"Almost 5 million able-bodied Medicaid recipients 'simply choose not to work' and 'spend six hours a day socializing and watching television.'" — Scott Jennings on CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip.

This article was published on Tuesday, July 22, 2025 in KFF Health News.

By Loreben Tuquero, PolitiFact

Republicans defended the GOP megabill's Medicaid changes as targeting a group of people they believe shouldn't qualify: people who can work but instead choose to stay home and chill. 

Several Republican politicians and pundits, including CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings, pegged that group's size at about 5 million people.

"There are like almost 5 million able-bodied people on Medicaid who simply choose not to work," Jennings said July 1 on "CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip." "They spend six hours a day socializing and watching television. And if you can't get off grandma's couch and work, I don't want to pay for your welfare."

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz picked up on some of these points during a July 14 appearance on Fox News. "When the program was created 60 years ago, it never dawned on anyone that you would take able-bodied individuals who could work and put them on Medicaid. Today the average able-bodied person on Medicaid who doesn't work, they watch 6.1 hours of television or just hang out," Oz said.

Medicaid is a federal-state health insurance program that covers medical care for lower-income people.

Jennings cited two pieces of data: an estimate of how many fewer people would have coverage because of the work requirement and an analysis of how nonworking Medicaid recipients spend their time. But he made assumptions that the data doesn't support.

Jennings Misrepresents CBO Estimate

The 4.8 million figure stems from a June 24 Congressional Budget Office analysis of a preliminary House version of the massive tax and spending package. The office, Congress' nonpartisan research arm, projected that provisions of the bill would cause 7.8 million fewer people to have health coverage by 2034. They would include 4.8 million people previously eligible for Medicaid described as "able-bodied" adults 19 to 64 years old who have no dependents and who "do not meet the community engagement requirement" of doing "work-related activities" at least 80 hours a month.

Apart from working, doing community service and attending school also fulfill the community engagement requirement.

Jennings paired that statistic with a separate analysis of how nondisabled adult Medicaid recipients without dependent children spend their time.

But the CBO estimate was a projection — it doesn't represent the current number of nondisabled Medicaid recipients, nor does it say 4.8 million people in this group "choose not to work." The figure represented how many fewer people would have coverage because of the bill's community engagement requirement.

"The challenge with Jennings' comments — and they've been echoed elsewhere by elected Republicans — is that CBO never said that 4.8 million people were out of compliance with the proposed work requirements; they said that 4.8 million people would lose coverage because of the work requirements," said Adrianna McIntyre, an assistant professor of health policy and politics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Among the Medicaid expansion population, the law requires most adults without dependent children and parents of children older than 13 to work or participate in other qualifying activities 80 hours every month. States will need to verify that applicants met the work requirement for one to three months before they applied. States will also be required to verify that existing enrollees met the work requirement for at least a month between eligibility determinations, which will be required at least twice a year.

Research into Medicaid work requirements imposed at the state level has shown that people found it difficult to fulfill them and submit documentation, contributing to coverage losses.

In Arkansas, which added a work requirement to Medicaid in 2018, a study based on nearly 6,000 respondents found that about 95% of the target population were already working or qualified for an exemption, but a third of them did not hear about the work requirements. As a result, nearly 17,000 Medicaid recipients subject to work requirements lost coverage.

KFF found that adults ages 50 to 64 are more at risk of losing Medicaid coverage because of the new work requirements. More than 1 in 10 in that age group said they had retired, and among them, 28% reported being disabled, said KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Benjamin Sommers, a health care economics professor at the Harvard Chan school, said many of the 4.8 million "able-bodied" people in the CBO estimate "will actually be engaged in the activities they are supposed to be doing, and lose coverage because they are not able to navigate the reporting requirements with the state and lose coverage from red tape."

When Recipients Don't Work, It's Rarely From Lack of Interest

There is no universal definition for "able-bodied"; disability can be assessed in different ways. But other studies offer much smaller estimates than 4.8 million Medicaid recipients without dependents who can work but choose not to.

Millions of working-age, nondisabled adults joined the Medicaid ranks in states that expanded eligibility under the Affordable Care Act. There were about 34 million working-age nondisabled Medicaid enrollees in 2024, according to the CBO, 15 million of whom enrolled through the ACA.

