Cabinet secretary warns of 'enormous' Medicaid cuts
BOSTON (SHNS) – Having spent her roughly 100-mile drive listening to the national news Monday morning and then hearing her colleagues at a budget hearing dig into the policy and finance specifics of crucial state programs, Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa got a sinking feeling.
'I feel like we're trying to budget on quicksand at the moment,' the Northampton Democrat said as she and the rest of the Joint Ways and Means Committee gathered to review Gov. Maura Healey's fiscal year 2026 budget plan (H 1) with the part of state government that could face the deepest and most immediate consequences of looming federal shifts, the Executive Office of Health and Human Services.
While Beacon Hill continues its usual budget process, President Donald Trump has been moving to reshape the federal government and its spending, with all signs pointing to disruptions in the relationship between D.C. and states like Massachusetts. Medicaid is in the crosshairs of a pursuit for trillions of dollars in tax cuts and federal spending reductions over the next decade, and that could have massive impacts on MassHealth.
The state Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program system affords health care coverage to about 2 million Bay Staters and brings about $15 billion of federal revenue to Massachusetts.
Proposals under consideration in Congress 'would likely translate into billions of dollars of cuts for MassHealth for next year,' Health and Human Services Secretary Kate Walsh said Monday, and 'will force some very, very difficult choices.'
MassHealth is the largest single chunk of spending in the state budget, representing about $22.599 billion gross (a $8.672 billion net cost to the state after federal reimbursements) or 36% of line-item spending in Healey's proposal. The governor's plan would increase the MassHealth budget by $1.04 billion gross or $415.8 million net compared to estimated total spending during the current budget year.
Healey's budget, filed before the threat of deep Medicaid cuts became clear, expects federal reimbursement for Medicaid spending to increase by $1.8 billion to $14.2 billion, per the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
While the scope of federal spending cuts may not become clear for weeks or months, the state budget is on its typical timetable, with the House and Senate planning to pass their spending bills in April and May.
When Attleboro Rep. James Hawkins asked how MassHealth is 'preparing to continue serving residents in the face of these threats,' Assistant Secretary for MassHealth Mike Levine responded that 'a lot of this is going to come back to budget and appropriations and hard choices.'
'It is a matter of identifying our key populations and what we're going to do to support them, and collectively coming up with answers,' Levine said. 'Because you might have a point of view on, you know — 'If we're on track to spend $8.7 billion out of the General Fund and [fiscal] 26, that number can go no higher than X' — that's really going to clarify our choices and what we're able to continue to do and what we're going to have to stop doing.'
Excluding MassHealth, Healey's fiscal 2026 proposal recommends funding EOHHS at $10.156 billion, which the administration said would represent a $452.5 million, or 5%, increase over the budget the governor signed last summer. The increased budget allotment pays for $207 million for new provider rate increases through the Chapter 257 reserve, $524.2 million to annualize provider rate increases from the current budget year, and $460 million for projected caseload growth.
The uncertainty about federal support for Medicaid comes as Beacon Hill Democrats are redrafting Healey's budget while the state's spending demands are elevated and general purpose tax revenue growth is modest. A reduction in federal funding could force state budget managers closer to considering unpopular steps, potentially including allowing federally-funded services to end, cutting back on state support for programs, dipping into preciously-guarded state reserve accounts, or raising taxes to bring in more revenue.
Walsh told Sabadosa that her morning drives are often very similar, and that she has shifted her thinking to 'trying to figure out, well, there must be a better way to do this.' She said most important is understanding what Massachusetts values and 'the basic things that we need to do,' and then finding ways to 'do it differently and better.'
The secretary said the state has to be able to deliver services at a lower cost, but also warned that 'we will be cutting' programs that she, her staff and lawmakers have become attached to.
'We're just going to have to think more creatively and differently. And I think it's going to really challenge the — going back to the values, what's made us all so proud to do this work, which is that we've built programs … that have really saved people's lives, or may enable them to live the best life they could possibly live, and that's easier in this state than probably any other state on the planet,' Walsh said. 'And so how do we get there from here? And I don't know the answer, but we really are at an inflection point.'
The response is going to require a partnership between lawmakers and the administration to make potentially uncomfortable trade-offs, she said.
'So you might want to save a food pantry in your district. And I might say to you, 'no, we need to do this another way,' because it's going to be a more efficient way to get a meal to everyone in the commonwealth,' the secretary said. 'And I think that those trade-offs that you'll have to make for programs again, you've built, sponsored, earmarked, supported — we might not be in the position to do that.'
Walsh added later in her response to Sabadosa, 'That's why I applaud people like [Department of Mental Health] Commissioner [Brooke] Doyle, who came forward and said, 'OK, if I have to cut, this does the least damage.' And we have to trust each other, because we are going to be cutting.'
Healey's budget proposes slashing the DMH case manager workforce from 340 to 170 positions, a move that her administration says would save $12.4 million. Overall, the DMH budget would increase by 7% to about $1.2 billion under Healey's bill, Walsh said.
The proposed cut to the DMH caseload manager workforce was one that a handful of lawmakers took issue with Monday. Another recurring topic of questions from lawmakers was Healey's proposal to level-fund the personal care attendant program and tie PCA spending to health care spending benchmarks from the Health Policy Commission.
The PCA program allows seniors and people with disabilities to hire personal care workers to help with daily tasks like bathing, dressing, meal preparation, and grocery shopping. It helps keep people independent and not in nursing facilities, but the program's costs have soared from $1.2 billion in fiscal 2020 to an estimated $2 billion by fiscal 2027.
