Category Archives: Medicaid Funding

July 2025 Actions are the Turning Point for U.S. Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicaid Cuts, Medicaid Funding, Medicare Cuts, State of the Union, Turning Point • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
July 2025 Actions are the Turning Point for U.S. Healthcare

July 2025 will be the month U.S. healthcare leaders recognize as the industry’s modern turning point. Consider…

  • On July 4, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law setting in motion $960 billion in Medicaid cuts over the decade and massive uncertainty among those most adversely impacted—low income and under-served populations dependent on public programs, 8 to 11 million who used now-suspended marketplace subsidies to buy insurance coverage, and hundreds of state and local health agencies left in funding limbo.
  • On July 15, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the June Consumer Price Index rose .3% bumping the LTM to 2.7% (lower than LTM of 3.4% for medical services). Prices have edged up.
  • On July 31, President Trump issued an Executive Order to 17 drug companies ordering them to reduce prices on their drugs by September 29 or else. And CMS issued final rules for FY2026 Medicare payments to hospitals, rehab and other providers reflecting increases ranging from 2.5-3.3% effective October 1.
  • And on the same day, the Bureau of Labor issued its July 2025 jobs report that showed a disappointing net gain of 73,000 jobs plus downward revisions for May and June of 258,000 sparking Wall Street anxiety and President Trump to call the results “rigged” before firing BLS head Erika McEntarfer. Note: healthcare added 55,000 in July—the biggest of any sector and more than its 42,000 average monthly increase.

Collectively, these actions reflect rejection of the health industry by the GOP-led Congress.

It follows 15 years of support vis a vis the Affordable Care Act (2010) and pandemic recovery emergency funding (2020-2021). In that 15-year period, the bigger players got bigger in each sector, investment of private equity in each sector became more prevalent, costs increased, affordability for consumers and employers decreased, and the public’s overall satisfaction with the health system declined precipitously.

For the four major players in the system, the passage of the “big, beautiful bill” was a disappointment. Their primary concerns were not addressed:

  • Physicians wanted relief from annual payment cuts by Medicare preferring reimbursement tied directly to medical inflation. And insurer’ prior authorization and provider reimbursement was a top issue. Status: Not much has changed though adjustments are promised.
  • Hospitals wanted continuation of federal Medicaid funding, protection of the 340B drug purchasing program, rejection of site-neutral payment policies, higher Medicare reimbursement and relief from insurer prior authorization frustrations. Status: Medicaid funding is being cut forcing the issue for states. CMS payment increases for 2026 are lower than operating cost increases. Insurers have promised prior-auth relief but details about how and when are unknown. And Congress posture toward hospitals seems harsh: price transparency compliance, safety event reporting, and cost concerns are bipartisan issues.
  • Insurers wanted sustained funding for state Medicaid and Medicare Advantage programs and federal pushback against drug prices and hospital consolidation. Status: Congress appears sympathetic to enrollee complaints and anxious to address insurer “waste, fraud and abuse” including overpayments in Medicare Advantage.
  • Drug companies oppose “Most Favored Nation” pricing and want protections of their patents and limits on how much insurers, pharmacy benefits managers, wholesalers, online distributors and other “middlemen” earn at their expense. Status: to date, little action despite sympathetic rhetoric by lawmakers. Status: to date, Congress has taken nominal action beyond the Inflation Reduction Act (2022) though 23 states have passed legislation requiring PBMs, insurers and manufacturers to disclose drug prices and 12 states have established Prescription Drug Affordability Boards to monitor prices.

My take:

The landscape for U.S. healthcare is fundamentally changed as a result of the July actions noted above. It is compounded by public anxiety about the economy at home and global tensions abroad.

These July actions were a turning point for the industry: responding appropriately will require fresh ideas and statesmanship. Transparency about prices, costs, incentives and performance is table stakes. Leaders dedicated to the greater good will be the difference.

Expect More Hunger in America with Big New Rips to the Safety Net

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Health Policy, Healthcare Cuts, Healthcare Reform, Hunger, Medicaid, Medicaid Cuts, Medicaid Eligibility, Medicaid Funding, Medicaid Work Requirements, Public Good, Public Health, Public Interest, Public Welfare, Safety Net, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/expect-more-hunger-in-america-with

The recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which makes deep cuts to the Medicaid program, also puts the food assistance that 41 million low-income Americans rely on in jeopardy. Many of the families currently getting food provided by  the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) stand to lose that support.  

SNAP may well disappear for some families as the federal government moves to trim it. “The cuts are massive and extremely cruel when families need more support, not less,” says Signe Anderson, senior director of nutrition advocacy, at the Tennessee Justice Center in Nashville. 

Government food assistance was established during the Great Depression, but it wasn’t until 1977 that the program became more accessible when the requirement that recipients had to pay for a portion of their food stamps was ended. Throughout its history, foes of the program have tried to dismantle it and may have succeeded as a result of provisions in the bill President Trump signed on July 4. 

The new legislation calls for cutting spending for food stamps by $186 billion through 2034. “Everyone on food stamps will be affected in some way, and many will lose benefits,” Anderson says. “I don’t think the Congress understands the level of necessity in the community for food, health care and mental health treatment, some for the rest of their lives.” 

One major change is being made to work requirements that have historically been part of the Medicaid program, which is administered and partially funded by the states. Anderson points out that under the new arrangements, participants may find the task of enrolling and staying enrolled more onerous. “We see a lot of people cut off already because too many life circumstances make it difficult for them to meet work requirements.”  

Indeed when you look at the changes to SNAP, the first word that might come to mind is ‘draconian.’

To receive benefits those new to the program, and those already on it who are between 55 and 64 and do not have dependent children or who have children 14 and older, will have to prove they work. Or they will have to volunteer at least 20 hours a week or enroll in training programs. Parents of school-aged children will now be required to work.

Some five million people, including about 800,000 children and about a half million adults who are 65 and older, could lose their food benefits.  

The programs the new law targets have been a lifeline for some. Nikole Ralls, a 43-year-old woman in Nashville, who was once a drug addict but now counsels others who need help, says, “I got my life turned around because of Medicaid and SNAP.”  

In a recent memo to state agencies administering the SNAP program, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said she was concerned about what was described as abuse of the waiver system by states, noting that the new approach for the SNAP program would prioritize work, education and volunteering over what the department characterized as “idleness and excessive spending.” 

Anderson said, “The public doesn’t understand what hunger looks like and are misinformed about how well-run and streamlined the SNAP program is.”   

“Most of the people who can, do work.  We have parents working two and three jobs,” Anderson said. For families in this predicament food banks, which have become default grocery stores, may be of little help.  They, too, are stretched thin. The Wall Street Journal reported food banks across the country are already straining under rising demand, and some worry there won’t be enough food to meet demand.

Federal Medicaid cuts imperil rural hospitals and residents

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Bankruptcy, Deferred Healthcare, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicaid, Medicaid Cuts, Medicaid Eligibility, Medicaid Funding, Nursing Home, Rural Health, Rural Hospital • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.ruralhealth.us/blogs/2025/06/federal-medicaid-cuts-imperil-rural-hospitals-and-residents-new-report-finds

Medicaid serves as a vital source of health insurance coverage for Americans living in rural areas, including children, parents, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and pregnant women. Congressional lawmakers are currently considering more than $800 billion in cuts to the Medicaid program, which would reduce Medicaid funding and terminate coverage for vulnerable Americans.

The proposed changes would also result in a significant reduction in Medicaid reimbursement that could result in rural hospital closures.

The National Rural Health Association recently partnered with experts from Manatt Health to shed light on the potential impacts of those cuts on rural residents and the hospitals that care for them over the next decade.

The report, Estimated Impact on Medicaid Enrollment and Hospital Expenditures in Rural Communities, provides insight into the impact on rural America at a critical moment in the Congressional debate over the future of the reconciliation package.

NRHA held a press conference on June 24 that can be accessed with passcode MBTZf4$H. NRHA chief policy officer Carrie Cochran-McClain discussed the findings with Manatt Health partner and former deputy administrator at CMS Cindy Mann and the real world implications of the details of this report with three NRHA member hospital and health system leaders

Report findings provide insight into the impact on rural America at a critical moment in the Congressional debate over the future of the reconciliation package.

The report shows the significant impact from coverage losses that rural communities will face given:

  • Medicaid plays an outsized role in rural America, covering a larger share of children and adults in rural communities than in urban ones.
  • Nearly half of all children and one in five adults in small towns and rural areas rely on Medicaid or CHIP for their health insurance.
  • Medicaid covers nearly one-quarter of women of childbearing age and finances half of all births in these communities.

According to Manatt’s estimates, rural hospitals will lose 21 cents out of every dollar they receive in Medicaid funding due to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Total cuts in Medicaid reimbursement for rural hospitals—including both federal and state funds—over the ten-year period outlined in the bill would reach almost $70 billion for hospitals in rural areas. 

Reductions in Medicaid funding of this magnitude would likely accelerate rural hospital closures and reduce access to care for rural residents, exacerbating economic hardship in communities where hospitals are major employers.

As a key insurer in rural communities, Medicaid provides a financial lifeline for rural health care providers — including hospitals, rural health clinics, community health centers, and nursing homes—that are already facing significant financial distress. These cuts may lead to more hospitals and other rural facility closures, and for those rural hospitals that remain open, lead to the elimination or curtailment of critical services, such as obstetrics.

“Medicaid is a substantial source of federal funds in rural communities across the country. The proposed changes to Medicaid will result in significant coverage losses, reduce access to care for rural patients, and threaten the viability of rural facilities,” said Alan Morgan, CEO of the National Rural Health Association.

“It’s very clear that Medicaid cuts will result in rural hospital closures resulting in loss of access to care for those living in rural America.”

A media briefing will be held on Tuesday, June 24, from noon to 1:00 PM EST to provide more information about the analysis. This event will feature representatives from NRHA, Manatt Health, and rural hospital leaders across the country. Questions may be submitted in advance, as well as during the press conference. To register for and join the media briefing, click on the Zoom link here.

Please reach out to NRHA’s Advocacy Team with any questions.

About the National Rural Health Association

NRHA is a non-profit membership organization that provides leadership on rural health issues with tens of thousands of members nationwide. Our membership includes nearly every component of rural America’s health care, including rural community hospitals, critical access hospitals, doctors, nurses, and patients. We work to improve rural America’s health needs through government advocacy, communications, education, and research. Learn more about the association at RuralHealth.US.

About Manatt Health

Manatt Health is a leading professional services firm specializing in health policy, health care transformation, and Medicaid redesign. Their modeling draws upon publicly available state data including Medicaid financial management report data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, enrollment and expenditure data from the Medicaid Budget and Expenditure System, and data from the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. The Manatt Health Model is tailored specifically to rural health and has been reviewed in consultation with states and other key stakeholders.

Protect Medicaid For American Families

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Condition Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Long Term Care, Long Term Care Hospital, Medicaid, Medicaid Cuts, Medicaid Funding, Mental Health, Mental Health Providers, Nursing Home, Senior Care, Substance Abuse, Veterans, Veterans Administration • Leave a comment
Protect Medicaid for American Families

Medicaid is critical to our nation’s healthcare system, providing necessary care for more than 72 million Americans – including our neighbors and friends.

Who it Affects

Medicaid covers children, seniors in nursing homes, veterans, people with long-term chronic illnesses, those with mental health issues and working families.

The program helps keep Americans healthy at all stages of life, providing healthcare to families in need — especially as the country continues to recover from record-high inflation.

The Problem

Some policymakers are considering Medicaid cuts that would undermine coverage for countless patients and threaten Americans’ access to comprehensive, 24/7 hospital care.

Medicaid covers health services for patients who otherwise wouldn’t be able to pay for care. Coverage of services is essential for hospitals, and helps ensure all Americans have access to high-quality, 24/7 care, no matter where they live. 

Who Medicaid covers

Providing Lifesaving Healthcare Services

Medicaid covers patients with complex and chronic illnesses in need of long-term care, as well as emergency services and prescription coverage.

As the nation faces a growing mental health crisis, Medicaid also ensures millions of Americans — including veterans — have access to mental healthcare and substance abuse services.

Without access to affordable mental healthcare through Medicaid, veterans often lack the long-term support they deserve, and are left to deal with complex health issues years after their service.

The Threat To Rural America

Medicaid funding cuts pose a significant threat to patients in rural areas, who are more likely to suffer from chronic illness compared to their urban counterparts and are more reliant on Medicaid services in turn.

In these areas, where primary care providers are few and far between, hospitals become even more vital sites of care — and in some cases, the only sites of care available.

Rural hospitals, already more likely to be at risk of closure, rely on Medicaid funding to stay open and to continue providing lifesaving care to their patients. Nearly 150 rural hospitals have closed or converted since 2010 alone. Further cuts to care would eliminate a lifeline for Americans across the country — with devastating consequences for rural communities.

The Solution

Cuts to Medicaid funding will create irreparable harm for our nation’s most vulnerable communities, including millions of children, veterans, those with chronic illnesses, seniors in nursing homes, and working families. Medicaid helps provide security to these Americans, keeping them healthy at every stage of life.

Congress should vote against efforts to reduce Medicaid funding and instead focus on policies that strengthen access to 24/7 care, rather than take it away.

Campaign 2024 and US Healthcare: 7 Things we Know for Sure

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, Abortion, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rights, ACA, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Medicaid Eligibility, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Funding, Medical Debt, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Roe v. Wade • Leave a comment
Campaign 2024 and US Healthcare: 7 Things we Know for Sure

Over the weekend, President Biden called it quits and Democrats seemingly coalesced around Vice President Harris as the Party’s candidate for the White House. While speculation about her running mate swirls, the stakes for healthcare just got higher. Here’s why:

A GOP View of U.S. Healthcare

Republicans were mute on their plans for healthcare during last week’s nominating convention in Milwaukee. The RNC healthcare platform boils down to two aims: ‘protecting Medicare’ and ‘granting states oversight of abortion services.  Promises to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, once the staple of GOP health policy, are long-gone as polls show the majority (even in Red states (like Texas and Florida) favor keeping it. The addition of Ohio Senator JD Vance to the ticket reinforces the party’s pro-capitalism, pro-competition, pro-states’ rights pitch.

To core Trump voters and right leaning Republicans, the healthcare industry is a juggernaut that’s over-regulated, wasteful and in need of discipline. Excesses in spending for illegal immigrant medical services ($8 billion in 2023), high priced drugs, lack of price transparency, increased out-of-pocket costs and insurer red tape stoke voter resentment. Healthcare, after all, is an industry that benefits from capitalism and market forces: its abuses and weaknesses should be corrected through private-sector innovation and pro-competition, pro-consumer policies.

A Dem View of Healthcare

By contrast, healthcare is more prominent in the Democrat’s platform as the party convenes for its convention in Chicago August 19. Women’s health and access to abortion, excess profitability by “corporate” drug manufacturers, hospitals and insurers, inadequate price transparency, uneven access and household affordability will be core themes in speeches and ads, with a promise to reverse the Dobb’s ruling by the Supreme Court punctuating every voter outreach.

Healthcare, to the Democratic-leaning voters is a right, not a privilege.

Its majority think it should be universally accessible, affordable, and comprehensive akin to Medicare. They believe the status quo isn’t working: the federal government should steward something better.