A KFF analysis found a smaller figure of 26 million Medicaid-covered adults, ages 19 to 64, who don't receive Supplemental Security Income, Social Security Disability Insurance, or Medicare benefits.

Among this group, KFF estimated, 64% were working either full time or part time. The reasons the rest were not working included caregiving (12%); illness or disability (10%); retirement, inability to find work, or other reason (8%); and school attendance (7%).

Few people cited lack of interest in working as the reason for their unemployment. An Urban Institute study found 2% of Medicaid expansion enrollees without dependents who neither worked nor attended school — or 300,000 people out of a projected 15 million subject to work requirements — cited a lack of interest in working as the reason they were unemployed.

This was consistent with the Brookings Institution's June 5 analysis that found that, of 4.3 million adult enrollees who worked fewer than 80 hours a month and did not have any activity limitations or illnesses, about 300,000 reported that they "did not work because they did not want to."

Mostly Women, Mostly With a High School Degree or Less

When Republicans have described nondisabled adult Medicaid recipients, they have often portrayed them as men in their 30s "playing video games" in their parents' basement or who "smoke weed all day." Research paints a different picture.

Jane Tavares and Marc Cohen, of the University of Massachusetts-Boston Gerontology Department, researched Medicaid recipients who are not disabled or working, have no dependent children under 18, and are not in school. They cited 2023 census data from the American Community Survey.

They found:

• The average age of this population is 41, and 26% are older than 50.
• Almost 80% are female.
• Most, 80%, have a high school education or less.
• Their median individual income is $0, and their median household income is $44,800.
• About 56% worked in the past five years, and 23% worked in the prior year. About 30% are looking or available for work.

"They are not healthy young adults just hanging out," the authors, along with health law experts Sara Rosenbaum and Alison Barkoff, wrote April 30.

"It's clear based on their prior work history and family size/income that they are exceptionally poor and have likely left the workforce to care for adult children or older adults," Tavares told PolitiFact. "Even if these individuals could work, they would have very few job opportunities and it would come at the cost of the people they are providing care for."

AEI Study Not Definitively Linked to CBO Estimate

On the social platform X, Jennings posted the CBO letter and a May 29 analysis by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, about "how nondisabled Medicaid recipients without children spend their time." PolitiFact contacted CNN to reach Jennings but did not receive a reply.

The author of that study, American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Kevin Corinth, analyzed survey data and found that Medicaid recipients who do not report working spend on average 6.1 hours a day "on all socializing, relaxing and leisure activities (including television and video games)."

But it's uncertain whether the people in the survey population he analyzed overlap with the people included in the CBO analysis, said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of KFF's Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

Corinth told PolitiFact "it is difficult to say" how the population he analyzed differs from the CBO's. Tavares, Cohen, Rosenbaum, and Barkoff said Corinth's dataset defined disability narrowly, leading to a "serious underestimation of disability" among the population of Medicaid recipients he looked into. It focused on Medicaid recipients who receive Supplemental Security Income or have a health condition that prevents them from working. The researchers said this approach is too narrow because the SSI program accounts for only those "most deeply impoverished adults with severe disabilities."

The group gave a hypothetical example of a 54-year-old woman with a serious heart condition who can work only a few hours a week. She may not be considered disabled under the SSI program, but she may be limited in the work she can do and may need time to rest.

"Using her ‘leisure time' to justify a work requirement grossly misrepresents her reality," the group wrote.

Corinth's analysis also shows that nonworking Medicaid recipients spend less time socializing, relaxing, or engaged in leisure activities than nonworking people who aren't covered by Medicaid. Nonworking Medicaid recipients also spend more time looking for work and doing housework and errands, it found.

Our Ruling

Jennings said almost 5 million nondisabled Medicaid recipients "simply choose not to work" and "spend six hours a day socializing and watching television."

The 5 million figure stems from a CBO projection that 4.8 million people would go without coverage by 2034 as a result of not fulfilling the community engagement requirements. It is not descriptive of current enrollees and does not specify that these people choose not to work.

Jennings cited an American Enterprise Institute analysis on how nondisabled Medicaid recipients with no dependents spend their time, but it is uncertain if the population in that analysis overlaps with that in the CBO estimate.

Current snapshots of the population Jennings described produce a smaller number. A survey by the Urban Institute found that 2% of Medicaid expansion enrollees without dependents who were neither working nor attending school — about 300,000 people — cited a lack of interest in working. Other research has found reasons this group doesn't work include caregiving, illness or disability, retirement, and inability to find work.

Studies of nonworking Medicaid recipients have found the majority are women and have a high school education or less. Their average age is 41, and more than half have a work history in the past five years.

We rate Jennings' statement False.

The Rural Health Transformation Program hands states $10 billion a year for five years starting in fiscal year 2026.

This article was published on Monday, July 21, 2025 in KFF Health News.

By Sarah Jane Tribble

A last-minute scramble to add a $50 billion rural health program to President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending law has left hospital and clinic leaders nationwide hopeful but perplexed. 

The Rural Health Transformation Program calls for federal regulators to hand states $10 billion a year for five years starting in fiscal year 2026.

But the "devil's in the details in terms of implementing," said Sarah Hohman, director of government affairs at the National Association of Rural Health Clinics.

"An investment of this amount and this style into rural — hopefully it goes to rural — is the type of investment that we and other advocates have been working on for a long time," said Hohman, whose organization represents 5,600 rural health clinics.

People who live in the nation's rural expanses have more chronic diseases, die younger, and make less money. Those compounding factors have financially pummeled rural health infrastructure, triggering hospital closures and widespread discontinuation of critical health services like obstetrics and mental health care.

Nearly 1 in 4 people in rural America use Medicaid, the state and federal program for low-income and disabled people. So, as Senate Republicans heatedly debated Medicaid spending reductions, lawmakers added the $50 billion program to quell opposition. But health advocates and researchers doubt it will be enough to offset expected cuts in federal funding.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, which has one of the largest percentages of rural residents in the nation, led the push to pass the budget bill. His website touts support for strengthening access to care in rural areas. But his office declined to respond on the record to questions about the rural health program included in the bill.

Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine who introduced an initial amendment to add the rural program, also did not respond to a request for comment. On July 15, Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, introduced a bill to reverse future cuts to Medicaid and add to the rural program.

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C., said the money was set aside because of politics and not necessarily for rural patients.

"As long as it's a government slush fund where politics decides where the money goes, then there's going to be a mismatch between where those funds go and what it is consumers need," Cannon said. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates federal Medicaid spending will be reduced by about $1 trillion over the next decade.

"These dollar amounts translate to actual people," said Fredric Blavin, a senior fellow and researcher at the Urban Institute, a Washington D.C.-based think tank that focuses on social and economic research.

Most states expanded their Medicaid programs to cover more low-income adults under the Affordable Care Act. That has lowered medical debt, improved health, and even reduced death rates, Blavin said.

By 2034, about 11.8 million people are expected to lose their health insurance from this bill, said Alice Burns, an associate director for KFF's Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured. And she said the Medicaid rollback may have an outsize impact on rural areas.

In rural areas, federal Medicaid spending is expected to decline by $155 billion over 10 years, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

If the goal of the rural program was to transform rural health care, as its name suggests, it will fall short, Burns said. The $50 billion rural program distributed over five years won't offset the losses expected over a decade of Medicaid reductions, she said.

In Kansas, Holton Community Hospital Chief Executive Carrie Lutz said she doesn't "feel that the sky is falling right now."

Lutz, whose 14-bed hospital is on the northern plains of the state, said she is bracing for the potential loss of Medicaid-covered patients and limits to provider taxes, which nearly all states use to get extra federal Medicaid money.

The reduction in provider taxes has been delayed until fiscal year 2028, Lutz said, but she still wants her state's leaders to apply for a portion of the rural program funding, which is expected to be distributed sooner.

"Every little penny helps when you've got very negative margins to begin with," Lutz said.

The program's $50 billion will be spread over five years and may not be limited to bolstering rural areas or their hospitals. Half of the money will be distributed "equally" among states that apply to and win approval from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The law's current language "raises the possibility" that a small state like Vermont could receive the same amount as a large state like Texas, Burns said.

States are required to submit a "detailed rural health transformation plan" by the end of this year, according to the law.

The law says states should use the funds to pursue goals including improving access to hospitals and other providers, improving health outcomes, enhancing economic opportunity for health care workers, and prioritizing the use of emerging technologies.

Mehmet Oz, a Trump appointee leading Medicare and Medicaid, will determine how to distribute the other half, or $25 billion, using a formula based on states' rural population and need. The law says the money is to be used for such things as increasing use of robotics, upgrading cybersecurity, and helping rural communities "to right size their health care delivery systems."

Spokespeople for CMS did not respond to a list of questions.

Kyle Zebley, senior vice president of public policy at the American Telemedicine Association, said there is "a pretty significant degree of discretion" for the White House and the Medicare and Medicaid administrator in approving state plans.

"We will urge states to include robust telehealth and virtual care options within their proposals going up to the federal government," Zebley said.

Alexa McKinley Abel, government affairs and policy director for the National Rural Health Association, said that while the law calls for states to create and submit plans, it's unclear what state agencies will perform the task, McKinley Abel said.

"There are a lot of gaps around application and implementation," she said, noting that an earlier version of the bill called for state plans to be developed in consultation with federally funded state offices of rural health.

But those offices are proposed to be eliminated in Trump's federal budget, which will face congressional approval in the fall. McKinley Abel said her organization supports state offices of rural health helping develop the plans and working with states to disburse the money, "since they intimately know the rural health community."

Hohman, with the rural health clinic association, said she is not sure money from the transformation program will even reach her members. About 27% of the patients treated at rural health clinics are enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

"There's just some confusion about who actually gets this money at the end of the day," Hohman said. "What is it actually going to be used for?"

KFF Health News senior correspondent Phil Galewitz contributed to this report.

Sarah Jane Tribble: sjtribble@kff.org, @sjtribble

Premiums will vary based on where consumers live, the type of plan they choose, and their insurer.

This article was published on Friday, July 18, 2025 in KFF Health News.

By Julie Appleby

Most of the 24 million people in Affordable Care Act health plans face a potential one-two punch next year — double-digit premium increases along with a sharp drop in the federal subsidies that most consumers depend on to buy the coverage, also known as Obamacare.

Insurers want higher premiums to cover the usual culprits — rising medical and labor costs and usage — but are tacking on extra percentage point increases in their 2026 rate proposals to cover effects of policy changes advanced by the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. One key factor built into their filings with state insurance departments: uncertainty over whether Congress allows more generous, COVID-era ACA tax subsidies to expire at the end of December.

"The out-of-pocket change for individuals will be immense, and many won't actually be able to make ends meet and pay premiums, so they will go uninsured," said JoAnn Volk, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

Especially if the higher subsidies expire, insurance premiums will be among the first financial pains felt by healthcare consumers after policy priorities put forward by President Donald Trump and the GOP. Many other changes — such as additional paperwork requirements and spending cuts to Medicaid — won't occur for at least another year. But spiking ACA premiums, as the nation heads into key midterm elections, invites political pushback. Some on Capitol Hill are exploring ways to temper the subsidy reductions.

"I am hearing on both sides — more from Republicans, but from both the House and Senate" — that they are looking for levers they can pull, said Pennsylvania-based insurance broker Joshua Brooker, who follows legislative actions as part of his job and sits on several insurance advisory groups.

In initial filings, insurers nationally are seeking a median rate increase — meaning half of the proposed increases are lower and half higher — of 15%, according to an analysis for the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker covering 19 states and the District of Columbia. KFF is a national health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

That's up sharply from the last few years. For the 2025 plan year, for example, KFF found that the median proposed increase was 7%.

Health insurers "are doing everything in their power to shield consumers from the rising costs of care and the uncertainty in the market driven by recent policy changes," wrote Chris Bond, a spokesperson for AHIP, the industry's lobbying group. The emailed response also called on lawmakers "to take action to extend the healthcare tax credits to prevent skyrocketing cost increases for millions of Americans in 2026."

Neither the White House nor HHS responded to requests for comment.

These are initial numbers and insurance commissioners in some states may alter requests before approval.

Still, "it's the biggest increase we've seen in over five years," said analysis co-author Cynthia Cox, a KFF vice president and director of its Program on the ACA.

Premiums will vary based on where consumers live, the type of plan they choose, and their insurer.

