When lawmakers departed Washington last Thursday for the weekend, there seemed to be a lack of agreement regarding a contentious proposal aimed at capping Medicaid spending for a growing population. This proposed cut would amount to a significant reduction of $880 billion from various programs overseen by the committee.
It’s, uh, going to be quite challenging to reach that target without considering the contentious Medicaid cuts. The Chair of the committee, Brett Guthrie, indicated on Thursday that there’s still a lot of discussion regarding the “per cap” policy, which is, well, a point of tension among conservatives pushing to cut Medicaid benefits while seeking deeper reductions in spending for the program.
The markup session, slated to start Tuesday afternoon, is expected to stretch for hours. There’s been a sentiment among Democrats who aim to make this as difficult as possible for Republicans—they might remember the grueling 27-hour markup held in 2017 regarding the GOP’s Obamacare repeal. This current session could even extend longer, which isn’t exactly something anyone is looking forward to.
Earlier in the week, Speaker Mike Johnson from Louisiana seemed to suggest that per capita caps might not make it into the proposal, which, to be honest, probably relieved the moderates but didn’t sit well with conservatives. But then, he remarked on Thursday that the policy is still, well, something they’re considering.
Johnson mentioned there’s ongoing debate surrounding per capita caps, although he labeled it as a sensitive issue. He has repeatedly assured that Republicans don’t want to implement changes that would cause people to lose their health coverage, although a report from the Congressional Budget Office indicated that approximately 1.5 million individuals might be left uninsured if that policy were enacted.
There does seem to be a general consensus among Republicans regarding other modifications to Medicaid, which include imposing federal work requirements, excluding undocumented immigrants from eligibility, and allowing states to conduct eligibility checks more frequently.
