Consider This from NPR - Republicans say Medicaid is safe. But budget math says otherwise
Episode Date: March 10, 2025House Republicans have to get their spending bill passed by Friday to avoid a government shutdown. They can likely afford to lose just one vote. And that's the easy part. Then they'll have to get work...ing on their plan to extend 4.5 trillion dollars in tax cuts passed under the Trump administration — a plan that will require huge cuts in government spending. Republicans are adamant that cuts to Medicaid are a non-starter. But the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a report last week that said Republicans' budget likely would require cuts to Medicaid or Medicare.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Congress is acting on one of President Trump's top domestic priorities.
And the next phase of our plan to deliver the greatest economy in history is for this
Congress to pass tax cuts for everybody there.
But achieving that goal will require trillions of dollars in spending cuts, which will dramatically
reshape the federal budget.
And one big potential target for those spending cuts
is Medicaid.
That was Democratic Representative Al Green
disrupting President Trump's address to Congress last week.
After he was removed from the chamber,
he spoke with reporters.
And I was making it clear to the president
that he has no mandate to cut Medicaid.
Now, House Republicans have said that cuts to Medicaid
are totally off the table.
Here's Republican Representative Tim Burchett of Tennessee
with NPR's Layla Faddle.
So what I think I hear you saying
is that this $880 billion of proposed cuts
that people believe will hit Medicaid,
you're saying it won't hurt people's coverage
because that's really important to constituents.
No, ma'am. Yeah, yeah.
I believe that is exactly what I'm saying, ma'am.
That is exactly what I'm saying.
And in politics, the Democrats-
But that's a lot of money for it not to hit
the actual healthcare coverage.
Ma'am, it's a whole heck of a lot of money,
but we're finding that over and over and over again,
that there is waste, fraud, and abuse,
and that's just the bottom line.
And House Speaker Mike Johnson said this last week
on NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.
Our cuts to Medicaid, Medicare,
and Social Security off the table.
Yes, and don't take my word for it, Kristen.
Go do a word search of the budget resolution
that we passed on Tuesday.
There is not one mention of Medicare,
Medicaid or Social Security.
Which is true. Those words are not in the legislation. But the reality is Republicans
likely will not be able to meet their budget target without major cuts to Medicaid. That's
just math. It was all laid out in a letter last week sent to lawmakers by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. And with
major cuts to Medicaid, the end result is...
I think millions of people would lose coverage and millions of additional
people would lose access to needed care as a result.
That's Edwin Park, a health policy expert at Georgetown University's McCourt
School of Public Policy.
He says finding $880 billion in cuts over a decade simply cannot be done without touching
Medicaid.
Unless you're cutting Medicare and both Speaker Johnson, other House Republican leaders
and President Trump have said that they do not want to cut Medicare. So if you take Medicare off the table, Medicaid
constitutes 93% of all mandatory spending that remains.
Consider this. House Republicans have claimed that spending cuts will not impact Medicaid
coverage. But experts say that's just impossible. We'll explain the math coming up.
From NPR, I'm Elsa Chang.
This message comes from WISE, the app for doing things in other currencies.
Sending or spending money abroad, hidden fees may
be taking a cut.
With WISE, you can convert between up to 40 currencies at the mid-market exchange rate.
Visit WISE.com.
TNCs apply.
Support for NPR and the following message come from Bowlin Branch.
Change your sleep with Bowlin Branch's Aerie blankets, cloud-like duvets, and breathable
sheets.
Feel the difference with 15% off your first order at bowlinbranch.com with code NPR.
Exclusion Supply, See site for details.
Support for this podcast and the following message come from Dignity Memorial.
In life, you plan for many important things, like weddings, retirement, and your children's
education.
A celebration of life is really no different.
Planning and paying for your celebration of life in advance
protects your loved ones and gives you the peace of mind you deserve.
It's truly one of the best gifts you can give your family.
Dignity Memorial will help you take care of every detail
with professionalism and compassion.
For additional information, visit DignityMemorial.com.
It's Consider This from NPR. Edwin Park is a health policy expert at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy, and he joined me to explain all of the math on this. Now the budget bill does not specifically mention Medicaid, but that's because the
budget just gives instructions to lawmakers on the committee that oversees Medicaid to
find $880 billion in cuts over the next decade.
The legislation doesn't explain exactly where lawmakers should make those cuts. So I started by asking Park
very simply, can Congress find $880 billion in federal savings without cutting spending
for Medicaid? It cannot unless you're cutting Medicare and both Speaker Johnson, other House
Republican leaders and President Trump have said
that they do not want to cut Medicare.
So if you take Medicare off the table,
Medicaid constitutes 93% of all mandatory spending
that remains under the jurisdiction
of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Okay, well that argument has been floated,
but Republicans say that they can cut spending
without cutting
any benefits in either Medicare or Medicaid because they're going to do this by eliminating
waste and fraud.
