Posted on

Who’s Buying What? Part 2: Insights from Interviews with Solution Provider Sales Execs

About the series

As federal Medicaid priorities teeter on the edge of major transformation, many state agencies, managed care plans, and federal HHS teams have entered a period of collective pause—a “shock mode” marked by internal uncertainty, delayed decisions, and heightened scrutiny. At the same time, some solution providers continue to invest heavily in go-to-market efforts, not always recognizing the dramatic shift in buyer psychology. Others continue their sales efforts, but are struggling to know how to pivot.


This three-part series, “Who’s Buying What?”, shares anonymous insights from both sides of the market—solution provider CEOs and Medicaid plan and agency executives—to uncover the a potential and growing misalignment between pitch and purchase. From ghosted pilots to silence from state buyers, these stories reveal the deeper dynamics shaping Medicaid procurement in 2025. The series offers practical, targeted guidance for vendors adjusting their targeting strategies in a time of heightened uncertainty, and for buyers hoping to signal needs without inviting a flood of premature outreach.

Posted on

Who’s Buying What? Part 1: Insights from Interviews with Medicaid Plan Executives

About the series

As federal Medicaid priorities teeter on the edge of major transformation, many state agencies, managed care plans, and federal HHS teams have entered a period of collective pause—a “shock mode” marked by internal uncertainty, delayed decisions, and heightened scrutiny. At the same time, some solution providers continue to invest heavily in go-to-market efforts, not always recognizing the dramatic shift in buyer psychology. Others continue their sales efforts, but are struggling to know how to pivot.


This three-part series, “Who’s Buying What?”, shares anonymous insights from both sides of the market—solution provider CEOs and Medicaid plan and agency executives—to uncover the a potential and growing misalignment between pitch and purchase. From ghosted pilots to silence from state buyers, these stories reveal the deeper dynamics shaping Medicaid procurement in 2025. The series offers practical, targeted guidance for vendors adjusting their targeting strategies in a time of heightened uncertainty, and for buyers hoping to signal needs without inviting a flood of premature outreach.

Posted on

STATE NEWS – Idaho governor appoints Medicaid head to lead Health and Welfare department

STATE NEWS – Idaho governor appoints Medicaid head to lead Health and Welfare department


Alternative Headline: Medicaid Leader Promoted in Idaho

[MM Curator Summary]: Idaho’s top Medicaid official, Juliet Charron, will lead the state’s health agency amid sweeping Medicaid reforms and budget pressures.

==============================


Idaho Gov. Brad Little has appointed the state’s top Medicaid official to oversee the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare.

Little on Thursday nominated Juliet Charron to become the director of Idaho’s largest state government agency. She will lead the agency starting Sept. 15, 2025, the governor’s office announced in a news release

Charron, who has worked for Health and Welfare for nearly four years, will lead the agency at a time of deep federal cuts to public assistance programs. Idaho Medicaid is also gearing up for a range of newcost-cutting measures like work requirements and shifting all benefits to being managed by private companies, under a new law passed this year by the Idaho Legislature. 

“Juliet Charron brings an impressive level of knowledge, experience, and leadership ability to lead Health and Welfare, an agency that serves hundreds of thousands of Idahoans through its various programs,” the governor said in a statement. “I am confident she will lead Health and Welfare with integrity and transparency and with an eye for delivering services with the greatest efficiency.”

Idaho agency’s current director may join Trump administration

The agency’s current director, Alex Adams, was nominated by President Donald Trump to a federal health position. Earlier Thursday, a U.S. Senate committee advanced Adams’ nomination to serve as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s assistant secretary for family support to the full U.S. Senate.

Adams became Idaho Department of Health and Welfare director in June 2024. 

Little thanked Adams for his service in Idaho. 

“His visionary approach over the years helped us achieve big priorities for Idaho and I am excited to see what he achieves for the American people while working under President Trump,” the governor added. 

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, the largest state agency, runs public assistance programs and more

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare runs public assistance programs like Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Women and Infant Children program. The health department also provides public health services, regulates long-term care facilities, runs the state’s mental health hospitals, provides child welfare and provides services for people with developmental disabilities. 

Little’s appointment of Charron to direct the agency is subject to approval by the Idaho Senate next legislative session. 

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare is Idaho’s largest state government agency, with a more than $5 billion budget that is mostly federal funds.

In a statement, Charron said she looked forward to pursuing “clear outcomes in our programs and services” and delivering “aggressive transparency across the agency.”

“It is an honor and a privilege to continue to serve the people of Idaho and lead the dedicated team at the Department of Health and Welfare as we strengthen the health, safety, and independence of Idahoans,” she said. “I look forward to collaboratively working with our many stakeholders, including state policymakers, advocates, Idaho taxpayers, and those we serve, to tirelessly pursue clear outcomes in our programs and services, provide excellent customer service, and deliver aggressive transparency across the agency.”

Charron led Idaho Medicaid through managed care plans, Medicaid disenrollment through ‘unwinding’

In 2021, Charron became the administrator of Idaho Medicaid. In 2024, she became deputy director for Medicaid and behavioral health.

In her time leading Idaho Medicaid, she regularly presented to lawmakers as the Legislature explored privatizing Medicaid benefit management. That model, called managed care, is used widely across the country and is meant to stabilize Medicaid costs. For years, Republican state lawmakers have worried about Idaho Medicaid’s rising budget — leading to a cost-cutting law this year that includes a shift to managed care. 

Charron also managed Idaho Medicaid when the state removed tens of thousands of Idahoans from Medicaid after the end of pandemic-era protections that essentially barred states from removing people from Medicaid. That process is commonly called Medicaid unwinding. 

Governor’s office officials said Charron strengthened oversight of Idaho’s largest government contracts, saving costs for taxpayers and improving health outcomes.  She also used data to guide decisions to identify cost containment areas, governor’s office officials said. 

Charron previously worked in leadership positions in Texas for the state’s Medicaid program and the state’s Office of Inspector General, according to her LinkedIn page.  

She received a Master of Public Health from University of Arizona, and a bachelor’s degree in public policy, planning and management from University of Oregon, according to her LinkedIn. 

https://idahocapitalsun.com/2025/07/31/idaho-governor-appoints-medicaid-head-to-lead-health-and-welfare-department/



COLOR CODE: 


General item, but important. Gets at main point of article= YELLOW

Has a dollar amount or number = GREEN

A specific topic that seems to be different than other topics = BLUE

Posted on

POLICY – Gov. Walz speaks out against Medicaid policy changes

POLICY – Gov. Walz speaks out against Medicaid policy changes


Alternative Headline: Walz Slams Medicaid Cuts

[MM Curator Summary]: Minnesota Governor Tim Walz criticized federal Medicaid cuts, citing a potential $1.4 billion loss in funding and potential loss of coverage for 140,000 in the state.

========================================

Gov. Walz speaks out against Medicaid policy changes


Walz says he expects the state to lose roughly $1.4 billion in funding over the next four years, and 140,000 Minnesotans to lose coverage.


DULUTH, Minn. (Northern News Now) – Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is criticizing the Trump administration over recent changes to Medicaid policy.

Walz made the comments Wednesday while celebrating the 60th anniversary of Medicaid this morning by visiting a Twin Cities hospital.

Walz says he expects the state to lose roughly $1.4 billion in funding over the next four years, and 140,000 Minnesotans to lose coverage.

The hospital’s CEO joined the tour, saying they’ll need to navigate changes because of the federal cuts as well.

“We’ll be here, but the problem is, without Medicaid coverage, people will show up in our EDS, more acute, sicker later, and with bigger issues for us to deal with” said James Hereford, the president and CEO of Fairview Health.

Meanwhile, republicans have said these cuts protect taxpayer dollars by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse of federal programs.


Copyright 2025 Northern News Now. All rights reserved.


https://www.northernnewsnow.com/2025/07/30/gov-walz-speaks-out-against-medicaid-policy-changes/




COLOR CODE: 


General item, but important. Gets at main point of article= YELLOW

Has a dollar amount or number = GREEN

A specific topic that seems to be different than other topics = BLUE

Posted on

POLICY – Federal policy jeopardizes health care access and affordability in Colorado, experts tell lawmakers

POLICY – Federal policy jeopardizes health care access and affordability in Colorado, experts tell lawmakers


Alternative Headline: Colorado Faces Medicaid, SNAP Cuts

[MM Curator Summary]: Colorado Democrats are preparing for steep Medicaid and SNAP cuts following a new federal tax and spending law backed by congressional Republicans.

========================================

The immediate question Colorado lawmakers face in the wake of congressional Republicans’ tax break and spending cut law is how to fix the billion-dollar state budget shortfall the new law caused. But once they do that, longer-term impacts of the federal law — including Medicaid work requirements and food assistance cost burden shifts — will still loom large, health experts and economists warned top state Democrats on Thursday. 

The Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing estimates that those federal changes, some of which won’t take effect until 2027, will put 377,000 Coloradans at risk of Medicaid disenrollment and add significant administrative costs to the state.

The law, which was signed by President Donald Trump on July 4, cuts more than $1 trillion nationwide from Medicaid, a state-federal health insurance program for people with low incomes.

All four Republican members of the Colorado delegation to the U.S. House voted in favor of the law. All four Democrats, as well as Colorado’s two Democratic U.S. senators, voted against it.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

The law’s reduction in health care premium tax credits for Affordable Care Act insurance enrollees will mean premium increases of 50% to 150% or more for nearly 300,000 Coloradans, said Adam Fox, the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative’s deputy director.

“The reconciliation law is dramatically and rapidly diminishing affordability of health insurance,” Fox said during a presentation to the state House and Senate Democratic caucuses at the Capitol in Denver. The tax and spending law was passed in Congress through a reconciliation process.

The presentation came a day after members of the Executive Committee of the Legislative Council met at the Capitol to discuss the estimated $1.2 billion tax revenue hit to the state that follows the law’s passage.

More than a dozen Democratic state lawmakers, including Senate President James Coleman and House Speaker Julie McCluskie, attended the presentation Thursday. Democrats have strong majorities in the state House and Senate.

The reconciliation law is dramatically and rapidly diminishing affordability of health insurance.

– Adam Fox, Colorado Consumer Health Initiative’s deputy director

Gabriela Walters, the director of quality, risk and compliance at Tepeyac Community Health Center in Denver, said the nonprofit served 7,500 patients last year, about a third of whom rely on Medicare and another 55% of whom have no health insurance. She said that the new law will “negatively impact our financial stability and sustainability.”

“We believe that the results of many of our patients who are on Medicaid losing coverage (is that it) will make them less likely to seek preventive and primary care and more likely to delay care until concerns are more severe, which will ultimately lead to sicker patients and sicker communities,” Walters said.

Presenters pointed to cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also made under the new federal law, as damaging to the health and food security of low-income Coloradans.

The law changes SNAP by broadening work requirements, penalizing states with higher error rates of under- or over-payments, and, for the first time, requiring states to share some of the costs of providing SNAP benefits. 

Ron Meehan, the government relations manager at Feeding Colorado, said about 36,000 Coloradans are at risk of losing SNAP benefits, adding that this will increase the burden on food banks.

“The overarching message is that Colorado’s anti-hunger network is going to be expected to do a lot more with a lot less,” he said.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our website. AP and Getty images may not be republished. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of any other photos and graphics.

https://coloradonewsline.com/2025/07/31/health-care-access-food-colorado/



COLOR CODE: 


General item, but important. Gets at main point of article= YELLOW

Has a dollar amount or number = GREEN

A specific topic that seems to be different than other topics = BLUE




Posted on

STATE NEWS – Congress Is Pushing for a Medicaid Work Requirement. Here’s What Happened When Georgia Tried It.

STATE NEWS – Congress Is Pushing for a Medicaid Work Requirement. Here’s What Happened When Georgia Tried It.


Alternative Headline: Work Rules Threaten Coverage

[MM Curator Summary]: GOP-backed federal Medicaid work mandates, modeled on Georgia’s failed program, could cut coverage for millions while straining state budgets and bureaucracies.

============


Congressional Republicans, looking for ways to offset their proposed tax cuts, are seeking to mandate that millions of Americans work in order to receive federally subsidized health insurance. The GOP tax and budget bill passed the House in May, and Senate Republicans are working feverishly to advance their draft of federal spending cuts in the coming days.

Georgia, the only state with a Medicaid work mandate, started experimenting with the requirement on July 1, 2023. As the Medicaid program’s two-year anniversary approaches, Georgia has enrolled just a fraction of those eligible, a result health policy researchers largely attribute to bureaucratic hurdles in the state’s work verification systemAs of May 2025, approximately 7,500 of the nearly 250,000 eligible Georgians were enrolled, even though state statistics show 64% of that group is working.

Gov. Brian Kemp has long advocated for Medicaid reform, arguing that the country should move away from government-run health care. His spokesperson also told The Current and ProPublica that the program, known as Georgia Pathways to Coverage, was never designed to maximize enrollment.

Health care analysts and former state Medicaid officials say Georgia’s experience shows that the congressional bill, if it becomes law, would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in administrative costs as it is implemented while threatening health care for nearly 16 million people.

Here’s how proposed federal work requirements compare to Georgia’s — and how they may impact your state:

How will states determine who is eligible?

What Congress proposes:

The House bill, H.R. 1, and draft Senate proposal require all states to verify that Americans ages 19 through 64 who are receiving Medicaid-funded health coverage are spending 80 hours a month working, training for a job, studying or volunteering. These new verification systems would need to be in place by Dec. 31, 2026, and would have to check on enrolled residents’ work status twice a year. That means people who already receive coverage based on their income level would need to routinely prove their eligibility — or lose their insurance.

The federal work requirements would apply to more than 10 million low-income adults with Medicaid coverage as well as approximately 5 million residents of the 40 states that have accepted federal subsidies for people to purchase private health coverage through what’s commonly known as Obamacare.

The House bill exempts parents with children under 18 from the new requirements, while the Senate version exempts parents with children under 15. Neither bill exempts people who look after elderly relatives.

Georgia’s experience:

Georgia’s mandate applies to fewer categories of people than the proposed federal legislation would. Even so, officials failed to meet the state’s tough monthly verification requirement for Pathways enrollees due to technical glitches and difficulty confirming the employment of those who work in the informal economy such as house cleaners and landscapers because they may not have pay stubs or tax records. The challenges were steep enough that Georgia has decided to loosen its work verification protocols from monthly to once a year.

What this means for your state:

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 1 would result in at least 10 million low-income Americans losing health insurance. Health care advocates say that’s not because they aren’t working, but because of the bureaucratic hoops they would need to jump through to prove employment. Research from KFF, a health policy think tank, shows that the vast majority of people who would be subject to the new law already work, are enrolled in school or are unpaid stay-at-home caregivers, duties that restrict their ability to earn a salary elsewhere.

Arkansas is the only state other than Georgia to have implemented work requirements. Republican state lawmakers later changed their minds after data showed that red tape associated with verifying eligibility resulted in more than 18,000 people losing coverage within the first few months of the policy. A federal judge halted the program in 2019, ruling that it increased the state’s uninsured rate without any evidence of increased employment.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, says Medicaid work requirements in H.R. 1 are “common sense.” He says the policy won’t result in health coverage losses for the Americans whom Medicaid was originally designed to help because the work requirements won’t apply to these groups: children, pregnant women and elderly people living in poverty. He points to the $344 billion in a decade’s worth of projected cost savings resulting from Medicaid work requirements as beneficial to the nation’s fiscal health. “You find dignity in work, and the people that are not doing that, we’re going to try to get their attention,” he said earlier this year.

Who will pay for the work verification system in each state?

What Congress proposes:

The House bill allocates $100 million to help states pay for verification systems that determine someone’s eligibility. The grants would be distributed in proportion to each state’s share of Medicaid enrollees subject to the new requirements — an amount health policy experts say will not be nearly enough. States, they say, will be on the hook for the difference.

Georgia’s experience:

In the two years since launching its experiment with work requirements, Georgia has spent nearly $100 million in mostly federal funds to implement Pathways. Of that, $55 million went toward building a digital system to verify participants’ eligibility — more than half the amount House Republicans allocated for the entire country to do the same thing.

Like other states, Georgia already had a work verification system in place for food stamp programs, but it contracted with Deloitte Consulting to handle its new Medicaid requirements. Georgia officials said the state has spent 30% more than they had expected to create its digital platform for Pathways due to rising consultant and IT costs. Deloitte previously declined to answer questions about its Pathways work.

What this means for your state:

All states already verify work requirements for food stamp recipients, but many existing systems would need upgrades to conform to proposed federal legislation, according to three former state Medicaid officials. In 2019, when states last considered work requirements, a survey by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office showed that Kentucky expected administrative costs to top $200 million — double what H.R. 1 has allocated for the country.