For example, Maryland insurers have requested increases ranging from 8.1% to 18.7% for the upcoming plan year, according to an analysis of a smaller set of insurers by Georgetown University researchers. A much larger swing is seen in New York, where one carrier is asking for less than a 1% increase, while another wants 66%. Maryland rate filings indicated the average statewide increase would shrink to 7.9% from 17.1% — if the ACA's enhanced tax credits are extended.

Most insurers are asking for 10% to 20% increases, the KFF report says, with several factors driving those increases. For instance, insurers say underlying medical costs — including the use of expensive obesity drugs — will add about 8% to premiums for next year. And most insurers are also adding 4% above what they would have charged had the enhanced tax credits been renewed.

But rising premiums are just part of the picture.

A bigger potential change for consumers' pocketbooks hinges on whether Congress decides to extend more generous tax credits first put in place during President Joe Biden's term as part of the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021, then extended through the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.

Those laws raised the subsidy amounts people could receive based on their household income and local premium costs and removed a cap that had barred higher earners from even partial subsidy assistance. Higher earners could still qualify for some subsidy but first had to chip in 8.5% of their household income toward the premiums.

Across the board, but especially among lower-income policyholders, bigger subsidies helped fuel record enrollment in ACA plans.

But they're also costly.

A permanent extension could cost $335 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Such an extension was left out of the policy law Trump signed on July 4 that he called the "One Big Beautiful Bill." Without action, the extra subsidies will expire at the end of this year, after which the tax credits will revert to less generous pre-pandemic levels.

That means two things: Most enrollees will be on the hook to pay a larger share of their premiums as assistance from federal tax credits declines. Secondly, people whose household income exceeds four times the federal poverty level — $84,600 for a couple or $128,600 for a family of four this year — won't get any subsidies at all.

If the subsidies expire, policy experts estimate, the average amount people pay for coverage could rise by an average of more than 75%. In some states, ACA premiums could double.

"There will be sticker shock," said Josh Schultz, strategic engagement manager at Softheon, a New York consulting firm that provides enrollment, billing, and other services to about 200 health insurers, many of which are bracing for enrollment losses.

And enrollment could fall sharply. The Wakely Consulting Group estimates that the combination of expiring tax credits, the Trump law's new paperwork, and other requirements will result in ACA enrollment dropping by as much as 57%.

According to KFF, insurers added premium increases of around 4% just to cover the expiration of the enhanced tax credits, which they fear will lead to lower enrollment. That would further raise costs, insurers say, because people who are less healthy are more likely to grit their teeth and reenroll, leaving insurers with a smaller, but sicker, pool of members.

Less common in the filings submitted so far, but noticeable, are increases pegged to Trump administration tariffs, Cox said.

"What they are assuming is tariffs will drive drug costs up significantly, with some saying that can have around a 3-percentage-point increase" in premiums as a result, she said.

Consumers will learn their new premium prices only late in the fall, or when open enrollment for the ACA begins on Nov. 1 and they can start shopping around.

Congress could still act, and discussions are ongoing, said insurance broker Brooker.

Some lawmakers, he said, are consulting with the CBO about the fiscal and coverage effects of various scenarios that don't extend the subsidies as they currently exist but may offer a middle ground. One possibility involves allowing subsidies for families earning as much as five or six times the poverty level, he said.

But any such effort will draw pushback.

Some conservative think tanks, such as the Paragon Health Institute, say the more generous subsides led people to fudge their incomes to qualify and led to other types of fraud, such as brokers signing people up for ACA plans without authorization.

But others note that many consumers — Democratic and Republican — have come to rely on the additional assistance. Not extending it could be risky politically. In 2024, 56% of ACA enrollees lived in Republican congressional districts, and 76% were in states won by Trump.

Allowing the enhanced subsidies to expire could also reshape the market.

Brooker said some people may drop coverage. Others will shift to plans with lower premiums but higher deductibles. One provision of Trump's new tax law allows people enrolled in either "bronze" or "catastrophic"-level ACA plans, which are usually the cheapest, to qualify for health savings accounts, which allow people to set aside money, tax-free, to cover healthcare costs.

"Naturally, if rates do start going up the way we anticipate, there will be a migration to lower-cost options," Brooker said.

Julie Appleby: jappleby@kff.org, @Julie_appleby

Health industry lobbyists are assessing the damage after Trump's OBBBA raced through Congress in less than two months with only Republican votes.