Here's another question.
Is there $880 billion worth of waste and fraud in the system?
Simply no.
If you look at the major Medicaid cut proposals that are under consideration, they're the
same proposals that were included in the failed 2017 repeal and replace plans.
And they all involve major cost shifts for the cost of Medicaid onto states because of
the federal government and states sharing the cost of the program, making it harder for states to finance their share of the cost of Medicaid, or imposing more red tape on
those who are already working or who aren't able to work because they're disabled, have
chronic conditions, they may be caregivers or in school.
Speaker Johnson has talked about how there is about $50 billion worth of fraud in Medicaid each year.
Is that an accurate estimate? I'm just curious.
It is not. What he's trying to do is equate a measure that's used in the federal government to assess improper payments.
But he's trying to equate these improper payments as fraud.
And the vast majority of improper payments are not because the payment shouldn't have been made
But there were some errors in terms of the documentation
related to that payment or errors in terms of some of the
Procedural steps that were taken in making those payments
But there's no finding that that was actually fraud or even payments that should not have been made. Okay. Well, one proposal that Republicans have talked about is instituting what's called a work
requirement for adults who receive Medicaid, but who do not have disabilities or young children.
This is actually a broadly popular idea. Like it's an idea that former Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia had talked about in his exit interview with NPR but
realistically how much would that work requirement save the federal government?
According to the Congressional Budget Office it would save about a hundred and
twenty billion dollars or so in federal Medicaid spending. Far cry from 880
billion. Certainly.
And the reason that it produces savings is not because it encourages employment or increases
hours worked, as the Congressional Budget Office has confirmed, but it's actually about
the owner's red tape in terms of reporting your employment, reporting your hours, trying
to navigate a very complicated process to get an exemption
because you're a person with disability or you're in school, you're a caregiver, whatever
the exemption may be, this is something that applies to all states, to most non-elderly
adults.
And as a result, people get disenrolled.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, one and a half million people would lose coverage under such a work requirement.
Okay.
There's another proposal to cut Medicaid spending, and that is to reduce or eliminate
healthcare provider taxes, which states use to finance their portion of Medicaid.
And to be fair, there is some buy-in on this idea, like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is a nonpartisan group focused on cutting the national debt. They call those taxes a state financing gimmick. And they say getting rid of health care provider taxes could actually save more than $600 billion. So tantalizing, is that actually a way to cut spending
without cutting benefits? Actually no. All states but Alaska rely on these
provider taxes to finance their share of the cost of Medicaid. And the reason such
a proposal would cut federal spending, even though this is about a restriction
on what states are able to do, is because
states would be unable to replace the lost revenues from these provider taxes.
These are assessments on hospitals, nursing homes, other healthcare providers.
They've been used under rules that have been in place since the early 1990s.
And because they can't replace those revenues, they're not going to be able to
maintain their current Medicaid programs. They're going to have to make cuts. So, you
know, are there ways to ensure that states are in full compliance with these federal
rules related to provider taxes? Certainly. But requiring blunt changes that restrict the ability of states to
Continue to raise the funds they need to finance Medicaid would result in big cuts that would ultimately harm
beneficiaries whether it's losing their eligibility
They're having to pay more and premiums and cost sharing they have fewer benefits covered or they can't find a provider that they need
Okay. Well, I want to step back
just for some perspective here. Eight hundred eighty billion dollars would be
something like what an 11% cut to federal funding for Medicaid right? So
like however that cut of 880 billion happens, what would it mean for Medicaid
if we see more than a tenth of the federal spending on the program eliminated?
I think millions of people would lose coverage and millions of additional people would lose
access to needed care as a result.
It's simply the case that these cuts are large, they're significant, And many of the proposals that are being considered to achieve this $880 billion target involve
shifting costs to states or making it harder for states to finance their share of the cost
of Medicaid.
So states are essentially left holding the bag.
They're going to have to make the painful choices in terms of cutting eligibility, cutting
benefits, cutting payments to providers like hospitals and nursing homes that serve Medicaid beneficiaries.
And in fact, that's one of the reasons it's politically attractive to some federal policymakers
is because they're not explicitly cutting Medicaid benefits.
They're making states, legislatures, governors have to make the politically difficult choices, the politically
painful choices that they'll have no choice but to make in light of these massive cost
shifts that they could face.
Edwin Park with Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy.
Thank you so much for making this so clear.
Thank you for having me.
This episode was produced by Mallory Yoo, Connor Donovan, and Mark Rivers.
It was edited by Sarah Handel and Nadia Lancy.
Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigan.
It's Consider This from NPR.
I'm Elsa Chang.
Support for NPR comes from NPR member stations and Eric and Wendy Schmidt through the Schmidt
Family Foundation, working toward a healthy, resilient, secure world for all on the web
at theschmidt.org.