Child health programs including even pediatric cancer research see cuts in Ohio House budget draft

()
From changes to Medicaid to elimination of lead abatement funding, the Ohio House budget proposal concerns many who have championed child wellbeing and improvement of metrics with which Ohio struggles, like infant mortality, as important budget priorities.
'It just felt like they had taken a hacksaw to some of these line-items without real consideration to what they did,' said Kathryn Poe, budget and health researcher for the think tank Policy Matters Ohio.
Poe said it seems as though state legislators are taking cues from the federal government are trying to drastically cut spending, but that don't improve the state in the process.
'These cuts at the federal level also feel really haphazard,' Poe said. 'But the state doesn't have the amount of money or time or influence to make these sort of haphazard cuts.'
Specifically, Poe sees the elimination of Ohio's Medicaid expansion as a significant change that will create struggles for low-wage workers who count on Medicaid for their health insurance, and who will be prevented from planning for the future without the ability to count on proper health insurance.
As Poe put it, 'what do you do when 700,000 people lose their insurance overnight?'
The House's version of the budget absorbed a proposal by Gov. Mike DeWine in his executive budget that creates a trigger effect, eliminating Group VIII, or the Medicaid expansion eligibility group, 'if the federal government sets the federal medical assistance percentage below (its current level of) 90%,' according to budget documents.
The federal medical assistance percentage (or FMAP) refers to the amount of federal funding the state receives for Medicaid, based on a state's per capita income.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The expansion group is made up of Ohioans ages 19 to 64 who have household incomes of less than 138% of the federal poverty line and aren't eligible in other Medicaid categories. According to the Health Policy Institute of Ohio, the Medicaid expansion 'has been a major contributor to Ohio's uninsured rate dropping by half from 14% in 2010 to 7% in 2022.'
The group said the expansion has also improved access to care, with data showing a 31% decrease in Ohioans who went without care due to cost from 2013 to 2023.
According to the state, the expansion population caseload is projected to be 779,000 Ohioans in fiscal year 2026, and 772,000 in 2027. That would account for more than $13.5 billion in expenditures over the two fiscal years.
Without the expansion, workers under the program would be less likely to have insurance, partly because many workers earning less than 138% of the federal poverty line are working jobs where they aren't given enough hours to receive medical benefits, such as entry-level retail jobs or customer service.
Citing data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Health Policy Institute of Ohio said even workers in the skilled trades like electricians and medical assistants could lose benefits, considering the federal poverty level of 138% for a family of three represents an annual income of $36,777.
'It would be a devastating economic loss,' Poe said. 'The answers (for Ohioans who would lose the coverage) are everything from going to the emergency room, to not getting care, to letting that pain in your abdomen go on so long that you have to go to the emergency room anyway.'
The budget proposal comes amid attempts by DeWine and the state to apply work requirements to that particular group of Medicaid participants.
Not only will it create expensive health decisions, but the ripple effects will extend to the ability to afford groceries or have reliable transportation, according to Poe.
Those effects would trickle all the way down to Ohio's children as well, according to advocates. Groundwork Ohio criticized a House measure that would end a requirement that the Medicaid department 'seek approval to provide continuous Medicaid enrollment for Medicaid-eligible children from birth through age three
Budget documents say the change could create 'possible service cost savings.'
Groundwork called on the legislature to take back the changes, saying nearly 48% of all Ohio children under the age of 6 'depend on Medicaid for health coverage.'
'The program covers about half of all births in the state and thousands of Ohio women rely on Medicaid to ensure a healthy pregnancy and support postpartum recovery,' according to an analysis of budgetary proposals in the House draft.
The organization also criticized a provision of the budget that would limit Medicaid coverage for doulas, leaving the coverage for only the six counties with the highest infant mortality rates.
The House plan also cuts pediatric cancer research by $5 million and eliminates lead abatement programs within the Ohio Department of Health. Groundwork Ohio noted the lead abatement program as part of their analysis of the budget plan, saying Ohio has 'nearly double the national rate of children with elevated blood lead levels.'
'Even small amounts of lead exposure in early childhood can harm the brain, delaying growth and development, and may cause learning, behavior, speech and other health problems,' the group stated.
Advocates have already been publicly critical of the House plan to slash public education funding and drop a child tax credit proposed by DeWine in his budget plan. But adding the Medicaid changes, along with reducing funding in the areas of child development and a $1.5 million cut to 'infant vitality' programming just make things worse, advocates say.
'The House's proposal represents a step backward at a time when we can least afford it,' said Lynanne Gutierrez, president and CEO of Groundwork Ohio, in a statement. 'We urge lawmakers to fully restore these investments and prioritize Ohio's future.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

USA Today

an hour ago

• USA Today

Medicaid handouts only create dependency. Able-bodied adults should work.

