Tag: medicare
Trump, CDC, public health threat

How Trump's Health Care Layoffs Will Hasten A National Recession

As the news about the Trump regime’s purge at every Health and Human Services agency poured in, it dawned on me that this could be the beginning of the next great recession.

Beyond the massive cuts already underway, there is more to come in Medicaid and possibly even Medicare as the GOP advances legislation to extend corporate tax breaks. This will lead to a sharp reduction in household spending, which drives the economy. Health care represents 18 percent of that economy.

I have consistently advocated for reducing the medical industrial complex’s draw on national income. But this isn’t the way to do it. Cutting Medicaid and premium support for individual insurance plans will undermine public health, make America sicker and increase demand for ameliorative care, which will increasingly be provided free of charge as the ranks of the uninsured swell. That will force those still insured to pay higher rates, which in turn will exacerbate the decline in consumer spending as households prioritize basics like food, housing, heat, and health care over discretionary spending.

This is in addition to the havoc raised by the president’s broad and irrational tariffs announced yesterday. Unless every economist except those working for Trump is wrong, this will drive prices for every imported good higher: from food and clothes to cars and computers.

The ostensible goal — bringing manufacturing jobs home — is a decades-long project. Those who honestly believe Hamiltonian-style protectionism can work in the 21st century understand that industrial policy must be 1) strategically targeted; and 2) accompanied by policies that promote the protected industries. That’s exactly what President Biden included in his Build Back Better program, partially enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Trump regime is eliminating many of those provisions.

Is it safe? Will it be there?

The press did an admirable job over the past two days cataloging the effects of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s purge of 10,000 HHS workers (on top of the 10,000 who jumped ship during the earlier buyouts). Here are some of the more pernicious cuts:

  • The Food and Drug Administration eliminated 170 staff from its inspections department. Most were support staff for the people who visit facilities in the U.S. and around the world to ensure there are no impurities in drugs and no bacteria in food. The backlog of uninspected facilities will grow as “front-line investigators will now be spending significant time processing their own travel and related administrative requirements,” rather than spending that time inspecting firms to ensure the American consumer is protected, one FDA official told CBS News.

The staff cuts at FDA included veterinarians monitoring the bird flu outbreak, which has led to egg shortages and emboldened producers to price gouge. The laid-off scientists included vets who designed studies showing pasteurization killed viruses found in milk, according to the Washington Post. Drinking raw milk is among the many quackeries embraced by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

  • The vaccine advisory panel at FDA lost the four staffers who run the meetings and monitor conflicts of interest, according to Bloomberg News. Meanwhile,Politico reports Sara Brenner, the FDA’s principal deputy commissioner, has asked for more data about the Novovax vaccine for Covid-19, the only non-mRNA vaccine on the market. Its approval was expected by April 1.
  • The HHS layoffs announced Tuesday included more than half of the 150 staff at the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, which evaluates policy alternatives for the HHS secretary. More than third of the 300 staffers at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality received pink slips this week, according to Stat. AHRQ conducts or supports most of the research aimed at improving patient safety at the nations hospitals, where drug-resistant infections remain a major threat.
  • About two-thirds of the 1,200 people working at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health are being laid off, according to CBS News. They include the entire staff at the National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, which is responsible for ensuring respirators and other personal protective equipment work properly.

This will effect not just hospital and medical personnel but mineworkers, construction workers and others routinely exposed to dangerous air, chemicals and other hazards at work. The layoffs will take effect on June 30, American Federation of Government Employees union representatives told Modern Healthcare. "Everybody in NPPTL is being RIF'ed," said Brendan Demich, chief steward of the AFGE Local 1916.

  • It is unlikely the public will get many details about the effects of the personnel cuts. Most staff in the offices that respond to Freedom of Information Act requests at HHS have been put on administrative leave. Those offices at the CDC, NIH and the FDA were entirely eliminated. Journalists, lawyers and patient advocacy groups depend on FOIA requests to gain insight into internal deliberations and lobbyist interactions behind government decions.

An HHS spokesman told NPR that “the FOIA offices throughout the Department were previously siloed, and did not communicate with one another. Under Secretary Kennedy's vision for a more efficient HHS, these offices will be streamlined, and the work will continue.” Only there will be fewer people, longer delays, and centralized control over what gets released.

A better way to cut spending

Here’s another news story that caught my eye this week. Employment at the nation’s largest health insurance companies dipped 4.6% in the fourth quarter of last year, according to a review of SEC filings by Modern Healthcare reporters. Even if one excludes UnitedHealth Group’s overseas divestitures, the seven largest insurers cut 1.4 percent of their workers at a time when total jobs in the economy grew by 1.2 percent.

Slower spending growth by both Medicare and Medicaid is shrinking insurer margins. Seniors opting for private Medicare Advantage plans, which now cover more than half of beneficiaries, is slowing dramatically, up just 3.1 percent to 34.4 million people this year, according to a STAT report in late February. Medicare pays MA plans about 22 percent more on average than those beneficiaries would cost if they had remained in the traditional program.

Why? Medicare pays insurers a risk-adjusted monthly premium to cover seniors who choose an MA plan. The “risk” is determined by how sick people are, which insurers can game by coding for illnesses they never treat. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission estimates Medicare loses over $80 billion a year from insurer upcoding — and that’s after slapping an across-the-board 5.9 percent reduction in payments to insurers.

Increase that reduction to 20% — making MA reimbursement about equal to FFS Medicare — would save Medicare $1.0 trillion over the next decade. This could lead to higher cost sharing, higher premiums and fewer supplemental benefits for MA enrollees (so those plans looked more like traditional Medicare). Or MA insurers could take a profit haircut. But it would also eliminate any need to cut Medicaid to pay for tax breaks.

Here’s the popular slogan I offered last month: Don’t throw people off Medicaid to pay for your tax breaks for big corporations and the wealthy. Stop private insurers from ripping off Medicare.

Merrill Goozner, the former editor of Modern Healthcare, writes about health and politics at GoozNews.substack.com, where this column first appeared. Please consider subscribing to support his work.

Reprinted with permission from Gooz News.


Why Medicaid Patients May Not Know Their Health Care Is At Risk

Why Medicaid Patients May Not Know Their Health Care Is At Risk

They go by different names in different states. In Tennessee, it is TennCare. In Ohio it is the Buckeye Health Plan. In California, it is Medi-Cal.

In Florida, it “sounds like an orange juice brand: Simply Healthcare,” wrote N. Adam Brown, an emergency room physician and professor at the University of North Carolina business school, in a commentary posted earlier this week on the MedPage Today website.

What they have in common is that they are Medicaid plans run by private insurance companies. Over the past several decades, 41 states and the District of Columbia have turned over their low-income health insurance programs to what industry jargon refers to as Medicaid managed care organizations or MCOs.

The nation’s 280-plus MCO plans cover an estimated 75 percent of the 85 million people (as of March 2024) on Medicaid, the joint federal-state program targeted for massive cuts by the GOP-run Congress. While many are run by non-profits or government agencies (like CountyCare in Chicago where I live), five for-profit private insurers (Centene, UnitedHealth Group, Elevance, Molina and Aetna/CVS) account for more than half of all Medicaid MCO enrollment, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

While the websites of most of these firms indicate their plans are connected to Medicaid, a significant share of their clientele have no idea they are covered by a government-financed program. A recent study published in JAMA found that between 2019 and 2022 when enrollment increased by 5.2 percentage points, surveys that asked where people obtained their health insurance showed only a 1.3 percentage point growth in Medicaid.

“Because Medicaid is not branded as Medicaid, if you tell a patient in South Carolina they might lose Medicaid, their eyes may glaze over,” Brown wrote. “Tell them Healthy Connections is at risk? You have their attention.”

His solution? “In every state, we need to call Medicaid by its real name,” he wrote. Instead of saying “‘Republicans want to reduce Medicaid by $880 billion,’ try ‘If Republicans' Medicaid plans come to fruition, you could lose your Buckeye Health Plan health insurance.’”

Where are the lobbyists?

No one is in better position to call Medicaid by its real name than the private insurers in charge of the program. Yet with the sole exception of Centene, the largest MCO operator, most companies have remained silent in the face of the GOP’s assault on the program.

For instance, I can’t find a single press release or public statement by a private insurer that counters claims contained in a specious hit piece released earlier this month by conservative think tanks that estimated Medicaid made $1.1 trillion in improper payments over the past decade. Since they’re managing at least half the money that flows through Medicaid, they ought to be offended.

The Paragon Health Institute and Economic Policy Innovation Center paper based its claims on eligibility reviews conducted during the last two years of the first Trump administration. It then applied that percentage to all Medicaid spending. However, the government estimated just a five percent improper payment rate or about $31 billion in 2024, which, if eliminated in every year over the next decade, would only save half of what conservatives claim.

Nor have those insurers risen to defend the the 92 percent of adults under 65 who are on Medicaid despite working full or part-time. More than a quarter of all workers in the private sector are not offered health insurance as a benefit, most whom are earning poverty- or near-poverty wages and are eligible for Medicaid, especially in the 41 states that have expanded the program (with 90% federal funding) to cover people earning up to 138 percent of poverty wages.

Even among those offered health insurance on the job, only three-quarters purchase plans. Why? Most can’t afford the premiums being taken out of their paltry paychecks.

So let’s begin describing Medicaid for what it is: A massive subsidy for employers who rely on low-wage labor. This subsidization is necessary because we have what, theoretically at least, is an employment-based health insurance system. Yet the government doesn’t require all employers provide and pay for health insurance.

Of course that’s not what you hearing from Republicans like Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO). During hearing held earlier this month, he, like the president he slavishly follows, said there would be no cuts to Medicaid. “My definition of cutting does not include getting people who are fraudsters and getting people who are not supposed to be on the list as recipients.”

Democrats should answer with the following: “When we make Florida’s orange growers pay for their orange pickers’ health insurance, we’ll be able to shrink ‘Simply Health’ as much as they shrank the amount of juice put in each bottle.”

Reprinted with permission from Gooz News.

Musk Vows Again To Slash Social Security By '$500 Billion' Per Year

Musk Vows Again To Slash Social Security By '$500 Billion' Per Year

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is now openly declaring his plan to slash hundreds of billions of dollars from earned benefits programs like Social Security and Medicare.

During a recent appearance on Fox Business, Musk told host Larry Kudlow that he remains committed to his goal of enacting steep cuts to Americans' retirement income and health insurance. He noted that "most federal spending is entitlements," which is a catch-all used to describe mandatory spending obligations like Social Security, Medicare and veterans' benefits.

"That's the big one to eliminate," Musk said. "That's, sort of, half trillion, six or seven hundred billion a year."

He also asserted without evidence that Democrats were enticing "illegal immigrants" to come across the border "by essentially paying them" Social Security money in exchange for their votes. This claim has been debunked, with Portland, Oregon NBC affiliate KGW reporting that "undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits." The Social Security Administration (SSA) has stated that while some immigrants can receive benefits, they must prove a "lawful presence."

"This is why the Democrats are so upset about the situation," Musk said. "If we turn off this giant money magnet for illegal immigrants, then they will leave. And they will lose voters."

In response to Musk's comments, Alex Lawson — who is executive director of the advocacy group Social Security Works — slammed the South African centibillionaire's efforts to "destroy" Social Security. He added that if the tech magnate followed through on his promise, he would experience the "ferocity" of the American public.

"Our Social Security system is the opposite of everything Elon Musk is. It embodies the best of American values. It rewards hard work, playing by the rules, and delaying gratification," Lawson told AlterNet. "At its core, it is an intergenerational promise of empathy and understanding that we all do better when we all do better."

Musk's comments to Kudlow come just weeks after the CEO's address to the Conservative Political Action Conference. In February, Musk argued to NewsMax host Rob Schmitt, who interviewed him onstage, that Social Security was rife with hundreds of billions of dollars in "waste." He suggested that he may cut Social Security by roughly $500 billion per year.

"People ask how can you find waste in D.C., it's like being in a room and the wall, the roof and the floors are all targets," Musk said. "You can shoot in any direction. You can't miss."

President Donald Trump has empowered the world's richest man to cut spending across the board at multiple federal agencies as part of his Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. When DOGE representatives went to the SSA, however, Michelle King —the Trump-appointed acting commissioner of the agency — was effectively forced out of her role when she refused to hand over sensitive data to DOGE employees. King was replaced by Leland Dudek, who the Washington Post reported had heaped praise on DOGE on his social media channels.

Elon Musk reiterated his intention to destroy programs like Social Security, which he has called a Ponzi scheme: "Most of the federal spending is entitlements... that’s the big one to eliminate."

[image or embed]

— More Perfect Union (@moreperfectunion.bsky.social) March 10, 2025 at 9:05 PM

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Elon Musk

Musk Says He'll Cut $500M In Medicare And Social Security 'Entitlements'

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk — whose net worth is just shy of $400 billion — just dropped a hint that he may be eyeing significant cuts to earned benefits programs like Social Security and Medicare in the future.

During his Thursday appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Musk was asked about his "Department of Government Efficiency," or DOGE (which is not yet an official federal agency authorized by Congress) project, and about the scope of spending cuts he aimed to implement. The South African centibillionaire asserted to NewsMax anchor Rob Schmitt — who interviewed him on stage — that "waste" was "pretty much everywhere."

"People ask how can you find waste in D.C., it's like being in a room and the wall, the roof and the floors are all targets," he said. "You can shoot in any direction. You can't miss."

Schmitt then asked Musk specifically about his plans for the Social Security Administration, which DOGE representatives have already reportedly accessed. Schmitt referenced "$72 billion in waste in seven years," while Musk seemingly alluded to hundreds of billions of dollars in supposedly wasteful spending.

"I think that the rough estimate from the Government Accountability Office is over $500 billion a year. $500 billion. With a B. Per year," Musk said.

"On Social Security?" Schmitt asked.

"On all entitlements. All entitlements, yeah," Musk responded, using a catch-all term to describe mandatory spending like Medicare and veterans' benefits.

Musk insisted during the interview that millions of dead Americans are still getting Social Security payments, including Americans who are allegedly hundreds of years old. ABC 7 New York debunked that claim, and pointed out that Musk was misreading Social Security Administration data. One of the agency's databases includes every American who has ever been issued a Social Security number, and no date of death has been listed for many of those Americans as they died before electronic records were established.

ABC 7 reported that of the roughly 67 million Americans currently receiving Social Security benefits, only 0.1% of them are over 100 years old. And while there are occasional fraudulent payments, that accounts for less than 1% of total spending and is usually in the form of overpayments to living beneficiaries.

"When Donald Trump ran for president, he blanketed swing states in flyers pledging to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Now, Trump has empowered Elon Musk to slash $500 billion a year from these vital benefits," Social Security Works communications director Linda Benesch told AlterNet. "But Congress has the power to stop him. We urge everyone to call their members of Congress and demand that they pledge one penny in cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid."

According to figures from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the federal government had approximately $3.8 trillion in mandatory spending obligations in Fiscal Year 2023, which included $1.3 trillion for Social Security and $839 billion for Medicare. Beneficiaries of those programs have their eligibility and benefit formulas set by federal statute, meaning it would take an act of Congress to change it.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World