“Never allow someone to be your priority while allowing yourself to be their option.” – Mark Twain
Accessible and affordable healthcare is essential for communities to thrive, yet recent proposals to slash Medicaid funding threaten to destabilize this foundation for nearly three million Michiganders, including 961,000 children whose health and future depend on access to these services.
Medicaid is a cornerstone of our healthcare system and keeps people healthy at every stage of life. It provides coverage for two in five U.S. births, two in five children, one in six non-elderly adults, two in five non-elderly adults with a disability, one in four people with a substance use disorder or mental illness and three in five nursing facility residents.
The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid to cover more working Americans who do not make enough to afford other coverage. In Michigan, this expansion is known as the Healthy Michigan Plan, which has been hailed as a success for improving access to care, reducing the uninsured rate and supporting economic stability for families across the state.
Nationwide, 40 states have embraced Medicaid expansion, recognizing its transformative benefits. More than 75% of people approve of Medicaid. However, despite its overwhelming popularity, Medicaid is under threat.
Various proposals aim to cut Medicaid by enacting significant reductions in federal funding that would force states like Michigan to make devastating decisions, directly impacting families and communities. Changes like block grants, per capita caps and reduced federal matching rates could lead to an estimated $1.73 billion funding gap in Michigan, jeopardizing access to healthcare for millions.
Medicaid is the single largest payer for long-term care, maternity care and mental health services. Medicaid expansion under the ACA has saved lives, kept hospitals open and improved the overall well-being of countless individuals.
I know firsthand what Medicaid cuts would do to hospitals, essential services and Michigan’s healthcare industry and the economy as a whole. Medicaid is an important program across all Michigan hospitals, but especially for Michigan’s 65 rural hospitals that depend on it to keep their doors open.
Losing rural hospitals would devastate communities across Michigan, depriving them of access to emergency care, maternity services, mental health treatments, long-term care and other life-saving treatments. It would also eliminate jobs, weaken local economies and force residents to travel longer distances for healthcare, increasing the risk of delayed or missed treatment.
Beyond providing care, rural hospitals are economic anchors in their communities. They create jobs, attract businesses and ensure residents can live and work with the security of accessible healthcare.
Aside from the direct impact that Medicaid funding cuts would have on the functioning of hospitals around Michigan, they would have far-reaching economic consequences that impact the workforce and future health of our state. Healthcare is the largest private-sector employer in Michigan, and Medicaid funding supports thousands of jobs across the state. Hospitals, clinics, nursing homes and home health agencies rely on Medicaid payments to sustain operations and maintain their workforce. If Medicaid funding is reduced, healthcare providers will face difficult choices, including cutting services, laying off staff or even shutting their doors.
Michigan cannot afford cuts to Medicaid funding. Our state budget would face a staggering $1.73 billion shortfall if Medicaid cuts move forward. This funding gap would force the state to make decisions like reducing benefits or removing people from coverage – harming patients, providers and communities alike.
Medicaid is not and should not be a partisan issue, as it serves people in urban and rural Michigan, with no distinction between whether those receiving benefits are Democrats, Republicans or any other political affiliation.
Ensuring access to quality healthcare for all Michiganders should be a shared priority. And supporting the infrastructure to make that possible should not be considered optional.
As always, I welcome your thoughts.