SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
affordable care act
GOP Cuts to Medicaid 'Will Kill People,' Advocate Warns and New Research Bolsters
A working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that Medicaid expansion saved over 27,000 lives since 2010.
May 16, 2025
Critics who say extensive cuts to Medicaid being pushed by the Trump administration and House Republicans will result in the deaths of people were bolstered Friday by new reporting on a recent study detailing how the key health program for the nation's poor saves live.
As Republicans in Congress pressed ahead this week with a plan that would cause at least 8 million Americans to lose Medicaid as part of a sweeping tax and spending bill desired by U.S. President Donald Trump, a recently published working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, first reported on by The New York Times, shows that Medicaid expansion saved over 27,000 lives since 2010.
A provision in the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which went into effect in 2014, allowed states to expand eligibility for Medicaid to all low-income adults regardless of disability or parenthood status. The change is part of the reason that enrollment in the program rose roughly 50% between 2010 and 2021, according to the authors of the study.
The study, which used a dataset of 37 million low-income American adults, found that expansions increased Medicaid enrollment by 12 percentage points. The study estimates that people who enrolled in Medicaid were 21% less likely to die compared to those not enrolled.
"These expansions appear to be cost-effective, with direct budgetary costs of $5.4 million per life saved and $179,000 per life-year," according to a summary of the working paper.
The researchers told the Times that the timing of the release of the working paper was not connected to Congress' current conversation around Medicaid, though they told the outlet that the debate made their findings especially relevant.
The Times described the research as "the most definitive study yet" on Medicaid's health effects and health economists not involved with the research described it as the most persuasive proof so far that Medicaid and other types of health insurance save lives.
Meanwhile, on Friday, efforts to pass the GOP megabill hit a stumbling block when a handful of Republican so-called "fiscal hawks" voted with Democrats on the U.S. House Budget Committee to block the reconciliation package from advancing through a key committee vote. The Republican hardliners voted no because they want more cuts to Medicaid.
After the vote, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a panel member, vowed that Democrats would "keep fighting to protect Medicaid and the American people."
In response to the House Budget Committee vote, Alex Lawson, executive director of the advocacy group Social Security Works said on Friday: "Make no mistake, Republicans still plan to bring it to the House floor next week."
Lawson blasted the proposed Medicaid cuts, writing that "their plan will kill people."
"The ripple effect of these cuts will hit every single person in this country," he added. "Unless you are a billionaire, your standard of living and your health care will get worse if this despicable plan becomes law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Group That Helped Reverse Roe Sets Sights on Birth Control
"We tried to tell all those fuckers that if Trump was elected, we were going to get Handmaid's Tale-d," said one author.
Apr 16, 2025
Nearly three years after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' 2022 concurring opinion for the reversal of Roe v. Wadeelevated fears of Americans losing the right to contraception, a far-right legal group is working to limit access to birth control.
Jezebelreported Wednesday on the current anti-contraception effort by the conservative Christian group, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)—which has bragged that its "attorneys and staff were proud to be involved from the very beginning" in the fight to overturn Roe, the 1973 ruling that affirmed the right to abortion nationwide up until the Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization decision.
Last week, ADF wrote to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, urging HHS to "end funding to an organization that has become a radicalized opponent of health and of your agenda: the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG) and its related entities." The legal group also recommended opening "a civil compliance investigation into whether ACOG improperly used HHS cooperative agreements to promote" diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
"If you have a uterus, it's a great time to get permanent birth control, and stock up on some Plan B and Ella."
The ADF letter states that an HHS agency, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), "pays ACOG to create online content and podcasts advocating DEI, gender ideology, and abortion advocacy. This program has allocated ACOG over $15 million and needs to be ended promptly to prevent the continued waste of taxpayer funds."
In addition to taking aim at funding for the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health (AIM)—which, according to its website, works to "make birth safer, improve maternal health outcomes, and save lives" with its content—ADF wants the Trump administration to "end HRSA's cooperative agreement with ACOG that radicalized the women's preventive services mandate under Obamacare."
Jezebel explained how ADF's attack on the Women's Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) threatens access to birth control:
The Affordable Care Act says insurance companies have to cover a range of women's preventive health services without cost-sharing like copays or deductibles. The law doesn't name which services, but rather tasks an HHS agency to determine what services have strong evidence showing health benefits. That agency gave a contract to ACOG, which convenes the WPSI panel that includes representatives from its membership and three other major professional organizations. One of the panel's recommendations is that "adolescent and adult women have access to the full range of contraceptives and contraceptive care to prevent unintended pregnancies and improve birth outcomes." So insurance in the U.S. has to cover birth control pills, patches, rings, implants, [intrauterine devices, or IUDs], and tubal ligation without additional costs beyond people's monthly premiums.
Groups like ADF do not like this requirement—especially the mandated coverage of IUDs and emergency contraception like Plan B or Ella. Conservatives falsely claim that these methods block implantation of fertilized eggs, which they believe is tantamount to abortion. (ADF represented one of the plaintiffs in the 2014 Hobby Lobby case who objected to covering these methods.) "This mandate has included a coverage requirement for contraception, including some items that can prevent the implantation of embryos after conception," the ADF letter notes. "The failure to offer robust religious and moral exemptions to that mandate led to years of litigation and repeated trips to the U.S. Supreme Court." Yes, they want employers to be able to object to covering birth control in their insurance plans for either religious or moral reasons, which could really mean anything, including sexist and eugenic objections to single women or people with disabilities being sexually active.
ADF urges HHS to "conduct any scientific reviews in-house," Jezebel pointed out, noting recent mass layoffs at the department. "Alternatively, HHS could add members of anti-abortion groups to the advisory panel. Whatever happens here, potential changes to insurance coverage of certain birth control methods—based on the false idea that they cause abortions—is alarming."