Here’s what we know for sure:

  1. Foreign policy will be a secondary focus. The campaigns will credential their teams as world-savvy diplomats who seek peace and avoid conflicts. Nationalism vs. globalism will be key differentiator for the White House aspirants but domestic policies will be more important to most voters.
  2. Healthcare reform will be a more significant theme in Campaign 2024 in races for the White House, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and Governors. Dissatisfaction with the status quo and disappointment with its performance will be accentuated.
  3. The White House campaigns will be hyper-negative and disinformation used widely (especially on healthcare issues). A prosecutorial tone is certain.
  4. Given the consequence of the SCOTUS’ Chevron ruling limiting the role and scope of agency authority (HHS, CMS, FDA, CDC, et al), campaigns will feature proposed federal & state policy changes and potential Cabinet appointments in positioning their teams. Media speculation will swirl around ideologues mentioned as appointees while outside influencers will push for fresh faces and new ideas.
  5. Consumer prices and inflation will be hot-button issues for pocketbook voters: the health industry, especially insurers, hospitals and drug companies, will be attacked for inattention to affordability.
  6. Substantive changes in health policies and funding will be suspended until 2025 or later. Court decisions, Executive Orders from the White House/Governors, and appointments to Cabinet and health agency roles will be the stimuli for changes. Major legislative and regulatory policy shifts will become reality in 2026 and beyond. Temporary adjustments to physician pay, ‘blame and shame’ litigation and Congressional inquiries targeting high profile bad actors, excess executive compensation et al and state level referenda or executive actions (i.e. abortion coverage, price-containment councils, CON revisions et al) will increase.
  7. Total healthcare spending, its role in the economy and a long-term vision for the entire system will not be discussed beneath platitudes and promises. Per the Congressional Budget Office, healthcare as a share of the U.S. GDP will increase from 17.6% today to 19.7% in 2032. Spending is forecast to increase 5.6% annually—higher than wages and overall inflation. But it’s too risky for most politicians to opine beyond acknowledgment that “they feel their pain.”

My take:

Regardless of the election outcome November 5, the U.S. healthcare industry will be under intense scrutiny in 2025 and beyond. It’s unavoidable.

Discontent is palpable. No sector in U.S. healthcare can afford complacency. And every stakeholder in the system faces threats that require new solutions and fresh voices.

Stay tuned.

CommonSpirit ‘doubly concerned’ about California Medicaid

Posted on by • Posted in Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Medicaid Funding • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/commonspirit-doubly-concerned-about-california-medicaid.html?origin=PayerE&utm_source=PayerE&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=2893H2397267F7G

Chicago-based CommonSpirit is concerned about Medicaid funding across many of the states in which it operates, but “doubly concerned” about California, its strongest market and the state in which about 30% of its business occurs, CFO Dan Morissette said during a May 23 investor call. 

Earlier this month, California Gov. Gavin Newsom outlined plans to divert more than $7 billion in funding from the healthcare sector to address a major funding deficit. 

The governor’s proposal would reallocate $6.7 billion from Medi-Cal provider rate increases set for Jan. 1, 2025, to balance the state budget, which is facing a shortfall of $27.6 billion this year and a projected deficit of $28.4 billion in 2025.

“We’re doubly concerned given the state budget,” Mr. Morissette said. “Lean times create new concerns for us as it relates to Medicaid funding, which does not cover even the direct cost of care for the various ministries that we serve.”

California’s $6.7 billion funding proposal was generated by the managed care organization tax that was expected to provide $19.4 billion in federal funding through 2026. In 2024, rates rose to at least 87.5% of Medicare rates for primary care, maternity care and nonspecialty mental health providers. According to Politico, these rates will continue, but no more workers will be added under the revised plan.

CommonSpirit executives said that the health system is out of network with only one major payer in California — an unnamed Medicaid provider in the north of the state.

“All other payer arrangements have either just been signed or we were out of network for a short period of time and have successfully rejoined the network,” Mr. Morissette said. “We always find it disruptive — as all providers do — to be out of network, but sometimes we don’t have much choice given our need for the cross-subsidy where the commercial insurers do provide a substantial amount of our EBIDA margins. It’s a really difficult and delicate balance.”

CommonSpirit said it receives about $600 million in California provider fees — a permanent program through Proposition 52 — and these funds will not be affected because they are not part of the general fund.

