The hidden casualties of Medicaid cuts: America's family caregivers
In Arroyo Seco, N.M., Vanessa Herrera routinely inserts a needle into her 6-year-old son's chest, administering life-saving medication for his rare bleeding disorder. This weekly ritual, made possible by Medicaid, represents the thin line between health and catastrophe for millions of American families.
For Herrera, a single working mother of three, the math is brutally simple: 'Without Medicaid, we would not be able to afford it,' she says. 'We are scared to lose it, because I don't want to lose my son.'
Across America, more than 53 million people are family caregivers like Herrera's — parents supporting children with rare diseases, adult children assisting aging parents, spouses tending to partners with chronic illnesses. And more than 4 million family caregivers rely on Medicaid for their own health care coverage.
This invisible workforce forms the foundation of our nation's long-term care system. Now, with the House passing a budget bill that slashes more than $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Senate Finance Committee advancing similar devastating cuts, these essential caregivers fear for the already-fragile support system that enables their critical work.
As a governor managing the frontline impacts of health care policy on American families, and as someone who has also been a family caregiver, I have deep concerns about how these proposed cuts would unravel the already fragile support system that makes caregiving possible for millions of families. This isn't merely a budgetary abstraction. It is a looming humanitarian crisis with faces and names attached.
Take New Mexico, where approximately 40 percent of residents rely on Medicaid — the highest per-capita coverage in the nation. The proposed cuts would eliminate up to $2.8 billion in federal funding in the first year alone.
New Mexico isn't alone. In 15 states, at least one-fifth of working-age adults in rural areas depend on Medicaid. Tellingly, eight of these 15 highly vulnerable states went for President Trump in the last election — a stark reminder that health care security transcends partisan divides.
For family caregivers, Medicaid often represents the only meaningful support available. As the primary funder of home and community-based services, it helps 4.5 million people with complex needs remain in their homes rather than face costlier institutional care. These services include respite care that gives exhausted caregivers essential breaks, training programs that teach specialized caregiving skills, and self-directed services that allow Medicaid enrollees to hire family members as caregivers.
The proposed cuts would unravel this safety net in important ways.
As federal funding disappears, states will be forced into impossible decisions about services critical to caregiving. History shows that when forced to cut spending, states typically target home and community-based services first — the very programs that help people maintain independence and provide critical support to family caregivers. Essential services like respite care, caregiver training and self-directed care options would be reclassified from 'life-sustaining' to 'optional' in state budgets.
Compounding these challenges, the proposed work requirements for Medicaid fail to recognize economic reality. Many recipients who can work already do. And those who serve as full-time caregivers for family members with medical needs are already working — just without a paycheck.
The math is straightforward: a family caregiver providing round-the-clock care to elderly parent costs our Medicaid system virtually nothing, whereas institutional settings such as nursing homes or board-and-care facilities can cost taxpayers $100,000 per year per patient.
Work requirement proposals create bureaucratic hurdles for people already stretched thin, potentially forcing more into expensive institutional care — dramatically increasing costs while reducing quality of life for the most vulnerable.
The House-passed bill included an exemption from work requirements for 'the parent, guardian, or caretaker relative of a disabled individual or a dependent child,' but it notably fails to address those caring for seniors or individuals with serious health conditions like cancer.
Even with these limited exemptions, strict work requirements create an excessive administrative burden for family caregivers already navigating the complexities of daily care. Additionally, families must verify their eligibility twice yearly, adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to their already demanding caregiving responsibilities.
As the Senate considers the House-passed bill, we call on all senators to recognize the care crisis unfolding in states across America and reject these devastating cuts. Our nation must come together to strengthen Medicaid's support for family caregivers, acknowledging their indispensable role in health care delivery.
Investing in family caregivers through Medicaid isn't just compassionate policy; it's fiscal common sense. By enabling care at home, we prevent costly institutional care, reduce emergency room visits, and address workforce shortages in long-term care. There are millions of family caregivers like Vanessa Herrera filling critical gaps in our nation's health care system every day. If we fail to protect Medicaid, we fail them — and ultimately, we fail ourselves.
Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, is governor of New Mexico. Jason Resendez is president and CEO of the National Alliance for Caregiving.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Fed study blasts few healthcare options in top U.S. tourism states
Romantic getaways. Family memories. Great escapes. We Americans love a good vacation. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter You might be one of the millions lured this – and every – summer by a bold oceanfront, a lakeside fire pit or leafy mountain paths found in these popular tourism states. Related: Major health care company files for bankruptcy to sell assets Or maybe other seasonal adventures like world-class skiing, lush spring gardens or the simply fabulous foliage each autumn draw you and yours to these renowned venues any time of year. 'Cause there's also a ton of history, culture and sports to explore plus delicious local chow for the foodies. But beyond the cheery facades that welcome visitors are sad and scary realities that full-time residents face regarding year-round healthcare access in their rural communities. A new study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston spells out the first-hand accounts of mothers, children, elders and others challenged by distance, income, resources and other economic problems to receive healthcare that so many fellow Americans take for granted. The solutions don't seem to be short-term, straining hopes and accelerating chronic, life-threatening medical crises."Yep. It's a great place to visit but you wouldn't want to live here." Visitors to these states have heard this refrain from locals for decades, all the way back to the last century. Proximity to health care is an increasing concern in rural communities across America. As a result, patient care suffers. So do patients. Greater distances from primary care providers, community hospitals and trauma centers are linked to higher rates of fatal accidents, fatal heart attacks and infant mortality, according to Federal Reserve Bank of Boston senior policy analyst Riley Sullivan. Rural healthcare facilities are finding it more difficult to attract the skilled workforce to fill jobs at every level of skill. Reasons include lack of affordable or available housing and high costs of living magnified by the many, many miles from larger towns and bigger cities. Plus healthcare providers across America maintain that inadequate insurance, Medicaid or Medicare reimbursement rates are leading to major losses at private, public and not-for-profit facilities. Related: Major bankrupt healthcare provider closes distressed hospitals Overall, U.S. hospitals are finding that they have no choice but to cut services due to these acute financial challenges. Some even close because all options have simply run out, leaving their communities in medical deserts facing life-or-death choices 24-7. Boston Fed principal economist and policy advisor Mary Burke, who studies regional labor force participation rates, said all these issues add up to big strains on healthcare systems in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. Sullivan's study showed: Northern Light Health, Maine's second-largest health care system, lost a staggering $156 million in 2024. Northern Light Inland Hospital in Waterville (known for its ski resorts) closed earlier this year. In New Hampshire, Catholic Medical Center in Manchester reported monthly losses ranging from "$2 - $3 million," before it was sold in February Vermont, a state-mandated though disputed analysis found that its hospitals will need to find between $700 million and $2.4 billion to break even by 2028. "I think that when you look around the country in rural areas and you find thriving health care systems or hospitals, what you see are thriving communities, where economic development is strong," said Dr. Sunil Eappen, CEO of The University of Vermont Health Network. Economic development is the key to reversing these trends in Vermont and its two northern neighbors. Tourism dollars, though in the millions, just aren't enough. Eappen, also a member of the Boston Fed's Board of Directors, said potential catalysts – including improved infrastructure and more housing – would help stop the bleeding of healthcare access. But ultimately, it all comes down to one thing. "We need another 100-150,000 young people to move in who are working and paying into a commercial insurance population," Eappen said. "We need more people to move in." Related: Major hospital chain owner files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pandemic preparedness ‘dramatically eroding' under Trump, experts say
