.
Many Medicaid consultants — together with a number of who served as state Medicaid administrators beneath Republican governors — instructed Tradeoffs Medicaid is efficient, pointing to the many research which have discovered vital well being advantages to this system, together with saving lives. One research confirmed a 5% discount in childhood mortality for teenagers on Medicaid, and one other confirmed a 9% discount in grownup mortality over the primary 4 years of Medicaid growth after the Inexpensive Care Act.
“Medicaid will help individuals be more healthy,” stated Kevin Bagley, who ran Nebraska’s Medicaid program from 2020 to 2023. “Loads of children particularly have higher entry to care and higher well being outcomes because of this [of being on Medicaid].”
‘It is nearly free cash’ for states
The most typical concern conservative consultants introduced up was that states have a robust monetary incentive to develop their Medicaid applications.
States and the federal authorities share program prices, with the federal authorities matching between 50 and 90 cents of each greenback states spend, relying on a number of elements together with the wealth of the state.
Tom Scully, who ran the Facilities for Medicare and Medicaid Providers for President George W. Bush, stated it is too straightforward for states to attract down federal {dollars}.
“It is nearly free cash for the states, and there isn’t any accountability for it,” he stated.
Scully in contrast the dynamic to an allowance: When you give your child $20 every week, they are going to be extra considerate about spending it than when you give them your bank card.
Specifically, Scully and different conservatives take difficulty with what’s referred to as a supplier tax which permits states to boost income from hospitals and nursing properties for his or her applications.
Below this provision, for instance, if a state desires to extend Medicaid spending by $1 million, it might assess a $500,000 tax on hospitals, after which spend that cash on Medicaid companies. The federal authorities would, in response, lower a $500,000 examine to match.
Critics like Scully deride supplier taxes as “cash laundering” as a result of states typically return these supplier tax {dollars} to the hospitals within the type of larger reimbursement charges. In consequence, hospitals break even or higher, and the states, like the child with the bank card, have extra money and might spend it with much less fiscal duty.
These preparations are authorized, and plenty of consultants notice they’re significantly helpful to states throughout robust financial instances when different state funds dry up; shedding the supplier tax would require states to seek out different methods to fund their applications or shrink them.
Some Medicaid recipients might get medical health insurance elsewhere
A number of conservative Medicaid consultants shared the assumption that some individuals on Medicaid might afford personal insurance coverage.
“Medicaid is forcing taxpayers to pay for issues that folks might present for themselves,” stated Cannon, from the libertarian Cato Institute.
Well being economists usually agree that some individuals on Medicaid might get protection by means of their employer or through the Obamacare exchanges, however what number of is much less clear. Some research recommend that it could possibly be as many as a number of million individuals.
Some consultants fear that efforts to take away individuals with different protection choices from this system would inevitably result in many individuals with out different insurance coverage decisions additionally shedding protection and ending up uninsured.
Most conservative reforms would lower federal Medicaid fundingÂ
Republicans have floated quite a few proposals to reform Medicaid. Whereas they’ve but to launch any detailed proposals, they nearly all pursue the identical aim.
“Finally, you must cap the quantity of federal funding that states are in a position to get,” stated Chris Pope, a senior fellow on the conservative Manhattan Institute.
One choice can be for Washington to pay states much less to cowl the 21 million individuals added to Medicaid beneath Obamacare. The federal authorities at present picks up 90% of the prices to cowl low-income adults who make as much as $45,000 in a household of 4.
A proposal by the conservative Paragon Well being Institute would regularly scale back the federal authorities’s share over the following decade to the speed Washington pays for conventional Medicaid enrollees — between 50% and 77%, relying on every state’s per capita earnings. Paragon estimates the transfer would save the federal authorities $250 billion over the following decade, although it might enhance the uninsured inhabitants by 3 million individuals.
The nonpartisan Congressional Finances Workplace estimated {that a} related proposal would save the federal authorities $561 billion over 10 years; the CBO assumes some states would select to “un-expand” their Medicaid applications, doubtlessly kicking hundreds of thousands of individuals out of this system. A minimum of 9 states have so-called set off legal guidelines that will rapidly finish their expansions if the federal contribution to Medicaid funding was decreased, although the states might change these legal guidelines.