On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump bragged about his role in reversing Roe—he appointed three of the court's right-wing justices—but also attempted to downplay reproductive rights as a key issue for voters.
Regarding contraception specifically, Trump swiftly tried to backtrack after signaling support for limits on birth control during a radio interview last May. U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said at the time: "Trump is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Here he is encouraging the far right. Later, he claimed he didn't mean it. But he can't hide his record. And his allies still plan to restrict birth control nationwide."
The ideas in ADF's letter "did not appear out of thin air," Jezebel stressed Wednesday. "Ending mandated insurance coverage of Ella is a proposal in Project 2025 (page 485), as is restoring religious and moral exemptions (page 483), and ending this contract with ACOG (page 484). Trump tried to disavow the Project 2025 playbook on the campaign trail, but his administration is implementing much of it and conservative groups are asking him to enact parts he hasn't gotten to yet."
HHS cutting ties with ACOG is just a step. Many far-right forced pregnancy advocates want the Supreme Court to—as Thomas wrote three years ago—"reconsider all of the court's substantive due process precedents," including the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut ruling, which affirmed that the government cannot interfere in the procurement of contraceptives.
The new reporting led reproductive rights advocates to share their own healthcare experiences and encourage patients to seek out longer-term birth control like IUDs now, while they still have access to such options.
Feeling really grateful right about now for the tubal ligation I started fighting tooth and nail for at 19 and finally managed to score by age 27. We tried to tell all those fuckers that if Trump was elected, we were going to get Handmaid's Tale-d. www.jezebel.com/far-right-gr...
[image or embed]
— Brianna Karp ( @briannakarp.bsky.social) April 16, 2025 at 5:22 PM
"I've said this repeatedly but I'll say it again: If you're able, get an IUD," said content designer Shauna Wright. "It's easily removed but otherwise lasts for years. (Voice of experience here: Ask for a paracervical block pre-insertion, and if they refuse, find another dr.)"
Writer Effie Seiberg similarly said: "If you have a uterus, it's a great time to get permanent birth control, and stock up on some Plan B and Ella. (Ella works better for people 165-195 lbs.)"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Privatization Warnings Flash Red as Senate Republicans Advance Dr. Oz for Medicare Chief
"Given Dr. Oz's history of basically acting as a salesman for Medicare Advantage, putting him in charge of regulating these middlemen would be like letting the fox guard the henhhouse," said one Democratic senator.
Mar 25, 2025
The U.S. Senate Finance Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to advance the nomination of Dr. Mehmet Oz, President Donald Trump's nominee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a move that drew widespread rebuke from consumer advocates and others who pointed to the celebrity surgeon's advocacy for private Medicare Advantage plans and other red flags.
The Finance Committee voted 14-13 to send Oz's nomination to a full Senate vote, with Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) hailing the former television talk show host's "years of experience as an acclaimed physician and public health advocate."
However, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the committee's ranking member, said he voted against Oz, explaining that the nominee "was given the chance to assure the American people that he would not be a rubber stamp for Republicans' plans to gut Medicaid" and raise Affordable Care Act premiums, but "at every turn, he failed the test."
"No senator should be fooled by the snake oil Oz is selling."
Wyden said he is "deeply concerned about Dr. Oz's history marketing Medicare Advantage plans," which, as frequent Common Dreams opinion contributor Thom Hartmann explained, are not part of Medicare but are a private health insurance "scam" created by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush "as a way of routing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of for-profit insurance companies.
Wyden added, "Given Dr. Oz's history of basically acting as a salesman for Medicare Advantage, putting him in charge of regulating these middlemen would be like letting the fox guard the henhouse."
Last December, the watchdog Accountable.US revealed that Oz had invested as much as $56 million in three companies with wdirect CMS interests. In 2022, Oz's single biggest healthcare holding was up to $26 million in Sharecare, a digital health company he co-founded, and which became the exclusive in-home supplemental care program for 1.5 million Medicare Advantage customers. Nick Clemens, Oz's spokesperson on the Trump transition team, toldUSA TODAY last December that Oz sold his stake in Sharecare.
These and other apparent conflicts of interest prompted denunciations from progressive groups and Democratic lawmakers including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who also called attention to Oz's promotion of "quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain."
Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said Tuesday: "Mehmet Oz is fundamentally unqualified for the position of administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and should never have been nominated for the position based on his conflicts of interest alone. The Senate Finance Committee should have unanimously rejected his confirmation."
Weissman continued:
Under Oz's watch, could strip crucial healthcare services through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act could be stripped from hundreds of millions of Americans. As he showed in his confirmation hearing, Oz would seek to further privatize Medicare, threatening access to care for tens of millions of Americans. Privatized Medicare Advantage plans deliver inferior care and cost taxpayers nearly $100 billion annually in excess costs.
He also refused to commit to push back on efforts to slash Medicaid, which would harm access to care for millions—especially the poor and vulnerable—just so Trump and [and his adviser Elon] Musk can give tax breaks to their billionaire buddies.
"We need a CMS administrator who believes in the importance of protecting crucial health programs like Medicare and Medicaid hand would put patients ahead of corporate profits," Weissman added. "We can only hope that sanity prevails when Oz comes for a vote before the full Senate. No senator should be fooled by the snake oil Oz is selling."
Tuesday's vote came as congressional Republicans seek to
slash $880 billion from programs overseen by the House Energy and Commerce Committee—which include Medicaid—in order to help pay for Trump's $4.5 trillion tax cut, which experts say would overwhelmingly benefit the ultrawealthy and corporations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular