Montana

Montana's Medicaid disenrollment is even a bigger catastrophe than previously reported – Daily Montanan

Published

2 years ago

January 25, 2024

Montana's Medicaid disenrollment is even a bigger catastrophe than previously reported – Daily Montanan

You wouldn’t believe how many different ways I tried to begin this column trying to find the perfect analogy or phrase to sum up just how badly the Gianforte administration has handled Medicaid in Montana.

Describing it as a dumpster fire, for example, would imply that a raging fire is contained in a small space. More importantly, it says nothing about the real Montanans who lives are upended by what is a political decision that has more to do with Republicans trying to out-Republican each other than it does with being earnestly concerned about fraud, the reason given for making Medicaid enrollment so severe in Montana.

Our ideologue governor has taken a system that was often cited as a model of how the Medicaid expansion could work and dismantled it, hurting Montanans who struggle, hospitals and healthcare professionals, and reneging on a financial set-up so sweet that it should make anyone with a little business acumen scratch their head.

Let’s begin with the basics: After the COVID-19 pandemic, everyone, including the federal government, knew that Medicaid rolls would need to be trimmed, and expected that many who were previously eligible would drop because they had either restarted employment or found a new job.

But Montana’s number of people dropped from the public insurance enrollment has literally been extraordinary. As it stands right now, 10% of the state’s entire population has been dropped – a sheer number that should raise eyebrows.

The Gianforte administration in its zeal to attack a successful government program that has meant better health for residents as well as more stability for our stretched rural-centered healthcare, has also thumbed their noses at a deal that costs the state just a fraction of what it could be spending. For every dime the state contributes toward Medicaid, Montana receives 90 cents from the federal government. Virtually no other state gets a deal quite this sweet, and if the Gianforte administration had half of the business acumen it touts, it would be doing everything it could to take advantage of this deal.

Who wouldn’t take a deal that guaranteed giving us nine times the money we invest?

Setting aside the most important point that seems to get lost in every Medicaid policy discussion: The effect of Medicaid expansion in Montana has meant that residents are living healthier lives because they have insurance, and Medicaid has also meant a financial lifeline to hospitals who were strapped with a growing number of uninsured and underinsured patients.

These rural healthcare facilities in Montana are often the economic backbones of smaller communities, often being the largest private employer in rural communities. What the Gianforte administration has done, with the legislature’s approval, is threaten the viability of rural healthcare in the state by booting residents off the Medicaid rolls, leaving those already strapped healthcare organizations to absorb the loss. The lawmakers decided that Montana should “redetermine” eligibility more quickly, meaning there’s more churn to Medicaid, meaning more instability for residents and the healthcare they rely upon. Look no farther than what has happened to our rural nursing homes to see the results of not funding healthcare adequately.

But don’t take my word for it, look at the statistics. Montana has been booting residents from the Medicaid roll at a clip that is around three times more than average nationally. What makes that fact even more troubling is the inconsistent, if not conflicting, reports lawmakers have gotten from the Department of Public Health and Human Services, whose answers have more closely resembled a choose-your-own-adventure book than transparency.

You may recall that as Montana started its Medicaid purge, the Biden administration placed the state on notice that it was booting residents so quickly while at the same time seeming to ignore that the state had created a situation that was nearly impossible for those same residents to talk to a live person to get help.

Keep in mind that Gianforte himself made close to a billion dollars by creating a technology company that served to create customer service call centers. So much, apparently, for running the state like a business. This should have been something that Gianforte could have solved himself.

As lawmakers from both parties expressed concern that Montana was booting too many residents too quickly off Medicaid, DPHHS director Charlie Brereton quipped that the state could actually speed up the process – a sort of veiled threat that lawmakers should step lightly.

Yet last week, when lawmakers continued to press for answers about why so many people were losing insurance, as well as other related matters, Brereton told legislators that his staff were so taxed, and spread so thin that they simply don’t have time to answer their questions – the same people who are charged with making policy decisions about this essential care.

So, I’ll ask: Which is it, Mr. Brereton? Is it that your staff could boot Montana residents even more quickly from health insurance that they need, or is it that you can’t even provide answers because your staff is so overworked?

An equally plausible answer is that the administration could start bumping off residents from Medicaid more quickly and won’t answer the lawmakers’ questions because the state is carrying out a political decision that has little to do with ensuring Montanans’ health, making a sound financial decision or worrying about the economic health or rural Montana.

Let me put it bluntly, though – in terms that would normally be hyperbole, but, in this case, are literal.

When people don’t have insurance, they suffer more and die sooner.

When rural healthcare facilities see a rise in uncompensated, uninsured patients, they close.

When lawmakers can’t get answers from their partners in government, public trust is eroded and government moves from function to dysfunction.

Maybe the Gianforte administration can help me: How is any of this an example of good government?

Source link

Click to comment

Montana

Montana pediatrician group pushes back against CDC vaccine changes

Published

2 hours ago

January 9, 2026

Press Room

Montana pediatrician group pushes back against CDC vaccine changes

This story is excerpted from the MT Lowdown, a weekly newsletter digest containing original reporting and analysis published every Friday.

On Monday, Jan. 5, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced it would downgrade six vaccines on the routine schedule for childhood immunizations. The changes scale back recommendations for hepatitis A and B, influenza, rotavirus, RSV and meningococcal disease.

That decision — shared by top officials at the federal Department of Health and Human Services — took many public health experts by surprise, in part because of how the administration of President Donald Trump departed from the CDC’s typical process for changing childhood vaccine recommendations.

Montana Free Press spoke to Atty Moriarty, a Missoula-based pediatrician and president of the Montana Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, about her perspective on the CDC’s changes. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

MTFP: What happened in this most recent change and how does that differ from the CDC’s normal process for adjusting childhood vaccination schedules?

