Washington, D.C. - Today, during the 17^th hour of the marathon Energy and Commerce Committee meeting on the Republican tax plan, Representative Scott Peters (CA-50) offered an amendment to protect millions of Americans from being kicked off Medicaid. Their legislation would kick 13.7 million people off their healthcare, according to a new analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. In every state that has experimented with so-called “work requirements,” employment was not increased, but tens of thousands of people – many of whom are in fact working - have lost their healthcare. The Republican majority on the committee rejected Rep. Peters’ commonsense amendment to protect sick and uninsured Americans on a party-line vote of 23-28.  

 

Speaking on his amendment, Rep. Peters stated, “I want to talk about what’s at stake today. Medicaid covers more than 72 million Americans. That includes nearly 40 million children, 7 million seniors, and 15 million people with disabilities. In my district alone, Medicaid (or Medi-Cal, as we call it), covers nearly one in five people. Across the San Diego region, that number is almost one in three. Medicaid helps working families who don’t get health insurance through their jobs, and it keeps struggling rural hospitals afloat. Medicaid provides treatment for opioid addiction and mental health services for those who need them the most. And let’s not forget: Medicaid is also the largest provider of long-term care in this country.” 

 

He continued, “Look, I believe that work is valuable. It provides stability, dignity, and a path toward opportunity. I also believe deeply that every American who can work should be encouraged and supported in doing so. But time and again, when states have made these cuts, we have not seen increases in employment. But we have seen people lose health coverage, more red tape for doctors, and worse health outcomes.” 

 

And he concluded, “People who should qualify still lose coverage. My constituents—veterans with post-traumatic stress injury, new mothers recovering from childbirth, or people managing chronic conditions often can’t make it through the reporting process in time. My Republican colleagues will point to the bill text and say people with disabilities are clearly exempted. Tragically, it already takes people who are disabled almost 8 months to receive a formal determination from the Social Security Administration. So, this bill would kick disabled people who have health care today off of their coverage. That’s because many of them are covered by the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, which the legislation before us would gut. And even for those who do work — often in low-wage, unstable jobs — these mandates create a penalty for workers. A missed shift, a lost job, or a technical error can trigger a cascade that ends in lost coverage. That’s not promoting work. It’s punishing job loss. When people lose Medicaid, they don’t stop getting sick. They just stop getting preventive care. They end up in the emergency room, often sicker, and often at greater cost to their family and the taxpayers.”  

 

Watch Rep. Peters’ opening statement against the Republican tax plan here.  

Watch Rep. Peters’ remarks on the Republican tax plan’s fossil fuel favoritism here.   

 

CA-50 Medicaid Facts:  

• 156,100 people in the district rely on Medicaid for health coverage—that’s 20 percent of all district residents. 
  • 34,700 children in the district are covered by Medicaid. 
  • 17,700 seniors in the district are covered by Medicaid. 
  • 64,900 adults in the district have Medicaid coverage through Medicaid expansion—that includes pregnant women who are able to access prenatal care sooner because of Medicaid expansion, parents, caretakers, veterans, people with substance use disorder and mental health treatment needs, and people with chronic conditions and disabilities. 
• At least five hospitals in the district had negative operating margins in 2022. These hospitals would be especially hard-hit by cuts to Medicaid. For example: 
  • Scripps Mercy Hospital had a negative 25.3 percent operating margin—and nearly 22 percent of its revenue came from Medicaid. 
  • Sharp Coronado Hospital had a negative 3.5 percent operating margin—and over 36 percent of its revenue came from Medicaid. 
  • University of California San Diego Medical Center had a negative 2.4 percent operating margin—and nearly 19 percent of its revenue came from Medicaid. 
• There are 54 health center delivery sites in the district that serve 529,944 patients. 
• Those health centers and patients rely on Medicaid—statewide, 69 percent of health center patients rely on Medicaid for coverage. 
• Health centers will not be able to stay open and provide the same care that they do today, with more uninsured and underinsured patients. They are already operating on thin margins—in 2023, nationally, nearly half of health centers had negative operating margins. 
• Medicaid cuts put health centers at risk, including: 
  • Family Health Centers of San Diego 
  • Neighborhood Healthcare 
  • North County Health Project 
  • San Diego American Indian Health Centers 
  • St. Vincent De Paul Village 

 

Read Rep. Peters full remarks below:  

 

I want to talk about what’s at stake today. Medicaid covers more than 72 million Americans. That includes nearly 40 million children, 7 million seniors, and 15 million people with disabilities. 