A couple of different concepts conservatives talked about to Tradeoffs: requiring some individuals to work to obtain Medicaid, limiting or banning supplier taxes, setting a cap on how a lot the federal authorities would ship states for every individual enrolled in Medicaid, or giving a state a lump sum of federal {dollars} annually for its complete Medicaid program, referred to as a block grant. The CBO estimates these proposals would lower a whole lot of billions from the federal price range over the following 10 years and trigger states to scale back enrollment and the companies offered to sufferers, and shrink funds to suppliers.
Chopping Medicaid spending comes with tradeoffs
Many conservatives agree that shrinking federal spending on Medicaid may have two main advantages. One is value financial savings — much less Medicaid spending might unencumber money to spend on different priorities like faculties, public security or curbing the nationwide debt.
Liz Matney, who ran Iowa’s Medicaid program from 2021 to 2024, additionally argues that sending states much less cash would encourage them to slim their focus to the unique Medicaid inhabitants.
“Medicaid’s unique goal was to supply medical companies to people with disabilities and low-income households,” Matney stated. “It is a problem for states to concentrate on making strong enhancements in these areas when their focus is repeatedly shifted to shinier priorities.”
Many research present increasing Medicaid has improved entry to look after low-income individuals. However some conservatives level to a handful of papers displaying individuals on Medicaid needed to wait longer to get appointments, ambulances took longer to reply to medical emergencies, and spending on children and seniors grew extra slowly than in non-expansion states.
A number of former state Medicaid administrators from Republican-led states stated they’d welcome the elevated flexibility to run their applications as they see match — a flexibility that’s typically part of proposals that would cut back federal Medicaid spending. However a number of are additionally involved in regards to the potential well being and monetary penalties to sufferers if Washington imposes extreme cuts and hundreds of thousands of individuals lose their Medicaid protection.
Barbara Roshon Sears, who ran Ohio’s Medicaid program from 2016 to 2018, stated state Medicaid applications and hospitals are extremely reliant on federal funding. She stated she worries particularly about older Individuals, who depend on Medicaid to pay for issues Medicare would not like nursing dwelling care, and other people with disabilities. These two teams account for most of Medicaid spending.
“These are the populations that get hit if I run out of [federal] {dollars},” Sears stated.
Brian Blase, a former prime well being coverage advisor to President Trump and present president of the Paragon Well being Institute, stated he believes most protection losses from the Republican proposals would hit low-income adults who had been added to this system by the Obamacare growth. He sees few downsides to this group shedding Medicaid.
Blase believes some would discover protection by means of their work or through the Obamacare exchanges. For many who would find yourself uninsured, he refers again to the Oregon experiment and questions how a lot of a distinction it might make to individuals’s bodily well being. Any state fearful about individuals shedding Medicaid, Blase stated, can hold individuals enrolled through the use of state funds.
“States must make selections. States must interact in tradeoffs,” he stated. “We would like states to have applications that present worth.”
Can Republicans get any of those cuts handed?Â
Even many Republicans keen to chop Medicaid consider will probably be troublesome to make sizable modifications to this system in 2025, regardless of full management of Congress and the White Home.
Democrats are anticipated to oppose any Medicaid reductions, and hospitals have traditionally carried out the identical as a result of Medicaid funds make up one-fifth of hospital income within the U.S. Some congressional Republicans are already pushing again.
“It is very straightforward to suggest these fixes. It is extremely laborious to get them handed,” stated Tom Scully, whose efforts to reform Medicaid date again 35 years.
Working example, Republicans didn’t go related Medicaid fixes throughout President Trump’s first administration, the final time the celebration had full management in Washington.
The Trump administration, by itself, might encourage states so as to add work necessities or flip their federal subsidies into block grants. Any govt motion, nevertheless, would have far much less influence than if Congress handed modifications to the elemental form of this system.
“One thing ought to have been carried out to repair this 40 years in the past. And 30 years in the past and 20 years in the past and 10 years in the past,” Scully stated. “However it’s by no means occurred as a result of the native and state politics are too brutal, and it is too sophisticated — individuals again off and give up.”
Ryan Levi is a reporter and producer for Tradeoffs, a nonprofit information group that experiences on well being care’s hardest decisions. You too can join Tradeoffs’ weekly publication to get the newest tales in your inbox every Thursday morning.Â