Amid controversial dismissals for independent advisers and staff at health agencies, alongside lackluster responses to the bird flu and measles outbreaks, experts fear the US is now in worse shape to respond to a pandemic than before 2020. H5N1, which has received less attention under the Trump administration than from Biden's team, is not the only influenza virus or even the only variant of bird flu with the potential to spark a pandemic. But a subpar response to the ongoing US outbreak signals a larger issue: America is not ready for whatever pathogen will sweep through next. 'We have not even remotely maintained the level of pandemic preparedness – which needed a lot of work, as we saw from the Covid pandemic,' said Angela Rasmussen, an American virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. 'But now, we essentially have no pandemic preparedness.' Related: Bird flu reinfections at US poultry farms highlight need for vaccines, experts say 'I'm concerned on a number of fronts,' said Jennifer Nuzzo, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health. Those concerns include a lack of quality information from officials, weakened virus monitoring systems, and public health reductions at the federal, state and local levels. 'The thing that I am most concerned about is the veracity of information coming out of the health agencies,' Nuzzo said. In the ongoing outbreaks of measles, for example, Robert F Kennedy Jr, the secretary of health and human services, has downplayed the severity of the disease, spread misinformation about the highly effective vaccine to prevent measles, and pushed unproven treatments. 'The communications on measles gives me deep worries about what would happen in a pandemic,' Nuzzo said. 'If a pandemic were to occur today, the only thing we would have to protect ourselves on day one would be information.' The H5N1 outbreak has been plagued by incomplete information, an issue that began in the Biden administration but has amplified under Trump. In Arizona, 6 million chickens were killed or culled at a Hickman's Family Farms location because of H5N1 in May. That's about 95% of the company's hen population in the state. Hundreds of workers, including inmate laborers, are now being dismissed as Arizona braces for egg shortages. We're not testing – it's not that there are no new cases Angela Rasmussen Yet even as H5N1 outbreaks continue to spread on farms and wreak havoc on the food supply, no new bird flu cases have been reported in people for months. 'I am concerned that we may not be finding new infections in humans,' Nuzzo said – and a lack of testing may be the culprit. 'We're not testing – it's not that there are no new cases,' Rassmussen said. The last bird flu case in a person was listed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on 23 February. At that point, at least 830 people in the US had been tested after contact with sick animals. This kind of testing – monitoring the health of people who regularly work with H5N1-infected animals – is how the vast majority of cases (64 out of 70) have been found in this outbreak. But then, several CDC officials overseeing the bird flu response were fired on 1 April. Since then, only about 50 people in the US have been tested after exposure to sick animals – and no positive cases have been announced. It's also been difficult to understand the extent of the outbreak and how the virus spreads among animals. 'We still just don't have a good picture of the scope and scale of this outbreak – we never really have. And until we have that, we're not going to be able to contain it,' Rasmussen said. 'It's extremely bad,' she continued. 'We don't have any information about what's happening right now. The next pandemic could be starting, and we just don't know where that's happening, and we don't have any ability to find out.' We're seeing health departments scrambling. That infrastructure is just dramatically eroding Jennifer Nuzzo Huge reductions in the public health workforce and resources has led to less monitoring of outbreaks, known as disease surveillance. 'Cutting back on that surveillance is leaving us more in the dark,' Nuzzo said. The CDC clawed back $11.4bn in Covid funding in March. This funding was used to monitor, test, vaccinate and otherwise respond to public health issues at the state, local, territorial and tribal level. 'We're seeing health departments scrambling,' Nuzzo said. 'That infrastructure is just dramatically eroding.' International monitoring programs to address outbreaks before they expand across borders have also been cancelled. 'We have taken for granted all of those protections, and I fear that we are poised to see the consequences,' Nuzzo said. Trump's crackdown on immigration also poses a major challenge in detecting cases and treating patients during outbreaks. 'A lot of the people who are most at risk are strongly disincentivized to report any cases, given that many of them are undocumented or are not US citizens,' Rasmussen said. 'Nobody wants to go get tested if they're going to end up in an Ice detention facility.' When cases are not detected, that means patients are not able to access care. Although it's rare for people to become sick with H5N1, for instance – the virus is still primarily an avian, not a human, influenza – this variant of bird flu has a 52% mortality rate globally among people with known infections. Allowing a deadly virus to spread and mutate under the radar has troubling implications for its ability to change into a human influenza without anyone knowing. And if such changes were detected, widening gaps in communication could be the next hurdle for preventing a pandemic, Nuzzo said. 'Communication is our most important public health intervention. People, in order to be able to know how to protect themselves, need to have access to facts, and they need to believe in the messengers. And the communication around the measles outbreaks are deeply eroding our standing with the American people.' Even stockpiled vaccines and other protective measures, like personal protective equipment, take time to distribute, Nuzzo added. 