Trump’s Medicaid cuts were aimed at ‘able-bodied adults.’ Hospitals say kids will be hurt

posted in: All news | 0

By Phil Galewitz, KFF Health News, KFF Health News

Republicans insist that President Donald Trump’s cuts to Medicaid were aimed at reducing fraud and getting more of its adult beneficiaries into jobs. But the side effects may include less care for sick kids.

Some children’s hospitals collectively stand to lose billions of dollars in revenue once Trump’s wide-ranging tax and spending law, which Republicans called the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” is fully enacted, according to the Children’s Hospital Association. Kids account for nearly half of enrollees in Medicaid, the state and federally financed health program for low-income and disabled people, and its related Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The law will cut federal Medicaid spending by about $900 billion over a decade.

The reduction “cannot be achieved without directly affecting coverage and care for Arizona’s kids, especially the most vulnerable among them,” said Robert Meyer, chief executive of Phoenix Children’s, a pediatric hospital system. About half of the system’s revenue comes from Medicaid.

Trump’s law locks into place much of his domestic agenda, including a massive expansion of immigration enforcement and an extension of tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthiest Americans. The cuts to Medicaid are expected to partially offset the cost of the president’s priorities, which will add more than $3 trillion to the nation’s deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. About 7.5 million Americans will lose Medicaid coverage by 2034 as a result, the CBO estimates.

Throughout debates over the measure, Republicans insisted the Medicaid cuts would affect only nondisabled adults enrolled in the program who don’t work and immigrants living in the U.S. without legal status. “Our legislation preserves Medicaid, strengthens Medicaid for the people who actually need it and deserve it,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said June 1 on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” “And we’re going to get rid of the fraud, waste, and abuse.”

Meyer, though, warned that unless some cuts are reversed, Phoenix Children’s would lose about $172 million a year in payments that supplement the health system’s regular Medicaid revenue, for treating low-income children covered by the program. Medicaid typically pays lower rates for care than commercial insurance or Medicare, the federal program for people age 65 and older.

The supplemental payments, known as state-directed payments, are financed largely by federal taxpayers through complicated tax arrangements adopted by nearly all states. The payments have helped the Phoenix system open additional pediatric clinics, increase mental health staffing, and screen children for abuse and other trauma, Meyer said.

A provision of Trump’s law would cap the amount of directed payments states could make to any hospital, including those for children. But the cap, which doesn’t take effect until 2028, will be phased in over a decade — and hospitals are already lobbying to ensure that never happens. Days after voting for Trump’s law, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced legislation that would eliminate provisions of the measure cutting Medicaid payments to hospitals.

If the law isn’t changed, at least 29 states would need to reduce their payments, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

The extra Medicaid funds, on average, make up more than a third of children’s hospitals’ total Medicaid revenue and about 14% of their operating revenue overall, according to the Children’s Hospital Association.

Richard Park, a director at Fitch Ratings, a credit rating agency, said the Medicaid funding cuts present a “long-term headwind” for children’s hospitals. Hospital officials say that if the payments are cut and states don’t replace the funding, they could be forced to cut staff and services.

“Services the hospitals provide that require longer admissions or bring in less revenue are going to be in the crosshairs, for sure,” Park said.

Children’s hospitals are especially vulnerable to changes in Medicaid because they count on the program for about half their revenue — a much higher proportion than general acute-care hospitals do.

Most children’s hospitals are in good financial condition, however, because they face little competition — there are seldom more than one or two in a metropolitan area — and strong philanthropic support. And the funding cuts won’t affect all the nation’s approximately 200 children’s hospitals.

In 2023, Phoenix Children’s had a $163 million surplus on nearly $1.5 billion in revenue, according to its 2023 IRS tax return.

Under the law, the extra payments in the District of Columbia and 40 states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act would be capped at Medicare payment rates. The 10 states that didn’t expand would be able to pay up to 110% of Medicare rates.

The Biden administration had allowed states to pay up to their average commercial insurance rates. That’s generally about 2.5 times the Medicare rate, according to KFF.

Medicaid’s traditionally low fees to health providers can make doctors, dentists, and other specialists reluctant to treat patients in the program.

Brian Blase, president of the conservative Paragon Health Institute and a key architect of Medicaid changes in the new law, said cutting state-directed payments is justified because states should not pay hospitals more to treat Medicaid patients than they do for Medicare patients. Unlike regular Medicaid payments for specific health services, hospitals are not always held accountable for how they spend the extra money, he said.

He said state-directed payments to children’s hospitals and other facilities amount to “corporate welfare,” often helping financially strong institutions get richer.