Does Medicaid need an overhaul? Does Republicans' proposed $800 billion cuts go too far – or not far enough? Readers respond in USA TODAY's Opinion Forum. With the deadline for President Donald Trump and Republicans' "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on the horizon, Americans are turning their attention to a major provision of the budget bill: changes to Medicaid. The bill calls for sweeping changes, including cuts of nearly $800 billion to the program, a mandatory work requirement of 80 hours per month, and an overhaul of the current Medicaid and Medicare systems – consolidating them for the purpose of centralized enrollment. Additional changes include banning federal funding for gender-affirming care and transitioning procedures and reducing the amount of federal funding allotted to states for noncitizens. As Congress debates these provisions before a final vote in the Senate, Americans are sounding off – largely in support of the program. More than 71 million Americans benefit from Medicaid, and new polls from KFF Health found 83% of respondents have a favorable view of Medicaid. More than half of respondents who are enrolled in Medicaid say changes to the program will make it "very difficult" to afford medications (68%), see a health care provider (59%) or get alternate insurance coverage (56%). A June 11 Quinnipiac University poll found half of American voters polled said funding for Medicaid should go up, not down, while an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released June 16 found that 50% of Americans think we spend too little on Medicaid. But we wanted to hear from you, our USA TODAY readers, directly. We asked what changes, if any, you want to see to the program and how Medicaid has impacted your life or the lives of those you know. Do the proposed cuts go too far? Or not far enough? Here's what you told us for our Opinion Forum. I couldn't have made it as a mom ‒ or cancer survivor ‒ without Medicaid As a Stage 3 breast cancer survivor, mother to a son with profound disabilities and a full-time working member of society, I've had to navigate the unimaginable. Without Medicaid, I could not have managed any of it. The program covers our son's in-home care, and it gave me the ability to focus on both my treatment and career. For families like mine, Medicaid is not a luxury ‒ it is the foundation that holds everything together. Proposed cuts threaten the care millions rely on. We must protect Medicaid so parents are not forced to choose among their health, their job and their children's needs. — Caroline Johnson, Louisville, Kentucky Able-bodied people should be working. Entitlements weren't meant to last forever. As I understand it, the only people who would be cut from Medicaid are able-bodied adults who would need to work a minimum number of hours a week to keep receiving it. I don't believe that disabled people, older folks and children would be affected. Also, illegal migrants would be kept off, because American taxpayers are not responsible for paying their way. We have enough American citizens who need help. Those who are not supposed to get these entitlements should be cut. These entitlement programs were never meant to be a way of life. They were supposed to be a safety net only for those who really needed them. Able-bodied adults should work. There is pride in working for what you need or want. Handouts only cause dependency, which is not good for anyone. Every citizen who is able should strive to be independent. The same should go for food stamps. It should only be for the really needy disabled, elderly and children with low incomes. — Renee Bertoni, Holley, New York Real government waste is MAGA's excess I am a retired Health and Human Services Department worker. I think this administration is so shortsighted about Medicaid and food assistance cuts for working families and individuals. If low-income people and working families have inadequate food and no medical coverage, it hinders their ability to work and function in society. All people deserve medical coverage and nutritious foods! I don't think I will ever support Republicans again. This is supposed to be a government for the people, by the people and of the people. These MAGA supporters are all lacking in human decency. Yes, I believe they will cut more and more because they are focused on self-indulgence. Increase taxes for the wealthy who have too much and know that "trickle-down economics" is just a buzz phrase. It doesn't work. Big cuts were made to the federal work force with no strategy and no concern for talented and dedicated employees, along with lots of publicity for fake fraud claims that didn't exist. The minions are hard at work trying to sell the public on their distorted strategy: more for them and less for everyone else. Let's think about the waste of the Trump military parade. That's what's shameful. — Joyce Schulz, Tawas City, Michigan As an ER doctor, I saw what cuts to Medicaid would cost us all As an emergency physician, I cared for uninsured patients who were signed up for Medicaid insurance in the emergency department. Medicaid health insurance allowed these patients to follow up with primary care doctors and providers who otherwise could not afford to care for uninsured people. Studies show that adding Medicaid insurance saves lives. And taking away Medicaid insurance leads to worse health outcomes. I am very concerned that any cuts to Medicaid insurance would lead to avoidable illness and even death for newly uninsured patients. Primary care physicians and specialists cannot afford to care for patients who lose their Medicaid health care coverage. Also, rural hospitals and rural clinics would lose a significant portion of their financial support from Medicaid. Primary care providers and rural hospitals would be forced to close their doors, leaving uninsured patients without access to care. I am afraid that Republican politicians will choose tax cuts for the rich over Medicaid health insurance for the poor. I think that Republican politicians should have their own government health insurance taken away from them. Why should taxpayers pay for the health insurance of these well-off Republicans who are voting to take away Medicaid from poor people? — Gary Young, Sacramento, California I've worked hard to get everything I have. Democrats don't seem to see people like me. I don't see the problem with having work requirements. If you can work, why not? As a taxpayer, I pay for my own medical insurance. I am single and have no dependents. I have no fault with us having a Medicaid program for the elderly, children and disabled, but that should be it unless you are working and need a short-term helping hand. I have been working full-time since I was 22, so I don't understand people having an issue with a work requirement to get medical coverage. I think we have to cut spending across the board. I hear Democrats talking about taking things away, but I don't seem to hear anything from them about how to cut spending. We are over $36 trillion in debt. If spending is not controlled, our country could go bankrupt, and then no one would have any programs to use. What is the Democrats' plan to get the debt under control? They had the past four years to do it, and you see where we are. I'm tired of the talk about these cuts going to the billionaires. We don't know for sure where it's going, and you can't understand how tired of this rhetoric people are. Additionally, I would like to see the cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development and Department of Education all codified so these programs do not exist. There seems to have been a bit of waste and abuse over many years that needs to be dealt with. I make under $70,000 a year, so I have worked hard to get where I am. I was a Democrat for over 35 years, and about five years ago, I went Republican, as parties seem to have switched. I believe that the Democrat Party is full of elitists who feel we poor peons will do what they tell us, rather than realizing a lot of peons can think for ourselves and should not be condescended to and not told we are bad peons if we disagree with them. — Teresa Loy, Tucson, Arizona My brother was saved by Medicaid. Many more would die without it. My brother had AIDS/HIV and AIDS-related cancer. He was too sick to work and relied on Medicaid for all his medical benefits, both physical and mental. He eventually worked for the nonprofit Hope and Help in Orlando. He was a mentor to others, a champion, an activist, an orator and a published writer. He died in August 2020. All his efforts and the efforts of many would die in vain without their medication that was available through Medicaid. I'm extremely worried. The effects aren't self-contained, and the negative effects would permeate into an already strained system. Medical insurance is unaffordable in this country's economy, and it only gets worse. The Republicans need to vote according to the wants and needs of their constituents and reinstall empathy in their party. Maybe that will resonate and 'trickle down.' We have to limit tax cuts for the wealthiest. And here's a novel idea: Let's go back to a time when employers paid for employees' health care and pensions. Those two items can't be supported by today's salaries. — Karen O'Donnell, Lake Mary, Florida