Rep. Buddy Carter, the Republican who represents coastal Georgia and chairs the health subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which had recommended Medicaid cuts in H.R. 1, said that upfront costs borne by states would be offset by longer-term savings promised in the House bill. Some congressional Republicans concede that the cost savings will come from fewer people enrolling in Medicaid due to the new requirements. Savings from work mandates amount to 43% of the $793 billion in proposed Medicaid cuts, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

How will states staff the program?

What Congress proposes:

Medicaid is a federal social safety net program that is administered differently in each state. Neither H.R. 1 nor the Senate legislative proposal provides a blueprint for how states should verify eligibility or how the costs of overseeing the new requirements will be paid.

Georgia’s experience:

Georgia’s experience shows that state caseworkers are key to managing applications and work requirement verifications for residents eligible for Medicaid. The agency that handles enrollment in federal benefits had a staff vacancy rate of approximately 20% when Georgia launched its work requirement policy in 2023. Georgia at the time had one of the longest wait times for approving federal benefits. As of March, the agency had a backlog of more than 5,000 Pathways applications. The agency has said it will need 300 more caseworkers and IT upgrades to better manage the backlog, according to a report submitted to state lawmakers in June.

What this means for your state:

Former state Medicaid officials and health policy experts say Georgia’s staffing struggles are not unique. In 2023, near the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency, KFF surveyed states about staffing levels for caseworkers who verify eligibility for federal benefits, including Medicaid. Worker vacancy rates exceeded 10% in 16 of the 26 states that responded; rates exceeded 20% in seven of those states.

Adding caseworkers will mean higher costs for states. Currently, 41 states require a balanced budget, meaning that those state legislators would either need to increase taxes and revenues to verify Medicaid enrollees are working or lower enrollment to reduce costs, said Joan Alker, executive director of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families.

In about half a dozen large states where county governments administer federal safety net programs, the costs of training caseworkers on the new verification protocols could trickle from states to counties.

“There are provisions in there that are very, very, very challenging, if not impossible, for us to implement,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, told reporters in June of the costs facing her state to meet the House bill requirements.

https://www.propublica.org/article/georgia-medicaid-work-requirement-big-beautiful-bill



COLOR CODE: 


General item, but important. Gets at main point of article= YELLOW

Has a dollar amount or number = GREEN

A specific topic that seems to be different than other topics = BLUE

Posted on

STATE NEWS – Republicans Lavish Alaska With Benefits in Policy Bill, Grasping for a Key Vote

STATE NEWS – Republicans Lavish Alaska With Benefits in Policy Bill, Grasping for a Key Vote


Alternative Headline: Perks Target Murkowski’s Vote

[MM Curator Summary]: Senate Republicans added Alaska-specific benefits to their policy bill to gain support from Senator Lisa Murkowski, a key holdout.

=============

When Senate Republicans released the latest version of their sprawling domestic policy package in the wee hours of Saturday morning, it contained a number of new provisions that might have seemed out of place — including a measure aimed at helping Alaskan whaling captains.

But the seemingly random items were anything but arbitrary; they appeared to be aimed at winning the support of a critical Republican holdout whose vote could make or break the measure: Senator Lisa Murkowski.

Ms. Murkowski has made no secret of her problems with her party’s bill and the harm she believes it could bring to her state. Chief among her concerns were new work requirements for Medicaid recipients and a provision that would require states to pay for a share of nutrition assistance payments currently paid entirely by the federal government.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/28/us/politics/republicans-alaska-murkowski-bill.html



COLOR CODE: 


General item, but important. Gets at main point of article= YELLOW

Has a dollar amount or number = GREEN

A specific topic that seems to be different than other topics = BLUE

Posted on

CMS NEWS – Supreme Court reframes Medicaid patients’ rights

CMS NEWS – Supreme Court reframes Medicaid patients’ rights


Alternative Headline: SCOTUS Limits Medicaid Choice

[MM Curator Summary]: The Supreme Court ruled Medicaid recipients can’t sue to enforce their right to choose providers, allowing states to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid.