'And flu is a fast-moving disease that could cause a lot of damage in the months it would take to mount a vaccination campaign.' The US government's cancellation of its $766m contract with Moderna to research and develop an H5N1 vaccine also signals a concerning strategy from health officials, Nuzzo and Rasmussen said. Other restrictions on vaccine development, like a new plan to test all vaccines against saline placebos, is 'going to make it extremely difficult to approve any new vaccine' and would 'have a devastating impact on our ability to respond to a potential pandemic', Rasmussen said – especially in a rapidly moving pandemic where speed matters. 'You don't have time for that if this virus causes a human-to–human outbreak,' Rasmussen said. All of these policies mean the US is less prepared for a pandemic than it was in 2020, she said. And it also means there will be preventable suffering now, even before the next big one strikes. 'We are actively making people less safe, less healthy and more dead,' Rasmussen said.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
How the Senate megabill could backfire on conservatives
A provision in a key Senate committee's version of the GOP megabill will backfire against Republicans by forcing red states to consider doing exactly what Republicans don't want them to: expand Medicaid, the CEO of the South Carolina Hospital Association told POLITICO. Republicans have sought to shelter the 10 conservative states that have declined to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income people, as Obamacare encourages with generous federal subsidies. But the Senate bill, in an effort to find the savings needed to extend President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, would still blow a hole in the budgets of Palmetto state hospitals by reducing what insurers who contract with the state to provide Medicaid services can pay them. States and Washington share the insurance program's costs. 'It affects the viability of the whole system,' said Thornton Kirby, chief executive of the South Carolina Hospital Association, which estimates the Senate proposal will cost the state over $2.3 billion annually. 'If you take away this alternative way to balance the budget, you leave us with only one path…Medicaid expansion,' Kirby said. The Senate is rushing to complete its version of a bill that would enact Trump's agenda using a procedure that requires only a simple majority vote. Trump wants it done by July 4, but with the slim margins in both houses of Congress, the industries affected by the bill are hoping to peel off votes to save themselves from cuts. Republicans can lose no more than three votes in either chamber as long as Democrats remain united in opposition. To make the case that the restrictions on so-called state-directed payments need to go, the hospital association is leaning on three home state Republicans with clout: Sen. Tim Scott, who has a seat on the Finance Committee that has proposed the restrictions; Rep. Russell Fry, who's on the Energy and Commerce Committee that drafted the Medicaid provisions of the megabill the House passed last month; and Henry McMaster, the governor of South Carolina and, Kirby said, a personal friend. 'I don't want to put him in the hot seat,' Kirby said of McMaster. 'He doesn't want to see [Medicaid] upended.' Of Scott, Kirby said he's in touch at least every other day and that the senator and Trump ally 'has been a champion.' 'He understands…he doesn't want to go down that path' of Medicaid expansion, Kirby added. The three Republicans did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Expanding Medicaid could help replace the revenue the Senate provision would take away because it would make many more people — South Carolina now has one of the nation's higher uninsured rates at 9 percent — eligible for the program. Under Obamacare, the federal government picks up 90 percent of the cost for the new enrollees. Under the Finance Committee proposal, state-directed payments to hospitals serving Medicaid patients would fall by 10 percent each year until the total payment rate is only 100-110 percent of the Medicare payment rate. In South Carolina, the current payment rate is more than twice the rate paid by Medicare, the federal health insurance program for elderly people. Hospitals in states that have expanded Medicaid would take an additional hit under the Senate proposal. The Finance Committee would lower the provider tax rate that the 40 states that have expanded Medicaid can levy on hospitals from 6 percent to 3.5 percent. States have used the taxes to boost their federal matching funds, which they have then sent back to hospitals in higher reimbursements. The Senate would freeze the tax rates in states like South Carolina that haven't expanded Medicaid, but would not require them to lower them. The version of the megabill the House passed would freeze the rates for all states, a plan Kirby was willing to accept. On Friday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) urged GOP leaders to strike the Finance Committee language on Medicaid, warning the crackdown won't clear the House. Republican senators hope to pass their version of the bill next week after which the House would need to pass it before Trump could sign it into law.