Blase said states have little incentive to pay hospitals less because the money from state-directed payments comes mostly from federal taxpayers.

In Norfolk, Virginia, Children’s Hospital of The King’s Daughters depends on more than $11 million annually in state-directed payments to make up for what it says is a shortfall between Medicaid’s low reimbursement rates and the cost of advanced care.

The cuts to Medicaid in Trump’s law “will have serious and far-reaching consequences to our services, programs, and patients,” spokesperson Alice Warchol told KFF Health News. “Medicaid supplemental funding helps us pay for the highly specialized pediatric medical, surgical, and psychiatric physicians that are needed to care for every child who needs our services.”

In fiscal 2023, King’s Daughters had a $24 million surplus on $646 million in revenue, according to its federal tax return.

King’s Daughters has used the extra Medicaid money to expand treatment for abused and neglected children and mental health services, Warchol said.

How states account for the extra payments made to hospitals varies. For instance, Utah Medicaid Director Jennifer Strohecker said her state does not track how the money gets spent.

Other states, such as Texas, use the money as an incentive for hospitals to improve their performance in treating patients. They track how well the facilities do each year and publish the findings in public reports.

Matthew Cook, president and chief executive of the Children’s Hospital Association, said that even with the extra funding, Medicaid doesn’t cover the full cost of treatment for its patients.

While some children’s hospitals have strong balance sheets, boosted by philanthropy, that is not the case for all, Cook said. And the Medicaid funding cuts come on top of reductions in other federal payments, including for training doctors and research, he said.

At Phoenix Children’s, Meyer said, the loss of extra funding would curtail expansions of care for children and growth of the hospital’s workforce. The hospital hopes Congress delays or reverses the cuts — but it’s not counting on it, he said.

“We see this grace period as a godsend to get ourselves ready to close the funding gap,” he said.

©2025 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Fact check: RFK Jr. said ‘everybody can get’ a COVID vaccine. Is that true?

posted in: All news | 0

By Grace Abels, PolitiFact and Maria Ramirez Uribe, PolitiFact, KFF Health News

“Everybody can get” the COVID-19 vaccine.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Sept. 4 in a Senate Finance Committee hearing

When health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before the Senate Finance Committee on Sept. 4, several senators criticized him for restricting the COVID-19 shots after promising in November he wouldn’t “take away anybody’s vaccines.”

“Did you hold up a big sign saying that you were lying when you said that?” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., asked Kennedy.

On Aug. 27, the FDA updated its COVID vaccine guidance, limiting the groups of people approved to get the updated shot to anyone 65 or older and any person at least 6 months old who has at least one underlying health condition that increases their risk of a severe COVID infection.

Kennedy pushed back. “Anybody can get the booster,” he said, later adding that “it’s not recommended for healthy people.”

Warren said, “If you don’t recommend, then the consequence of that in many states is that you can’t walk into a pharmacy and get one. It means insurance companies don’t have to cover the $200 or so cost.”

Warren and Kennedy continued to speak over each other, debating the vaccines’ availability.

“It depends on the states,” Kennedy said. “But they can still get it. Everybody can get it. Everybody can get it, senator.”

Asked for evidence, the Health and Human Services Department pointed to an Aug. 27 post on the social platform X from Kennedy that said, “These vaccines are available for all patients who choose them after consulting with their doctors.”

Kennedy’s blanket statement to senators is misleading and premature.

Under current guidance, healthy people under 65 might need a doctor’s prescription to get the shot. If they successfully get a prescription, they may need to pay out-of-pocket.

Further, whether the vaccine is available at pharmacies and covered by insurance is largely dependent on a vaccine panel that has so far issued no recommendations.

What was the status quo for years — that most Americans, regardless of age, could easily make an appointment at their local pharmacy for the vaccine at little to no out-of-pocket cost — is no longer guaranteed in the 2025-26 season.

Limited Approval, No Guidance

The FDA’s approval is not the only step in the process of making vaccines available to the public.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of independent experts that guides vaccine policy, has not voted on or issued current guidance. Typically, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends vaccines based on the panel’s guidance.

And that guidance affects insurance coverage and vaccine access. Federal law requires that most health insurance plans fully cover vaccines recommended by the CDC. Some states also require these recommendations before they allow vaccines to be offered over-the-counter at pharmacies.

On June 9, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the CDC’s immunization advisory committee and replaced some with new members, many of whom have expressed anti-vaccine views. CDC Director Susan Monarez was fired Aug. 27 over what Monarez described as a dispute about vaccine policy.

According to the CDC’s website, the advisory panel is scheduled to meet Sept. 18 to 19.

