Health
Cutting Medicaid?
Republican leaders in Congress have directed the committee that oversees Medicaid to cut $880 billion from the next budget. They say these cuts aren’t necessarily aimed at Medicaid, the insurance program for 72 million poor and disabled Americans. The cuts could come from Medicare, for instance. But Trump has vowed not to touch that very popular program. And a sum this large can’t come from anywhere else.
The Republican process is just getting started, and we don’t yet know how lawmakers will change the program. Most Medicaid money goes to states, so the best way to think about the proposal is as a cut to state budgets. State lawmakers could react by dropping coverage, raising taxes or slashing other parts of their budget. In today’s newsletter, I’ll explain a few possible scenarios.
Who’s covered
Medicaid was designed to divide a patient’s medical bills: the federal government and the state would each pay a set share. (A state’s contribution depends on how poor it is.)
The law is precise about what Medicaid must cover — cancer screenings and kidney transplants, for instance, but not prosthetic legs — and Republicans can’t change that with a budget bill. Every state has to cover certain populations, including poor children, pregnant women, people with disabilities and patients in nursing homes who run out of money.
Most states also choose to cover an optional group that was added as part of Obamacare in 2014: anyone who earns less than a certain income (around $21,000 for a single person). Republicans want to impose a work requirement on this group for people who aren’t disabled. That idea is popular with the public but would save the federal government only around $100 billion, not enough to meet the G.O.P. target.
Bigger targets
Anything more to lower the federal government’s share would put the burden on states. And lawmakers there could deal with the problem in their own ways. They could cut optional populations like the Obamacare group. Twelve states have laws that will automatically do this if federal funding drops. If they don’t want to drop people, states can drop optional benefits, such as prescription drug coverage.
After those cuts, states face tough choices.
They could pay doctors, hospitals and nursing homes less for care. But there is a limit. If Mississippi suddenly started paying $50 for an echocardiogram instead of around $160, cardiologists might stop seeing Medicaid patients. (Many Medicaid patients already struggle to find care because the program pays doctors so little.) Cuts like these could also put some nursing homes or rural hospitals out of business.
Even so, states would still need a lot more money for Medicaid, usually their second-largest expense after education.
Where could they get it? They’d have to sacrifice other priorities. One option is to cut education. Another is to raise taxes. None of these would be required by federal legislation; it’s up to the states how they cope. That allows Republicans in Congress to say they are not cutting Medicaid benefits or eligibility, even if that is the inevitable effect in most places.
Too big to fail
Republicans point out that the original pact between Washington and the states has frayed, and feds are covering more than their share. That’s true. Through various accounting gimmicks, states have lowered their Medicaid contributions and now pay about a third of the bill, on average. Plus, Washington assumed almost the whole cost of the 2014 Obamacare expansion.
But that expansion has made Medicaid popular. More than half of Americans say someone in their family has used the program, and only 17 percent support cutting its budget. Local lawmakers also probably won’t win over voters by chopping education or raising taxes to save Medicaid. That’s why Democrats have settled on Medicaid as their top talking point about the G.O.P. budget plan.
Republicans tried to cut Medicaid’s budget in 2017, too. Grassroots opposition helped defeat the effort, as did extensive lobbying by Republican governors, who urged senators not to leave them with a huge fiscal hole.
The unpopularity of that bill — and its failure — helped Democrats retake the House the next year.
Related: Cutting Medicaid, taxing scholarships and killing invasive plants: A guide to the Republican wish list.
THE LATEST NEWS
Trump’s Tariffs
In India, young people are driving a boom in book festivals big and small. These readers are increasingly consuming books in their native tongues and in English. They are learning in ways that India’s higher education system — with its focus on exams — often does not encourage.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
An accidental lab discovery has opened the door to entirely new ways of preventing the flu.
While investigating how influenza replicates, researchers discovered that different flu strains use completely different strategies to infiltrate human cells, SWNS reported.
By targeting the specific molecules the viruses rely on, scientists found that they could block them from entering new cells and halt their replication altogether.
5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW BEFORE GETTING YOUR FLU SHOT, ACCORDING TO DOCTORS
Researchers say these “fundamental insights” into seasonal influenza highlight a clear path toward developing better preventive medications.
“The hope is that fundamental, curiosity-based research like this helps to pave the way for novel strategies to treat and prevent influenza infections,” principal investigator Dr. Emily Bruce, from the University of Vermont’s Larner College of Medicine, said in the SWNS report.
While investigating how influenza replicates, researchers discovered that different flu strains use completely different strategies to infiltrate human cells. (iStock)
While several flu strains cause illness, H1N1 and H3N2 influenza A viruses are the most common. However, current flu tests cannot differentiate between them, and clinical treatments are identical for both.
Although vaccines and antivirals are available, Bruce noted a “dire” need for better medications to stop the virus from spreading cell to xxcell.
“You don’t get sick when a virus is in one cell,” he noted. “You get sick because a virus replicates itself and goes into many more cells.”
HOW LONG YOU’RE CONTAGIOUS WITH THE FLU — AND WHEN IT’S SAFE TO GO OUT
The study, which was published in The Journal of Virology, originally aimed to map how viral RNA segments are transported within cells to create new viral particles.
The team used H1N1 and H3N2 viruses isolated from the nasal passages of positive patients in 2022.
Clinical treatments remain identical for both primary strains of the flu virus. (iStock)
During the investigation, the team unexpectedly stumbled upon a cellular pathway that blocked the virus from entering lung cells, SWNS reported.
