This morning, Health and Human Services Committee Co-Chairs Sen. Matt Lesser (D-Cromwell) and State Rep. Jillian Gilchrest (D-West Hartford) held a press conference addressing the potential impact of $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid.
“This is a vital resource for Connecticut residents, and that’s why these proposed cuts are so concerning,” said Lesser. “We need to keep highlighting the danger and the risk, because we have to save Medicaid.”
The conference was held in response to the recent passage of the federal budget bill in both the nation’s House of Representatives and Senate. The bill, which passed the Senate 52-48 on Feb. 21 and in the House 215-217 on Feb. 25, calls for the federal Committee on Energy and Commerce to reduce the deficit by $880 billion. While Republican lawmakers have attempted to maintain plausible deniability of where the cuts could come from, the mathematics would require a downsizing of federal Medicaid funding.
Lesser cited a report released by the Urban Institute on Feb. 25, which projects the impacts of the cuts on each state. Connecticut was one of 41 states that opted into expanded Medicaid coverage in April 2024, expanding coverage to non-elderly adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level. As a result, the report estimated outcomes for these states should they decide to continue their expanded coverage, or do away with it.
According to the report, if Connecticut were to drop its Medicaid expansion in response to the cuts, it would increase the state’s uninsured population by 312,000, or approximately 72%. If Connecticut maintained the expansion, 182,000 residents, or 6.1% of the state’s non-elderly population, would become uninsured. If the expansion is kept, federal Medicaid funding to Connecticut’s non-elderly would be reduced by $755,000 per year, or 13.2%, and if dropped, federal funds to the non-elderly would be reduced by $1.54 billion, or 27.1%.
As a result, the report estimated that Connecticut would likely spend anywhere from $3.96 billion to $3 billion more in an attempt to cover the loss of federal funding.
“Medicaid is a state federal partnership, so when the President says, ‘Technically, I’m not kicking anyone off their benefits,’ what he’s saying is the federal government won’t keep its commitment to the states,” said Lesser. “It is a $10 billion a year partnership in Connecticut, and they say, ‘Well, the federal government won’t pay its share, but the state of Connecticut, they could just tax their citizens more and keep their commitment.’ It’s not realistic.”
Lesser said the cuts would “devastate” state finances, hospitals and medical providers alike, nationwide. Representatives of several state healthcare organizations were also present at the conference to speak of the potential impacts.
“When I hear about these cuts to Medicaid, these are the things that keep me up at night,” said Dr. Josh Jones, of the Hartford Medical Health and Wellness Center. “When I hear about my patients not being able to potentially afford their COPD inhalers, not being able to afford their insulin – to think of them struggling to breathe because they can’t afford to treat their chronic medical conditions, it’s a tragedy.”
Dr. Sabrina Trocchi, President and CEO of Wheeler Health, Yvette Highsmith, VP of Community Health Center’s Eastern Region, Don Thompson, CEO of StayWell Health Center, and Heather Gates, President and CEO of Community Health Resources, all echoed Lesser’s sentiments.
Trocchi and Highsmith both noted that over 60% of the patients their companies served are Medicaid recipients. Highsmith said that Community Health’s high number of Medicaid patients make it “already a shaky safety net,” as they receive less in Medicaid reimbursement than most services cost. Highsmith said that 11% of the state’s residents live below the federal poverty level, and another 29% are asset limited, income-restrained, and employed.
“Medicaid helps folks keep those jobs, that keep our economy going, that help us do the things that we need to do as the state that we are,” said Highsmith. “Any change to that is a house of cards – It will crumble.”
Gilchrest further highlighted the impact Medicaid cuts would have on the state’s economy, saying that hospitals are the largest employers of several communities across the state. She said any cuts to Medicaid would cause a “ripple effect,” reducing the ability of hospitals not only to provide care but also employment. Gilchrest emphasized her belief in the importance of persistent citizen pushback and political involvement.
“If the last month has taught us anything, it’s that the Republican leaders down in Washington really don’t think things through, and that’s what we’re facing here again with these proposed Medicaid cuts,” said Gilchrest. “What we’re also seeing over this last month, is when people stand up and speak out, the Republicans down in DC realize what they’re doing and make changes.”
Lesser noted the concessions provided by Republican lawmakers as a result of citizen pushback. He cited the recent re-opening of states’ Medicaid portals after temporary shutdown, and the walking back by Majority Leader Johnson of several other proposed cuts, such as per recipient caps on Medicaid coverage and reductions in federal Medicaid expansion funding to states, as examples of the success of citizen outrage.
“The more noise we make about these specific provisions, the more they feel the heat, and the more they are responsive to the people this country who rely on Medicaid because it is an essential part of our health care,” said Lesser.
While budget bills have passed both chambers of Congress, both chambers have the tentative deadline of April 15 to get amend the differences present between the two versions of the bill, and present it to President Trump for him to either sign or veto.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
It would be helpful to write a column to explain how Medicaid in CT actually works. The growth is both $$ spent and expanded eligibility and the split of the cost on that eligibility between Feds and CT. Finally, some historical data on the efficacy of the program in CT would be useful to determine if there is actual value for the increased spending.