Moriarty: The way that vaccines have traditionally been recommended in the past is that vaccines were developed, and then they traditionally went through a formal vetting process before going to the [CDC]’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, which did a full review of the safety data, the efficacy data, and then made recommendations based on that. Since November 2025, that committee has completely been changed and is not a panel of experts, but it is a panel of political appointees that don’t have expertise in public health, let alone infectious disease or immunology. So now, this decision was made purely based unilaterally on opinion and not on any new data or evidence-based medicine.

MTFP: Can you walk through some of the administration’s stated reasons for these changes?

Moriarty: To be honest, these changes are so nonsensical that it’s really hard. There’s a lot of concern in the new administration and in the Department of Health and Human Services and the CDC that we are giving too many immunizations. That, again, is not based on any kind of data or science. And there’s a lot of publicity surrounding the number of vaccines as compared to 30 years ago, and questioning why we give so many. The answer to that is fairly simple. It’s because science has evolved enough that we actually can prevent more diseases. Now, some comparisons have been made to other countries, specifically Denmark, that do not give as many vaccines, but also are a completely different public health landscape and population than the United States and have a completely different public health system in general than we do.

MTFP: Where is the American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] getting its guidance from now, if not ACIP?

Moriarty: We really started to separate with the [CDC’s] vaccine recommendations earlier in 2025. So as soon as they stopped recommending the COVID vaccine, that’s when [AAP] published our vaccine schedule that we have published for the last 45 years, but it’s the first time that it differed from the CDC’s. We continue to advocate for immunizations as a public health measure for families and kids, and are using the previous immunization schedule. And that schedule can be found on the [AAP’s] healthychildren.org website.

MTFP: Do any of the recent vaccine scheduling changes concern you more than others?

Moriarty: I think that any pediatrician will tell you that 20-30 years ago, hospitals were completely full of babies with rotavirus infection. That is an infection that is a gastrointestinal disease and causes severe dehydration in babies. I’m nervous about that coming roaring back because babies die of dehydration. It’s one of the top reasons they’re admitted to the hospital. I’m nervous about their recommendation against the flu vaccine. [The U.S. is] in one of the worst flu outbreaks we’ve ever seen currently right now and have had many children die already this season.

MTFP: Do you think, though, that hearing this changed guidance from the Trump administration will change some families’ minds about what vaccines they’ll elect to get for their children?

Moriarty: Oh, absolutely. We saw that before this recommendation. I mean, social media is such a scary place to get medical information, and [listening to] talking heads on the news is just really not an effective way to find medical information, but we see people getting it all the time. I meet families in the hospital that make decisions for their kids based on TikTok. So I think that one of the effects of this is going to be to sow more distrust in the public health infrastructure that we have in the United States that has kept our country healthy.

LATEST STORIES

Former judge-elect sentenced to probation in drug case

A Lake County attorney who was elected judge but resigned before even taking the bench was sentenced to three years of probation in the very courtroom he was once going to oversee.

Group refiles corporate political spending ban days after court setback

The Transparent Election Initiative, an anti-dark money group, filed with the Montana Secretary of State two ballot initiatives that aim to prevent corporate political spending. The filing came just two days after the state Supreme Court found an earlier version of the initiative legally insufficient.

Source link

Montana

Montana Lottery Lucky For Life, Big Sky Bonus results for Jan. 8, 2026

Published

14 hours ago

January 9, 2026

Press Room

The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big. Here’s a look at Jan. 8, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Lucky For Life numbers from Jan. 8 drawing

05-12-13-39-48, Lucky Ball: 13

Check Lucky For Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from Jan. 8 drawing

05-15-20-28, Bonus: 16

Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?

Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.

Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.

Winning lottery numbers are sponsored by Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network.

Where can you buy lottery tickets?

Tickets can be purchased in person at gas stations, convenience stores and grocery stores. Some airport terminals may also sell lottery tickets.

You can also order tickets online through Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network, in these U.S. states and territories: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., and West Virginia. The Jackpocket app allows you to pick your lottery game and numbers, place your order, see your ticket and collect your winnings all using your phone or home computer.

Jackpocket is the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network. Gannett may earn revenue for audience referrals to Jackpocket services. GAMBLING PROBLEM? CALL 1-800-GAMBLER, Call 877-8-HOPENY/text HOPENY (467369) (NY). 18+ (19+ in NE, 21+ in AZ). Physically present where Jackpocket operates. Jackpocket is not affiliated with any State Lottery. Eligibility Restrictions apply. Void where prohibited. Terms: jackpocket.com/tos.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Source link

Montana

Montana minimum wage increases to $10.85 | Explore Big Sky

Published

1 day ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Montana minimum wage increases to .85 | Explore Big Sky

By Micah Drew DAILY MONTANAN

With the start of the new year, Montanans on the lowest end of the pay scale will get a small boost as the state’s mandatory minimum wage increase goes into effect.

As of Jan. 1, Montana’s minimum wage increased from $10.55 to $10.85.

Stemming from a 2006 law, Montana’s minimum wage is subject to a cost-of-living adjustment, based on the national increase in the consumer price index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

According to state law, Montana businesses not covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act are those whose gross annual sales are $110,000 or less may pay $4 per hour.

Montana is one of 30 states — plus Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands — that have a minimum wage higher than the federal rate of $7.25.

Twelve states, plus D.C. adjust their wages annually based on set formulas.

Montana has one of the lowest minimum wages that exceeds federal levels, with only West Virginia coming in lower among states at $8.75. The highest minimum wage is in D.C., at $17.25.

Source link