==================================

The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed low-income patients’ rights to chose their health providers while giving conservative-led states a bigger opening to exclude Planned Parenthood affiliates from their Medicaid programs.

The big picture: The 6-3 decision by the court’s conservative majority potentially adds more obstacles to care, on top of financial barriers or poor health, and comes as Congress debates major changes to Medicaid that could cause millions of people to lose health coverage.


  • While the arguments before justices were narrow in scope, the ruling has huge ramifications for women trying to access reproductive care. Medicaid covers 1 in 5 women of child-bearing age and is the biggest source of coverage for women with low incomes, covering more than 4 in 10, per KFF.

The latest: Justices ruled Medicaid patients in South Carolina couldn’t sue under a civil rights law to choose their provider after the governor excluded Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program in 2018 because it provided abortion care.

  • Shutting the organization out of Medicaid has been a longtime priority of conservative politicians — and is one of the policy changes in the Republican budget bill now before Congress.
  • Such moves not only curtail abortion access but place restrictions on other care the clinics provide, including for sexually transmitted infections and cancer screening, birth control and mental health services.
  • Patient choices already are limited because, as KFF notes, many states require Medicaid beneficiaries to enroll in managed care plans with defined network of providers. Federal law states they can go out of network for family planning. But Thursday’s ruling effectively cuts them off from enforcing their right to choose a provider.

What they’re saying: "This case fits within a pattern of anti-abortion lawmakers and governors seeking to weaponize their authority and overreach into constitutionally and federally protected spaces to deny not only abortion rights, but any other type of reproductive health care that they themselves personally disagree with," said Michele Bratcher Goodwin, co-faculty director at Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

  • Planned Parenthood said more than 1 million South Carolinians receive health care services through the Medicaid program, and approximately 5% of those recipients sought sexual and reproductive health care services.
  • "Today’s decision is a grave injustice that strikes at the very bedrock of American freedom and promises to send South Carolina deeper into a health care crisis," Paige Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, said in a statement.

The other side: "By rejecting Planned Parenthood’s lawfare, the Court not only saves countless unborn babies from a violent death and their mothers from dangerously shoddy ‘care,’ it also protects Medicaid from exposure to thousands of lawsuits from unqualified providers that would jeopardize the entire program," Katie Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement.

What we’re watching: More red states are expected to follow South Carolina’s lead, with 18 states weighing in on the casethe Associated Press reported.

  • Legal experts say states may have more latitude to exclude providers on political grounds now that Medicaid recipients can’t legally press their right to chose a provider.
  • Planned Parenthood South Atlantic said it intends to continue to operate and offer care in South Carolina, including to Medicaid recipients.


https://www.axios.com/2025/06/27/supreme-court-reframes-patients-rights



COLOR CODE: 


General item, but important. Gets at main point of article= YELLOW

Has a dollar amount or number = GREEN

A specific topic that seems to be different than other topics = BLUE

Posted on

POLICY – Senate GOP dealt major blow on megabill health care plans

POLICY – Senate GOP dealt major blow on megabill health care plans – Live Updates – POLITICO


Alternative Headline: AI Law Pause Faces Hurdles

[MM Curator Summary]: The Senate parliamentarian is demanding revisions to the GOP’s 10-year AI law moratorium to ensure it doesn’t affect $42 billion in broadband funding, deepening divisions within the party.

====================================

The Senate parliamentarian is asking the Senate Commerce Committee to rework its 10-year moratorium on enforcing state artificial intelligence laws, according to ranking member Maria Cantwell.

The parliamentarian had asked Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to rewrite the language in the GOP megabill to make clear it wouldn’t impact $42 billion in broadband funding, Cantwell (D-Wash.) told POLITICO.

“That’s what was a last night request from the parliamentarian,” Cantwell said. “Yeah, that’s what’s going on.”

Cruz’s communications director Macarena Martinez said in a statement to POLITICO Thursday, “Out of respect, we are not going to comment on private consultations with the Parliamentarian,” and added, “The Democrats would be wise not to use this process to wishcast in public.”

What’s the problem? At issue is the scope of funding that will be conditioned on states complying with a 10-year pause on enforcing their AI laws.

Cruz has said enforcing the moratorium would be required for states to tap into a new $500 million fund for building out AI infrastructure.

The parliamentarian approved that language,narrowed version of an earlier proposal to tie the moratorium to the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program.

