Ciscomani Urges the Senate to Protect Medicaid
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Congressman Juan Ciscomani and 15 colleagues are urging Senate and House leaders to protect Medicaid, firmly opposing legislation that limits access to Medicaid coverage for vulnerable individuals or jeopardizes the ability for hospitals to provide care.
“Throughout the budget process, we have consistently affirmed our commitment to ensuring that reductions in federal spending do not come at the expense of our most vulnerable constituents,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson. “We write to reiterate that commitment to those we represent here in Washington… The proposal released by the Senate Finance Committee on June 16 includes provisions that go beyond H.R. 1. The House’s approach reflects a more pragmatic and compassionate standard, and we urge that it be retained in the final bill.”
The lawmakers continued: “Protecting Medicaid is essential for the vulnerable constituents we were elected to represent. Therefore, we cannot support a final bill that threatens access to coverage or jeopardizes the stability of our hospitals and providers.”
In April, Ciscomani joined a letter to House Republican leadership making it clear that they would not support a reconciliation package that reduces Medicaid coverage for those who need it and who have limited options for health coverage, such as single mothers, those with disabilities, the working poor, and the elderly.
Following this letter, Ciscomani met with the White House, Republican leadership, and the Energy and Commerce Committee to prevent changes to the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), a decrease in Arizona’s provider tax, and per capita caps from being included in the final House reconciliation package. Those provisions were not included in the bill that Ciscomani voted for.
In February, Congressman Ciscomani was among members of the Congressional Hispanic Conference who sent a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson, saying that cutting Medicaid "would have serious consequences, particularly in rural and predominantly Hispanic communities where hospitals and nursing homes are already struggling to keep their doors open."
The most recent letter was written by Congressman David Valadao (R-CA) and includes Reps. Rob Bresnahan (R-PA), Chuck Edwards (R-NC), Young Kim (R-CA), Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), Michael Lawler (R-NY), Jen Kiggans (R-VA), Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ), Don Bacon (R-NE), Dan Newhouse (R-WA), Zach Nunn (R-IA), Rob Wittman (R-VA), Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), and Jeff Hurd (R-CO).
Find the full letter here or below:
Dear Speaker Johnson and Majority Leader Thune,
As Members of Congress who helped secure a Republican majority, we believe it is essential that the final reconciliation bill reflects the priorities of our constituents—most importantly, the critical need to protect Medicaid and the hospitals that serve our communities. Throughout the budget process, we have consistently affirmed our commitment to ensuring that reductions in federal spending do not come at the expense of our most vulnerable constituents. We write to reiterate that commitment to those we represent here in Washington.
We support the Medicaid reforms in H.R. 1, which strengthen the program’s ability to serve children, pregnant women, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities. The proposal released by the Senate Finance Committee on June 16 includes provisions that go beyond H.R. 1. The House’s approach reflects a more pragmatic and compassionate standard, and we urge that it be retained in the final bill.
The Senate proposal also undermines the balanced approach taken to craft the Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1—particularly regarding provider taxes and state directed payments. The Senate version treats expansion and non-expansion states unfairly, fails to preserve existing state programs, and imposes stricter limits that do not give hospitals sufficient time to adjust to new budgetary constraints or to identify alternative funding sources.
We are also concerned about rushed implementation timelines, penalties for expansion states, changes to the community engagement requirements for adults with dependents, and cuts to emergency Medicaid funding. These changes would place additional burdens on hospitals already stretched thin by legal and moral obligations to provide care.
Protecting Medicaid is essential for the vulnerable constituents we were elected to represent. Therefore, we cannot support a final bill that threatens access to coverage or jeopardizes the stability of our hospitals and providers.
We appreciate your ongoing leadership in advocating for our members’ priorities as you engage in negotiations with the Senate. We look forward to discussing these issues further and working together toward a solution that reflects our conference’s goals.
###