CNBC

an hour ago

• CNBC

Major U.S. health insurers say they will streamline controversial process for approving care

Health plans under major U.S. insurers said Monday they have voluntarily agreed to speed up and reduce prior authorizations – a process that is often a major pain point for patients and providers when getting and administering care. Prior authorization makes providers obtain approval from a patient's insurance company before they carry out specific services or treatments. Insurers say the process ensures patients receive medically necessary care and allows them to control costs. But patients and providers have slammed prior authorizations for, in some cases, leading to care delays or denials and physician burnout. Dozens of plans under large insurers such as CVS Health, UnitedHealthcare, Cigna, Humana, Elevance Health and Blue Cross Blue Shield committed to a series of actions that aim to connect patients to care more quickly and reduce the administrative burden on providers, according to a release from AHIP, a trade group representing health plans. Insurers will implement the changes across markets, including commercial coverage and certain Medicare and Medicaid plans. The group said the tweaks will benefit 257 million Americans. The move comes months after the U.S. health insurance industry faced a torrent of public backlash following the murder of UnitedHealthcare's top executive, Brian Thompson. It builds on the work several companies have already done to simplify their prior authorization processes. Among the efforts is establishing a common standard for submitting electronic prior authorization requests by the start of 2027. By then, at least 80% of electronic prior authorization approvals with all necessary clinical documents will be answered in real time, the release said. That aims to streamline the process and ease the workload of doctors and hospitals, many of whom still submit requests manually on paper rather than electronically. Individual plans will reduce the types of claims subject to prior authorization requests by 2026. "We look forward to collaborating with payers to ensure these efforts lead to meaningful and lasting improvements in patient care," said Shawn Martin, CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in the release.

Wall Street Journal

13 hours ago

• Wall Street Journal

Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful' Bill Gets Slimmed Down in Senate

WASHINGTON—President Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill is getting smaller just as Republicans head into a crucial week, after the Senate's rules arbiter decided several controversial provisions don't qualify for the special procedure the GOP is using to bypass Democratic opposition. The tax-and-spending megabill centers on extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts, delivering on the spirit of his campaign promises to eliminate taxes on tips and overtime, and providing big lump sums of money for border security and defense. Those new costs are partially offset by spending cuts, in particular to Medicaid.