Access Varies by State

People in the FDA-approved groups should be able to schedule vaccinations as soon as authorized health care providers receive supplies, likely in the next few weeks.

Even if you are in these approved groups, where you can get a COVID shot varies by state. By law, pharmacies in certain states won’t be able to offer the vaccine or will administer it only with a doctor’s prescription until the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel issues its recommendations.

That means despite the FDA having issued its approval for some groups, in 18 states and Washington, D.C., “pharmacists cannot administer it because it isn’t on the CDC immunization schedule yet,” Brigid Groves, the American Pharmacists Association’s vice president of professional affairs, previously told PolitiFact.

As of Sept. 4, the scheduling apps for Walgreens and CVS notified patients in some locations that they could not schedule a COVID vaccine appointment because of state restrictions, inventory, or the need for a prescription.

‘Off-Label’ Prescriptions

People not in the FDA’s approved group are not banned from getting a COVID vaccine, per se. But accessing the vaccine will likely require navigating barriers.

Doctors can legally prescribe a COVID vaccine for people who fall outside the FDA categories.

That’s true for adults and children — and the practice of prescribing medications and vaccines for “off-label” use is fairly common in pediatrics, William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University Medical Center professor of infectious diseases, previously told PolitiFact.

That requires making and paying for a doctor’s appointment, and finding a doctor willing to prescribe it off-label.

Depending on ACIP’s guidance, pharmacists might be able to vaccinate people not in an FDA-approved group through a process called “ shared clinical decision-making.”

That means, for example, “if you were 52 years old and otherwise healthy, but you nonetheless wanted to get the vaccine, you could discuss that with your doctor — shared clinical decision-making — and you could receive the vaccine,” Schaffner said.

Pharmacists are considered clinicians who can conduct shared decision-making, Groves said.

But again, without CDC recommendations, “we don’t know if that provision is still there,” Schaffner said.

Waiting on the CDC

Insurance coverage for the vaccine is still up in the air, too, and will largely depend on what the CDC recommends.

Insurance coverage is more probable for people in an FDA-approved category. But, if the CDC recommendations include giving vaccines to healthy people through the shared clinical decision-making process, insurance companies will generally honor that, Schaffner said.

COVID vaccines cost about $142, according to the CDC’s price lists. It’s unclear whether that would be the out-of-pocket cost for patients receiving a COVID vaccine not covered by insurance.

Our Ruling

Kennedy said “everybody can get” a COVID vaccine.

The FDA limited the groups of people eligible for the COVID vaccines, which has already diminished the shots’ drugstore availability in some states. People who are not in those groups aren’t banned from getting a shot, but are likely to face additional barriers. For example, people may need a doctor to prescribe the vaccine “off-label,” making the process more challenging and potentially more costly.

Kennedy’s blanket statement also is premature.

A CDC vaccine panel has not issued recommendations for the vaccines. The group’s guidance might affect insurance coverage and over-the-counter access.

The statement contains an element of truth — the vaccine has not been banned and some people are approved to get it. But it ignores critical facts about the barriers others could face in accessing and paying for it. We rate it Mostly False.

PolitiFact staff writer Madison Czopek contributed to this report.

©2025 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Ramsey County prosecutor announces Hennepin County Attorney campaign

posted in: All news | 0

Hao Nguyen, director of the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office trial division, is kicking off his election campaign Wednesday for Hennepin County Attorney.

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said on Aug. 6 she would not seek re-election in 2026. On Aug. 18, Rep. Cedrick Frazier, DFL-New Hope, announced his campaign.

Hao Nguyen (Courtesy photo)

Nguyen is the second person to publicize his candidacy.

“I will hold violent offenders accountable for their actions, while uplifting the voices of victims,” he said in a statement. “I will reasonably consider innovation and responsible reform, but never at the cost of public safety or equity for all our communities.

“In Hennepin County you have the right to be safe and treated fairly. You shouldn’t have to pick one over the other,” he continued.

Nguyen came to America as a refugee from Vietnam, “a child of war and the son of a single mother of three,” he said.

He worked as a correctional officer, police officer and a sheriff’s deputy before going to law school. He’s been a prosecutor for more than 15 years, and said he’s “handled cases ranging from assault to murder and everything in between.” He lives in Hennepin County with his family.

Nguyen said his endorsements include Ramsey County Attorney John Choi, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt.

The Carnegie Hero Fund announced last year that it was awarding Nguyen a Carnegie Medal for rushing to the aid of a man who was in crisis and near the edge of the top of a building in downtown St. Paul.