This article was published on Monday, July 14, 2025 in KFF Health News.

By Phil Galewitz and Stephanie Armour

Doctors, hospitals, and health insurers for weeks issued dire warnings to Republican lawmakers that millions of people would lose health coverage and hospitals would close if they cut Medicaid funding to help pay for President Donald Trump's big tax and spending bill. 

But Republicans ignored those pleas, made even deeper cuts, and sent the legislation on July 3 to the White House, where Trump signed it the next day.

The law's passage marked a rare political loss for some of the health industry's biggest players. When unified, doctors, hospitals, and insurers have stood among the most powerful lobbying forces in Washington and have a long track record of blocking or forcing changes to legislation that could hurt them financially.

But health industry lobbyists are catching their breath and assessing the damage after Trump's massive bill raced through Congress in less than two months with only Republican votes.

Several lobbyists offered various reasons for being unable to stave off big cuts to Medicaid, a $900 billion state-federal health insurance program that covers an estimated 72 million low-income and disabled people nationally and accounts for 19% of all spending on hospital care, about $283 billion a year, according to the latest data. But nearly all agreed that GOP lawmakers were more worried about angering Trump than facing backlash from local hospitals and constituents back home.

"Members were more scared of Trump issuing a primary challenge than disappointing local voters who may find their hospital has to close or their insurance premium may go up," said Bob Kocher, a partner with venture capital firm Venrock who served in the Obama administration, referring to election primaries leading into the midterms.

Consider what happened to Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). After he took to the Senate floor to announce his opposition to the bill because of its cuts to Medicaid, Trump threatened to support a challenger to run against Tillis next year. Shortly thereafter, Tillis announced his retirement from politics.

But other factors were at work.

The health industry's warnings to lawmakers may have been dismissed because hospitals, health centers, and other health care provider groups are seen by Republicans as strong backers of the Affordable Care Act, the law known as Obamacare that's considered Democrats' biggest domestic achievement in decades.

The ACA expanded government health insurance coverage to millions of people previously not eligible. And no Republicans voted for it.

"Hospitals' support of the ACA has frustrated Republicans, and as a result there is less a reservoir of goodwill to hospitals than in the past," Kocher said.

Ceci Connolly, chief executive of the Alliance of Community Health Plans, said her lobbying team spent extra time on Capitol Hill with lawmakers and their staffers, raising concerns about how the legislation would imperil health care coverage.

"There was almost an overriding sense on the part of Republicans in Congress to deliver a major victory for President Trump," she said. Her group represents health plans that provide coverage in about 40 states. "That superseded some of their concerns, reluctance, and hesitation."

Connolly said she repeatedly heard from GOP lawmakers that the focus was on delivering on Trump's campaign promise to extend his 2017 tax cuts.

She said the concerns of some moderate members helped lead to one concession: a $50 billion fund to help rural hospitals and other health providers.

The money, she said, may have made it easier for some lawmakers to support a bill that, in total, cuts more than $1 trillion from Medicaid over a decade.

Another twist: Many new lawmakers were clearly still learning about Medicaid, she said.

Republicans also seemed eager to reduce the scope of Medicaid and Affordable Care Act marketplace coverage after enrollment in both programs soared to record levels during the pandemic and the Biden administration, she said. Trump's law requires states to verify eligibility for Medicaid at least every six months and ends auto-enrollment into marketplace plans — steps health policy experts says will reverse some of those gains.

Charles "Chip" Kahn, a longtime health lobbyist and CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents for-profit hospitals, said the industry's message was heard on Capitol Hill. But because the bill dealt with so many other issues, including tax cuts, border security, and energy, lawmakers had to decide whether potential health coverage losses were more important.

It was very different than in 2017, when Republicans tried to repeal Obamacare but failed. Trump's 2025 measure, Kahn said, isn't a health reform bill or a health bill.

It "left us with an outcome that was unfortunate."

There were some successes, however, Kahn said.

Industry lobbying did prevent the federal government from reducing its share of spending for states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA. Hospitals and other Medicaid advocates also persuaded Congress not to cap the program's open-ended federal funding to states. Both measures would have tallied billions more in additional Medicaid funding cuts.