RESEARCHERS LOCKED FLU PATIENTS IN A HOTEL WITH HEALTHY ADULTS — NO ONE GOT SICK
The data revealed that when a specific human protein called Rab11B was depleted, H3N2 viruses failed to enter human lung cells. H1N1 viruses were completely unaffected.
Using reverse genetics, the team mapped this defect and uncovered a brand-new, H3N2-specific role for Rab11B during viral entry.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES
This discovery challenged the scientific assumption that all flu viruses enter cells the same way.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER
“Viruses are like pirates from different countries hijacking someone’s ship,” Bruce said. “Different viruses, like different types of pirates, use different methods to get onboard.”
This discovery challenged the scientific assumption that all flu viruses enter cells the same way. (iStock)
“We had previously thought that all flu viruses used the same way to get into a cell, but we discovered that this is not true,” she went on. “H1N1 and H3N2 need different proteins to get in, and if you get rid of the right protein, a specific virus can’t get in.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
While these findings identify a critical cellular pathway for viral entry, the study was conducted using isolated cells, the researchers acknowledged.
TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ
Further research is needed to determine whether blocking the protein is safe and effective within a live, complex human respiratory system.
Bruce and the team hope to conduct further research to determine whether this Rab11B-dependency is a fundamental property of H3N2, or if it’s a trait unique to currently circulating flu strains.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Eating processed meat like ham, sausage and bacon may be linked to a higher risk of certain types of cancer, according to new research.
While health organizations have already confirmed that processed meat can contribute to colon cancer, this study looked closer at cancers in the upper digestive tract, where the link has historically been less clear.
To understand these connections, researchers from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), one of the world’s largest long-term nutrition and cancer cohorts, tracked the health and diets of 450,112 people across Europe for an average of 14 years.
FREQUENT HEARTBURN MAY BE A WARNING SIGN OF A MORE DANGEROUS CONDITION, DOCTOR SAYS
The study group included 131,426 men and 318,686 women, according to the study’s press release.
During the follow-up period, 876 people developed stomach cancer and 215 people developed esophageal adenocarcinoma, which is cancer of the tube connecting the mouth to the stomach.
For female participants, eating both processed meat and white meat was linked to an increased risk of developing the disease. (iStock)
Researchers tracked where the stomach cancers grew, separating them into the upper part of the stomach near the throat and the lower part of the stomach.
The researchers also sorted the tumors into two categories based on how the cancer cells appeared under a microscope: intestinal, which forms more organized structures, and diffuse, in which the cells are more scattered throughout the tissue.
BACTERIA IN YOUR MOUTH MAY TRAVEL TO THE GUT AND TRIGGER STOMACH CANCER, RESEARCH FINDS
After adjusting for other lifestyle factors, the researchers found that for every extra 30 grams of processed meat a person ate per day, their overall risk of stomach cancer went up by 9%. Eating that same extra 30 grams a day was also linked to a 13% higher risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma.
A standard single slice of regular deli-sliced ham or lunch meat averages around 28 grams, according to USDA data and nutritional tracking databases.
An extra 20 grams of white meat, such as chicken and turkey, was linked to a 12% higher risk of cancer in the main body of the stomach. (iStock)
An extra 20 grams of white meat, such as chicken or turkey, was linked to a 12% higher risk of cancer in the main body of the stomach, the researchers noted.
The study also revealed differences between men and women. For male participants, only processed meat showed a clear, statistically significant link to a higher risk of stomach cancer. For female participants, however, eating both processed meat and white meat was linked to an increased risk.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES
These findings align with global health benchmarks, particularly those established by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.
The agency has long classified processed meat as a known human carcinogen, primarily due to its strong, well-documented links to colorectal cancer.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER
However, health organizations have also consistently pointed to a potential, yet less definitive, relationship between these meats and cancers of the stomach.
Eating 30 grams of processed meat a day, or the equivalent to one slice of ham, was linked to a 13% higher risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma. (iStock)
Further scientific investigation is needed to confirm the findings and to account for other underlying risk factors, such as certain stomach infections, which could interact with dietary habits.
TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ
A key limitation of the study is its reliance on self-reported diets, which can sometimes lead to inaccuracies in how participants recall their meat consumption over time, the researchers noted.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The findings were published in the International Journal of Cancer.
Fox News Digital reached out to the researchers requesting comment.
Use left and right arrow keys to navigate between menu items.
Use escape to exit the menu.
Sign Up
Create a free account to access exclusive content, play games, solve puzzles, test your pop-culture knowledge and receive special offers.
Already have an account? Login
-
Detroit, MI15 minutes agoFired Detroit TV anchor Taryn Asher files sex discrimination lawsuit against old station, claims new GM protected men
-
San Francisco, CA25 minutes agoSan Francisco family devastated as they face nearly 90% rent increase
-
Dallas, TX30 minutes agoWings’ top pick Azzi Fudd hosts clinic as Cash App donates to Dallas nonprofit
-
Miami, FL37 minutes agoPatients left scrambling for care after Miami-Dade woman accused of operating an unlicensed surgery recovery center
-
Boston, MA40 minutes agoClover plans to reopen some locations after sudden closure, thanks to an anonymous investor
-
Denver, CO45 minutes agoNew report finds Denver metro home buyers and sellers experiencing ‘unattainability fatigue’
-
Seattle, WA52 minutes agoSeattle mayor grilled over public safety, affordability, CCTV
-
San Diego, CA55 minutes agoAutomated license plate readers and public surveillance cameras are coming to Imperial Beach