“However, we always include a 0% increase in our budget and long-range financial planning when it comes to the Medicaid rate because that’s what we’ve been experiencing,” said Benjie Loanzon, senior vice president, finance and corporate controller. “We don’t expect an increase in the Medicaid rate with this proposal.”

GOP allies drawing up health plans for a Republican administration

Posted on by • Posted in Abortion, ACA, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Policy, Medicaid, Medicaid Block Grants, Medicaid Funding, Short Term Health Insurance, Skinny Health Plans • Leave a comment
https://www.axios.com/2023/08/31/republican-health-care-policy-think-tanks?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Influential conservative policy groups are sketching out health care plans for a potential Republican administration over a year before the election.

Why it matters: 

Republicans have moved on from the “repeal and replace” — the Affordable Care Act didn’t even get a mention in the first GOP presidential debate last week — but still haven’t settled on new health care agenda.

  • Republican-aligned groups are stepping in to build out ideas for a party platform that may not be as ambitious as an ACA replacement but could still shift health care policy in a conservative direction on everything from Medicaid to abortion to public health.

Context: 

The early push to define the next GOP health agenda partly stems from Republicans’ inability to agree on an ACA alternative after former President Trump was elected, despite years of promises to overhaul the 2010 health care law. The GOP policy experts also said they want to avoid repeating the Trump administration’s failure to plan health care executive actions and key staffing decisions before taking office.

  • “A large part of it comes from the experience of 2017. There wasn’t a clear agenda that was ready to go,” said Brian Blase, a former Trump administration health official who’s now president of the right-leaning Paragon Health Institute.

Details: 

Conservative think tanks are looking to advance some long-held conservative goals like transforming Medicaid’s open-ended entitlement into block grants, but there’s also a new generation of Trump alumni who hope to revive some of his administration’s policies.

  • These include initiatives like encouraging businesses to form association health plans, and pushing even further on price transparency and curbing higher payments to hospitals’ outpatient departments.
  • Some are also drawing up plans for limiting the CDC’s power over public health policy in reaction to what they view as the agency’s failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Zoom in: 

Paragon Health, as well as the Heritage Foundation and America First Policy Institute, are the primary conservative think tanks now drafting health regulations, policy plans and recruiting personnel who could serve in a Republican administration.

  • A roadmap from Paragon envisions a burst of rulemaking at the beginning of a new administration, mostly through the Department of Health and Human Services.

Meanwhile, the America First Policy Institute, founded by Trump administration alumni in 2021, has put forward a 12-part health policy agenda it describes as “radical incrementalism.”

  • That’s an acknowledgement that they’re not planning a major health care overhaul, but a belief that significant changes are possible in the current structure, said former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who chairs the group’s health policy division.
  • “We are advocating specific policies that try to reform our health care system in a very specific direction that empowers patients … that makes health care more affordable, accessible, that improves outcomes by giving control back to individual patients working with their providers, not government agencies and programs. But, we’re not trying to write the next 3,000-page bill,” Jindal said.
  • Some of those incremental ideas they hope could get bipartisan support, such as broadening health savings accounts for those with chronic conditions, expanding telehealth flexibilities for providers across state lines, implementing transparency for pharmacy benefit managers and speeding up deployment of biosimilars.

The Heritage Foundation has also detailed policy proposals and recently joined more than 70 other conservative groups to launch an initiative called Project 2025 to develop a governing agenda.

  • One of those Heritage policy proposals laid out earlier this year illustrates how a future GOP president could overhaul HHS.
  • Heritage’s plan contains the most detailed ideas for how the next GOP president — who would be the first since the demise of Roe v. Wade — could implement anti-abortion policies, cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, and roll back Biden administration initiatives aimed at increasing access to abortion.
  • The group also envisions splitting CDC into two agencies — one for research and data collection and another for making public health recommendations with “severely confined ability” to influence policy.

What we’re watching: The GOP presidential candidates themselves have said relatively little so far about their plans for the health care system. That could eventually change, given Americans’ concern over health care costs.