  

In my district alone, Medicaid (or Medi-Cal, as we call it), covers nearly one in five people. Across the San Diego region, that number is almost one in three.   

  

Medicaid helps working families who don’t get health insurance through their jobs, and it keeps struggling rural hospitals afloat. 

  

Medicaid provides treatment for opioid addiction and mental health services for those who need them the most. And let’s not forget: Medicaid is also the largest provider of long-term care in this country. 

  

If you have a loved one who relies on home care or if you have a grandparent in a nursing home, Medicaid is there to make sure they get the care they need. 

 

So, when Republicans propose slashing Medicaid, let’s be clear about what that really means. It means seniors will be kicked out of nursing homes. It means people with disabilities will lose their independence. It means kids will miss critical doctor visits. 

  

We know this because we’ve seen it before. 

  

Let’s look at Arkansas. When the state piloted its Medicaid work requirement, over 18,000 people lost coverage. 

  

Not because they refused to work, but because they struggled to report their hours in a newly created, online-only portal. 

  

The vast majority of these people had jobs. Many more were caring for disabled relatives, recovering from illness, or navigating mental health challenges. The problem is: the work requirement didn’t account for that. 

  

Local doctors and clinics felt the strain almost immediately. Physicians reported longer waits. Patients missed their follow-up appointments. Emergency rooms saw increases in uncompensated care. 

  

It wasn’t just those subject to the mandate who suffered—everyone in the system felt the impact including the elderly, pregnant women, children, and people with disabilities. 

  

Similar results followed when Georgia experimented with its own mandate. The evidence is consistent: Republican policies will increase red tape and cut health care coverage for everyone, but they do not increase employment for “able-bodied” people. 

  

Medicaid is the difference between children getting the medication they need or not. It’s the difference between a working mother affording prenatal care or risking her pregnancy. 

  

It’s the difference between a senior being able to stay in their home or being forced into a nursing facility. 

  

Look, I believe that work is valuable. It provides stability, dignity, and a path toward opportunity. I also believe deeply that every American who can work should be encouraged and supported in doing so. 

  

But time and again, when states have made these cuts, we have not seen increases in employment. But we have seen people lose health coverage, more red tape for doctors, and worse health outcomes. 

  

We’ve heard plenty of arguments today that there are exemptions for the elderly or people with disabilities. 

  

The problem is: in practice, these exemptions are often poorly implemented and difficult to navigate, as is the bill before us. 

  

People who should qualify still lose coverage. My constituents—veterans with post-traumatic stress injury, new mothers recovering from childbirth, or people managing chronic conditions often can’t make it through the reporting process in time. 

  

My Republican colleagues will point to the bill text and say people with disabilities are clearly exempted.  

  

Tragically, it already takes people who are disabled almost 8 months to receive a formal determination from the Social Security Administration. 

  

So, this bill would kick disabled people who have health care today off of their coverage. 

  

That’s because many of them are covered by the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, which the legislation before us would gut. 

  

And even for those who do work—often in low-wage, unstable jobs—these mandates create a penalty for workers. 

  

A missed shift, a lost job, or a technical error can trigger a cascade that ends in lost coverage. That’s not promoting work. It’s punishing job loss. 

  

When people lose Medicaid, they don’t stop getting sick. They just stop getting preventive care. They end up in the emergency room, often sicker, and often at greater cost to their family and the taxpayers. 

  

The evidence is overwhelming: these policies will drastically cut Medicaid funding and take health care away from more than 13 million Americans. 

  

The short-term spending cuts we may see on our balance sheet will be outweighed by downstream costs—in both dollars and American lives. 

  

We can do better than this, I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment. 

###