Democrats have argued that the latest moratorium would still affect all $42 billion.

Talking points circulated by Cruz on Wednesday saying his bill “forbids states collecting new BEAD money from strangling AI deployment with EU-style regulation” only added to the confusion, suggesting the provision could apply to the entire broadband program.

Cruz’s office told POLITICO Wednesday that the Congressional Budget Office “has confirmed this applies only to the unobligated $500M.”

The Senate parliamentarian is under fire after striking major pieces of Medicaid policy from being included in the megabill on Thursday. Majority Leader John Thune has said the GOP would not seek to override decisions from the Senate’s rules referee.

Republican doubts: The AI moratorium has divided Republicans. A group of GOP senators, including Sens. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Josh Hawley of Missouri and others, sent a letter to Thune on Wednesday urging the removal of the moratorium language, according to a person familiar with the matter.

“States should not be punished for trying to protect their citizens from the harms of AI,” Blackburn said in a post on X on Thursday.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said he is concerned about the scope of the provision and needs to “get clarity” on if it would apply to the whole BEAD program.

“There’s some communication challenge here about whether we’re talking about a $500 million pot, or whether we’re talking about the entire $40 billion — and the difference is significant. It matters,” Cramer told POLITICO. “If I can’t get assurances that it’s not just the smaller pot, it’d be hard for me to get to yes.”

The Article 3 Project, a prominent conservative advocacy group, said it would “fully support these bold and fearless Republican Senators and their effort to protect America’s children, creators, and foundational property rights.”

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who served as White House press secretary in the first Trump administration, came out against the moratorium language in The Washington Post on Thursday.

She warned it would lead to “unintended consequences and threatens to undo all the great work states have done to protect our citizens from the misuse of artificial intelligence.”

Tech support: The tech industry has lent broad support to the moratorium. The National Venture Capital Association praised it in a letter to Thune on Thursday.

“The current fragmented AI regulatory environment in the United States creates unnecessary challenges for startups, stifles innovation, and threatens our dominance in the industry,” wrote Bobby Franklin, the organization’s president.

Other major tech groups, including the Business Software Alliance, the Consumer Technology Association and NetChoice, have also strongly supported the language.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/06/26/congress/senate-gop-dealt-major-blow-on-megabill-health-care-plans-00425256


COLOR CODE: 


General item, but important. Gets at main point of article= YELLOW

Has a dollar amount or number = GREEN

A specific topic that seems to be different than other topics = BLUE


Posted on

POLICY – Key Medicaid provision in Trump’s bill is found to violate Senate rules. The GOP is scrambling

POLICY – Key Medicaid provision in Trump’s bill is found to violate Senate rules. The GOP is scrambling


Alternative Headline: Senate Rules Derail GOP Bill

[MM Curator Summary]: The Senate parliamentarian ruled that major elements of Trump’s tax and spending bill violate procedural rules, threatening GOP plans for deep Medicaid and safety net cuts.

====================================


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate parliamentarian has advised that a Medicaid provider tax overhaul central to President Donald Trump’s tax cut and spending bill does not adhere to the chamber’s procedural rules, delivering a crucial blow as Republicans rush to finish the package this week.

Guidance from the parliamentarian is rarely ignored and Republican leaders are now forced to consider difficult options. Republicans were counting on big cuts to Medicaid and other programs to offset trillions of dollars in Trump tax breaks, their top priority. Additionally, the parliamentarian, who is the Senate’s chief arbiter of its often complicated rules, advised against various GOP provisions barring certain immigrants from health care programs.

Republicans scrambled Thursday to respond, with some calling for challenging, or ever firing, the nonpartisan parliamentarian, who has been on the job since 2012. GOP leaders dismissed those views and instead worked to revise the various proposals.

“We have contingency plans,” said Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota.

Friday’s expected votes appeared to be slipping, but Thune insisted that “we’re plowing forward.”

But Democrats, who are unified against the package as a tax giveaway for the wealthy at the expense of American safety net programs, said the procedural decisions would devastate the GOP package.

Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the Republican proposals would have meant $250 billion less for the health care program, “massive Medicaid cuts that hurt kids, seniors, Americans with disabilities and working families.”