Related Articles


St. Paul’s $7.5M payment closes lawsuit over officer’s fatal shooting of man


Annunciation parents testify as Minnesota senators look at gun control proposals


Annunciation Catholic School programming to resume


Ezra Klein: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way


Authorities work with boat owner to get beached craft off Harriet Island

House approves bills to reshape DC’s criminal justice system

posted in: All news | 0

By GARY FIELDS and MATT BROWN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House passed legislation Tuesday that would overhaul how youth who commit crimes are prosecuted in the District of Columbia as congressional Republicans mobilized behind President Donald Trump’s efforts to crack down on crime in the nation’s capital.

One of the bills, called the “DC Crimes Act,” would lower the age of a youth offender in the federal district from 24 to 18 and require that criminal sentencing be at least as long as the mandatory minimums for adults, overruling local D.C. policy. It would also require the D.C. attorney general to establish a public website that would publish statistics on youth criminal acts.

The bill passed 240-179, with 30 Democrats joining Republicans in support.

Related Articles


Fired CDC chief will testify Kennedy pressed her to endorse vaccine recommendations without evidence


Trump’s second state visit to UK meets with protests and arrests


Trump’s threat to target ‘radical left’ after Kirk killing raises fears he’s trying to silence foes


King Charles III greets Trump in Windsor, kicking off the president’s second state visit to the UK


Pentagon says troops can only be exempt from shaving their facial hair for a year

A second bill, the D.C. Juvenile Sentencing Reform Act passed by a narrower 225-203 margin, with eight Democrats backing the measure and one Republican — Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky — voting against it.

Massie was the lone Republican to oppose both bills.

The debate over D.C.’s laws comes as the district’s self-governance is being challenged in ways never before seen since the passage of the Home Rule Act of 1973. Thousands of National Guard troops and federal law enforcement officers are patrolling the city’s streets, thanks to a now-lapsed emergency order from Trump. Republicans have cheered the intervention and criticized how the city is run.

The city filed a lawsuit challenging that National Guard intervention. Late Tuesday the administration entered a filing asking that a temporary injunction sought by the district be denied and the case be dismissed, partially on the grounds that the mayor has acknowledged the success of the actions. Twenty-three states weighed in on the lawsuit in support of the administration and 22 are behind the district.

Still, the latest slate of D.C. legislation has an uncertain future in the Senate, where some Democratic support would be needed. Democrats have criticized Trump’s aggressive intervention in the city’s governance and affairs and have defended the ability of residents in the nation’s capital to govern themselves.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Texas Democrat, said Trump is “constantly attacking what Republicans used to call a small government and deciding to be the biggest government that you can find. It’s truly shameful.”

Crockett added she believed the White House and House Republicans’ actions are “only a precursor, a precursor for everything that he wants to do in other minority-led cities.”

Republicans have countered that the Constitution specifically excludes the federal district from statehood and have offered a range of reasons for why Congress should exercise its authority to override the local government.

Speaking on the floor during the debate on the juvenile justice bill, Rep. James Comer, chair of the House Oversight Committee, emphasized the stricter guidelines would be for “serious crimes, including murder.” He added that D.C.’s definition of a juvenile is “seven years higher” than in other cities.

Criminal justice advocates questioned why the House would involve itself in the affairs of the District, especially criminal justice matters that have been studied and researched.

Darby Hickey, senior policy counsel with DC Justice Lab, said the overall view is Congress’ actions are “fundamentally against American values, which state that the people get to elect their representatives, who will govern and make the laws.” Congress, she said, is “usurping our ability to make our own laws.”

Misty Thomas Zaleski, executive director at the Council for Court Excellence, pointed at a different Republican proposal that would abolish the Judicial Nomination Commission and give the president direct appointment authority over Washington judges and bypass the commission’s “bipartisan vetting process that has operated for 50 years.”

“Congress is not the expert in what’s needed to address these multifaceted problems that exist in the district,” she said.

Ankit Jain, D.C.’s shadow senator, said the focus now will be Senate Democrats. “We will be working aggressively to talk to Senate Democrats and make the case to them why they should vote no on these bills,” he said. One message will be D.C. is only the start. “If this succeeds, then Republicans will see that this strategy works, that they can go after a lot of the laws in blue cities and unite their party and divide the Democratic Party.”

The House is expected to take up two more D.C. criminal justice related bills Wednesday.

While Washington residents are able to elect their own mayor, council and other officials, that self-governance has it limits. Congress maintains authority over laws passed by the D.C. council and it can impose its own laws and restrictions. Congress also controls the D.C. budget even though the budget is generated by local tax revenue.

Earlier this year the House cut $1.1 billion out of the city’s budget.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic minority leader, called on the money for D.C. to be restored.

“It never should have been ripped away,” he said.