'While people in their heads think about PCA and homemaker services as things that are paid for and something that you require when you get old and might be covered by Medicare, in fact, it's paid 100% by the Medicaid program, which we have just identified as in for enormous cuts,' Walsh said. 'So this is a very good example of one of the very hard choices that we're facing.'
Lawmakers did not go along last year with a Healey proposal to trim $57 million from the PCA program, which would have meant that 6,000 people would have lost access to PCA services. That, Walsh said, 'was an example of us trying to get cost under control' but now represents 'the kinds of cuts that we will not be able to look away from in the future.'
'Like-minded people can disagree about whether or not the program's been cut too much, slowed too fast, growing too fast,' she said. 'I think we're in a situation where these will be the good old days and the cuts that were contemplated will be, 'Wow, wish we could have done that.''
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
14 minutes 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.
an hour ago
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018. She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015.
Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Full List of Congress Members Backing War Powers Resolution Against Trump
Representatives Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, introduced a bipartisan House resolution last week in a bid to curb President Donald Trump's ability to escalate tensions with Iran. After the U.S. military carried out strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday, Massie told CNN that he believed the resolution would have enough co-sponsors to "be able to force a vote unless [House Speaker Mike] Johnson pulls some shenanigans." Trump on Saturday evening announced what he described as a "very successful attack" against three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan The president's decision came after Israel and Iran have exchanged consistent strikes since June 13. Israel had urged the U.S. to target Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that Tehran was moving close to creating a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes—not for weapons. The strikes have sparked concerns from some Democrats and some Republicans about a wider war breaking out—with some lawmakers accusing the president of violating the U.S. Constitution with the strikes. Massie and Khanna introduced their War Powers Resolution in an effort to prohibit U.S. military involvement in Iran last Tuesday, amid the backdrop of escalating tensions with Iran. "The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked the United States," Massie said in a press release announcing the resolution. "Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution." Khanna shared similar concerns in a statement emailed to Newsweek on Sunday after the strikes on Iran moved forward. "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," the congressman said. "Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, introduced companion legislation to the House resolution the day before his House colleagues. "It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States. I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict," the senator said in a press release. Representative Ro Khanna, a California DemocratRepresentative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky RepublicanRepresentative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York DemocratRepresentative Val Hoyle, an Oregon DemocratRepresentative Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan DemocratRepresentative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington DemocratRepresentative Donald Beyer, a Virginia DemocratRepresentative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Greg Casar, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Ayanna Pressley, a Massachusetts DemocratRepresentative Delia Ramirez, an Illinois DemocratRepresentative Summer Lee, a Pennsylvania DemocratRepresentative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota DemocratRepresentative Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, an Illinois DemocratRepresentative Nydia Velazquez, a New York DemocratRepresentative James McGovern, a Massachusetts DemocratRepresentative Chellie Pingree, a Maine DemocratRepresentative Mark Pocan, a Wisconsin DemocratRepresentative Veronica Escobar, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Paul Tonko, a New York DemocratRepresentative Becca Balint, a Vermont DemocratRepresentative Bonnie Watson Coleman, a New Jersey DemocratRepresentative Henry "Hank" Johnson, a Georgia DemocratDelegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Washington, D.C., DemocratRepresentative Sara Jacobs, a California DemocratRepresentative Janice Schakowsky, an Illinois DemocratRepresentative Lateefah Simon, a California DemocratRepresentative Christopher Deluzio, a Pennsylvania DemocratRepresentative Gwen Moore, a Wisconsin DemocratRepresentative Mike Thompson, a California DemocratRepresentative Yassamin Ansari, an Arizona DemocratRepresentative Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi DemocratRepresentative Luis Correa, a California DemocratRepresentative Betty McCollum, a Minnesota DemocratRepresentative Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio DemocratRepresentative Mark DeSaulnier, a California DemocratRepresentative Stephen Lynch, a Massachusetts DemocratRepresentative Andre Carson, an Indiana DemocratRepresentative Mary Gay Scanlon, a Pennsylvania DemocratRepresentative Joaquin Castro, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Maxwell Frost, a Florida DemocratRepresentative Al Green, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Debbie Dingell, a Michigan DemocratRepresentative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland DemocratRepresentative Melanie Stansbury, a New Mexico DemocratRepresentative Sylvia Garcia, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Teresa Leger Fernandez, a New Mexico DemocratRepresentative Diana DeGette, a Colorado DemocratSenator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities told Newsweek: "Iran has several options when it comes to retaliation, but will need to weigh them carefully. A stronger response may be useful for signaling Tehran's continuing resolve to internal and external audiences but it could also bring further U.S. military action and deeper U.S. involvement. Iran could target U.S. military bases and personnel in the Middle East." President Donald Trump on Truth Social on Saturday evening: "ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU!" Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear installations. The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior. In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people." Iran's foreign minister said after the attack that his country reserves "all options to defend its sovereignty." The U.S. military is preemptively preparing for any attack from Tehran in response. It's unclear whether the War Powers Resolution sponsored by Khanna and Massie, which aims to curb Trump's ability to take military action against Iran, will move forward in the House. However, with Republican control of both chambers of Congress, it is not widely expected to succeed. Related Articles Video of Bernie Sanders Reacting to Trump's Iran Strike Live Goes ViralJD Vance Issues Warning on Trump Admin's 'Biggest Red Line' for IranPutin Ally Says Countries Now Ready to Supply Iran With Nuclear Weapons'Operation Midnight Hammer': What We Know About the Iran Strikes 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