Trump wants action on the bill

The outcome is a setback as Senate Republicans race toward a weekend session to pass the bill and send it back to the House for another vote before Trump’s Fourth of July deadline. Trump hosted House Speaker Mike Johnson and other GOP lawmakers in the East Room at the White House, joined by truck drivers, firefighters, tipped workers, ranchers and others that the administration says will benefit from the bill.

“We don’t want to have grandstanders,” Trump said of the GOP holdouts.

Trump said there are “hundreds of things” in the emerging package of tax breaks, spending cuts and bolstered money to carry out his mass deportation plans“It’s so good.”

What’s at stake

At its core, the big bill, which has passed the House and is now being revised in the Senate, includes $3.8 trillion in tax breaks that had been approved during Trump’s first term but will expire in December, imposing a tax hike if Congress fails to act.To help offset lost revenues, Republicans are relying on steep cuts to health care and food stamps, and imposing new fees on immigrants.

GOP leaders were already struggling to rally support for Medicaid changes that some senators said went too far and would have left millions without coverage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said more than 10.9 million more people would not have health care under the House-passed bill; Senate Republicans were proposing deeper cuts.

After the parliamentarian advised against the Medicaid provider tax change, Republicans said they would try to revise the provision to make it acceptable, perhaps by extending the start date of any changes. They are rushing to come up with simila r adjustments to other proposals that have run into violations, including one to change the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.

It’s all delaying action on the bill, but Republican leaders have little choice. They are counting on the health care restrictions to save billions of dollars and offset the cost of trillions of dollars in tax cuts.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the Budget Committee chairman, rejected calls to fire the parliamentarian, and said in a statement he was working with the office to “find a pathway forward.”

GOP torn over Medicaid cuts

States impose the so-called provider tax on hospitals and other entities as a way to help fund Medicaid, largely by boosting the reimbursements they receive from the federal government. Critics say the system is a type of “laundering,” but almost every state except Alaska uses it to help provide health care coverage.

The House-passed bill would freeze the tax, while the Senate would cut the tax that some states are allowed to impose.

Several GOP senators have opposed cutting the Medicaid provider tax, saying it would hurt rural hospitals that depend on the money. Hospital organizations have warned that it could lead to hospital closures.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., among those fighting the change, said he had spoken to Trump late Wednesday and the president told him to revert to the earlier proposal from the House.


“I think it just confirms that we weren’t ready for a vote yet,” said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who also had raised concerns about the provider tax cuts.

More than 80 million people in the United States use the Medicaid program, alongside the Obama-era Affordable Care Act. Republicans want to scale Medicaid back to what they say is its original mission, providing care mainly to women and children, rather than a much larger group of people.

To help defray lost revenues to the hospitals, one plan Republicans had been considering would have created a rural hospital fund with $15 billion as backup. Some GOP senators said that was too much; others, including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, wanted at least $100 billion.

Tough choices ahead

The parliamentarian has worked around the clock to assess the legislation and ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. It essentially bars policy matters in budget reconciliation bills.

If leaders moved ahead without altering the provisions, the measures could be challenged, requiring a 60-vote threshold to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate divided 53-47 and with Democrats unified against Trump’s bill.

“It’s pretty frustrating,” said Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who wants even steeper reductions.

Overnight Wednesday the parliamentarian advised against GOP student loan repayment plans, and Thursday the parliamentarian cited those that would have blocked access to Medicaid and other health care programs from immigrants who are not citizens. Earlier, plans to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were also found to violate the rules.

But Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said there’s no desire to challenge the parliamentarian’s advice. “It’s the institutional integrity,” he said. “Even if I’m convinced 100% she’s wrong.”

At the same time, Republicans lost another potential revenue source Thursday after agreeing to a request from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to remove the so-called revenge tax provision, section 899, that would have allowed the government to impose taxes on companies with foreign owners and investors from certain countries. Bessent said he has reached a separate agreement with such countries.

__

Associated Press writers Kevin Freking, Leah Askarinam, Joey Cappelletti, Michelle L. Price and Fatima Hussein contributed to this report.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-big-bill-hospital-provider-tax-f6f4343bbc9c9a279bd7861c2e5c1b7b



COLOR CODE: 


General item, but important. Gets at main point of article= YELLOW

Has a dollar amount or number = GREEN

A specific topic that seems to be different than other topics = BLUE