The new law doesn't change eligibility rules for Medicaid or change its benefits. But it does stipulate that states require most Medicaid enrollees who gained coverage via the ACA's expansion to document that they work or volunteer 80 hours a month, a provision the Congressional Budget Office predicts will lead to about 5 million people losing coverage by 2034.

The law also limits states' use of a decades-old system of taxing health providers to leverage extra federal Medicaid funding. This was another loss for the hospital industry, which has supported the practice because it led to higher payments from Medicaid.

Medicaid generally pays lower fees for care than private insurance and Medicare, the program for people 65 and older as well as those with disabilities. But due to provider taxes, some hospitals are paid more under Medicaid than Medicare, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a health research nonprofit.

Kahn credits the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank, and its CEO Brian Blase for pushing the argument that provider taxes amounted to legalized "money laundering." Blase advised Trump on health policy in his first term.

One hospital executive who asked for his name to be withheld to avoid professional retribution said the message — that some facilities had used this play to increase their profits — resonated with GOP lawmakers. "They thought some hospitals were doing fine financially and did not want to reward them," he said.

Still, Kahn, who is retiring at the end of the year, said he was pleased the Senate delayed implementation of the provider tax cuts until 2028. That will give the health industry a chance to revise the law, he speculated, possibly after the 2026 midterm election changes the balance of power in Congress.

In rural northeastern Louisiana, Todd Eppler, CEO of Desoto Regional Medical Center, had hoped Congress would pass the initial House version of the bill, which didn't include cuts to provider-tax funding. But he said any impact on his hospital in Mansfield, located in House Speaker Mike Johnson's district, will be offset by the $50 billion rural health fund.

"I am happy where we ended up," Eppler said. "I think they listened to rural hospitals."

Hospitals have argued for decades that any cuts in federal funding to Medicaid or Medicare would harm patients and lead to service reductions. Because hospitals are usually one of the largest employers in a congressional district, the industry often also warns of potential job losses. Such arguments typically give lawmakers pause.

But this time around, that message had little traction.

One health industry lobbyist, who asked not to be identified to speak candidly without risking professional repercussions, said there was a sense on Capitol Hill that hospitals could withstand the funding cuts.

But there's also a belief that trade groups including the American Hospital Association, the largest hospital industry lobbying organization, could have been more effective. "There is lot of concern that AHA statements were too soft, too little, and too late," he said.

AHA helped lead a coalition of hospital organizations that spent millions of dollars on television advertising against the GOP bill. Its president and CEO, Rick Pollack, said in a statement before the House voted on the legislation that the cuts to Medicaid would be a "devastating blow to the health and well-being of our nation's most vulnerable citizens and communities."

Pollack said in a statement to KFF Health News that the appeal of tax cuts drove Republican lawmakers to pass the law.

"Hospitals and health systems have tirelessly advocated to protect coverage and access for millions of people," he said. "We will continue to raise these critical issues to mitigate the effects of these proposals."

The nation's largest trade group for doctors, the American Medical Association, also opposed the funding cuts to Medicaid and other federal health programs. Its president, Bobby Mukkamala, said in a July 1 statement that the changes "will shift costs to the states and specifically to physicians and hospitals to provide uncompensated care at a time when rural hospitals and physician practices are struggling to keep their doors open."

But the AMA was also focused on securing higher Medicare fees for doctors. The law ultimately included a one-time 2.5% Medicare pay bump for doctors in 2026. This wasn't a victory because it left out the House version's permanent payment fix that would have tied doctor pay to the medical inflation rate. Mukkamala noted the temporary lift but described it as falling "far short of what is needed to preserve access to care for America's seniors."

Joe Dunn, chief policy officer at the National Association of Community Health Centers, said his organization worked relentlessly this year to prevent deeper Medicaid cuts that would financially hurt nonprofit clinics. Health center administrators visited Washington in February, made thousands of phone calls, and sent emails to members of Congress.

One payoff was that the health centers were exempted from the law's requirement that providers charge some Medicaid enrollees up to $35 copayments for services.

But at the end of the day, Dunn said, many GOP House and Senate members simply wanted to finish the bill. "They went in a direction that satisfied the president's timelines and goals," he said.

Chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner contributed to this report.

Phil Galewitz: pgalewitz@kff.org, @philgalewitz

Stephanie Armour: sarmour@kff.org, @StephArmour1