HR-9623-119
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Brendan Boyle (D-PA)
What it does
This bill would repeal the Medicaid-related provisions enacted in Chapter 1 of Subtitle B of Title VII of Public Law 119-21 — a budget reconciliation law passed in the 119th Congress. It would restore all Medicaid statutes amended by those provisions to the form they were in before that law took effect, as if the reconciliation changes had never been enacted.
Who benefits
Current and future Medicaid enrollees who would have lost coverage or faced reduced benefits under the reconciliation law's provisions. Low-income adults, children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and elderly individuals in nursing facilities who rely on Medicaid. Safety-net hospitals and community health centers that receive Medicaid reimbursements. State Medicaid agencies that may have faced new administrative burdens or reduced federal matching funds. Healthcare workers whose employment depends on Medicaid-funded services.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers who would bear the restored cost of Medicaid spending that the reconciliation law had reduced. Budget deficit reduction goals supported by the reconciliation law would be set back. States that had already begun implementing the reconciliation changes would face administrative costs of reverting to prior rules. Fiscal conservatives and policymakers who view the reconciliation law's Medicaid provisions as necessary for long-term program sustainability.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the reconciliation law's Medicaid provisions would strip coverage from millions of low-income Americans who depend on the program for basic medical care, including children, seniors, and people with disabilities. They contend that Medicaid cuts of this scale would increase uncompensated care costs for hospitals, destabilize safety-net providers, and ultimately shift costs onto states and insured patients — making repeal both a health and fiscal necessity.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the reconciliation law's Medicaid provisions were enacted through the democratic process specifically to address unsustainable federal spending growth, and that repealing them would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit over the coming decade. They contend that the original changes included targeted measures — such as work requirements or eligibility verification — designed to ensure the program serves its intended population, and that repeal would undo fiscally responsible program integrity reforms.