A recent research found that Colorado’s GDP might drop by over $1.6 billion next year and 14,000 jobs could be lost if Republican budget cuts to Medicaid and SNAP are implemented.
The study, which was carried out by the Commonwealth Fund and the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, looked at the potential wide-ranging effects of the planned Medicaid and SNAP cuts in a state-by-state analysis.
The Affordable Care Act’s passage was made possible in part by the Commonwealth Fund. Additionally, it awarded money to organizations that backed Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.
Republicans noted that the amount encompasses everything the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is responsible for, including energy, the environment, and health care, even though U.S. lawmakers have not yet determined where the $880 billion cuts will come from.
Democrats, however, pointed out that Medicaid is responsible for the majority of expenditure within the committee’s purview and that such significant cuts would probably have to come from the country’s health care safety net for the underprivileged and disabled.
Since Medicaid eligibility was expanded in 2014 by the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as “Obamacare,” spending on the program has increased dramatically.
The majority of Americans get health insurance through their employers.
SNAP nutrition benefits are entirely federally financed and are not covered by Medicaid.
“These cuts, essentially speaking, save some money from the federal government’s perspective,” stated Leighton Ku, who is a professor of health policy and management at the Milken Institute School of Public Health and the head of the Center for Health Policy Research.
“On the other hand, it’s states and businesses that ultimately pay the price.”
The proposed cuts, which were outlined in the House budget resolution, would reduce funding for the committees that supervise SNAP and Medicaid by over $1 trillion over the course of the next ten years, making both programs likely targets.
State governments and healthcare providers would suffer large financial losses, even if Medicaid’s key beneficiaries—low-income individuals and families—run the risk of losing their health care coverage.
The majority of the job losses would fall on health care personnel, which would affect services and hours. In certain situations, especially in remote areas, hospitals might have to close.
“The reality is that this will not be harmless,” Ku stated.
During the COVID-19 public health emergency, which ended two years ago, Medicaid enrollment was suspended, leading to what was referred to as a “unwind.” Medicaid enrollment is renewed annually. Nearly 500,000 Colorado residents lost their Medicaid coverage, compared to the initial projection of 325,000.
Given that Colorado was one of the states with the fastest-growing Medicaid rolls during the epidemic, officials said the significant cut is to be expected. Additionally, they cited Colorado’s low unemployment rate as evidence that fewer people in the state use Medicaid.
More than 100 jobs have already been eliminated as a result of the unwind, according to Simon Smith, president and CEO of Clinica Family Health & Wellness in Lafayette.
Smith has stated that more cuts would cause “an existential crisis.”
“Reductions in Medicaid will lead safety net health care providers across our state to reduce programs and close our doors,” Smith has said. “All this will ultimately lead to more expensive care and worse health in our community.”
About 432,000 children are among the approximately 1.1 million adults in Colorado who rely on Medicaid.
Programs supervised by the Energy and Commerce Committee will lose $880 billion over ten years, according to the U.S. House budget blueprint.
Although the resolution doesn’t specifically mention “Medicaid,” many predicted that Republicans would have to slash Medicaid in order to reach their goal, especially since President Donald Trump has ruled out cutting Medicare and other “entitlement” programs.
While Democrats have adopted the policy stance of safeguarding Medicaid, the Republican Party is considering policy options including work requirements and Medicaid provider fees that would reduce federal financing for the program without affecting enrollee benefits.
Opponents claim that because of the ACA’s expansion, Medicaid expenditure for healthy adults has skyrocketed, creating a “perverse incentive” that takes money away from those who actually need care.
The federal government and states work together to manage Medicaid, the country’s health care safety net for the underprivileged and disabled. Approximately two-thirds of state Medicaid programs are funded by the federal government.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Medicaid, which is jointly funded by the federal and state governments, covers one in five Americans and cost the federal government $618 billion last year.
After Social Security retirement and Medicare for older Americans, Medicaid is the third largest line item.
Leave a Comment