By Ben Zdencanovic, University of California, Los Angeles

The Medicaid system has emerged as an early target of the Trump administration’s campaign to slash federal spending. A joint federal and state program, Medicaid provides health insurance coverage for more than 72 million people, including low-income Americans and their children and people with disabilities. It also helps foot the bill for long-term care for older people.

In late February 2025, House Republicans advanced a budget proposal that would potentially cut US$880 billion from Medicaid over 10 years. President Donald Trump has backed that House budget despite repeatedly vowing on the campaign trail and during his team’s transition that Medicaid cuts were off the table.

Medicaid covers one-fifth of all Americans at an annual cost that coincidentally also totals about $880 billion, $600 billion of which is funded by the federal government. Economists and public health experts have argued that big Medicaid cuts would lead to fewer Americans getting the health care they need and further strain the low-income families’ finances.

As a historian of social policy, I recently led a team that produced the first comprehensive historical overview of Medi-Cal, California’s statewide Medicaid system. Like the broader Medicaid program, Medi-Cal emerged as a compromise after Democrats failed to achieve their goal of establishing universal health care in the 1930s and 1940s.

Instead, the United States developed its current fragmented health care system, with employer-provided health insurance covering most working-age adults, Medicare covering older Americans, and Medicaid as a safety net for at least some of those left out.

Health care reformers vs. the AMA

Medicaid’s history officially began in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the system into law, along with Medicare. But the seeds for this program were planted in the 1930s and 1940s. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration was implementing its New Deal agenda in the 1930s, many of his advisers hoped to include a national health insurance system as part of the planned Social Security program.

Those efforts failed after a heated debate. The 1935 Social Security Act created the old-age and unemployment insurance systems we have today, with no provisions for health care coverage.

Nevertheless, during and after World War II, liberals and labor unions backed a bill that would have added a health insurance program into Social Security.

Harry Truman assumed the presidency after Roosevelt’s death in 1945. He enthusiastically embraced that legislation, which evolved into the “Truman Plan.” The American Medical Association, a trade group representing most of the nation’s doctors, feared heightened regulation and government control over the medical profession. It lobbied against any form of public health insurance.

During the late 1940s, the AMA poured millions of dollars into a political advertising campaign to defeat Truman’s plan. Instead of mandatory government health insurance, the AMA supported voluntary, private health insurance plans. Private plans such as those offered by Kaiser Permanente had become increasingly popular in the 1940s in the absence of a universal system. Labor unions began to demand them in collective bargaining agreements.

The AMA insisted that these private, employer-provided plans were the “American way,” as opposed to the “compulsion” of a health insurance system operated by the federal government. They referred to universal health care as “socialized medicine” in widely distributed radio commercials and print ads.

In the anticommunist climate of the late 1940s, these tactics proved highly successful at eroding public support for government-provided health care. Efforts to create a system that would have provided everyone with health insurance were soundly defeated by 1950.

JFK and LBJ

Private health insurance plans grew more common throughout the 1950s.

Federal tax incentives, as well as a desire to maintain the loyalty of their professional and blue-collar workers alike, spurred companies and other employers to offer private health insurance as a standard benefit. Healthy, working-age, employed adults – most of whom were white men – increasingly gained private coverage. So did their families, in many cases.

Everyone else – people with low incomes, those who weren’t working and people over 65 – had few options for health care coverage. Then, as now, Americans without private health insurance tended to have more health problems than those who had it, meaning that they also needed more of the health care they struggled to afford.

But this also made them risky and unprofitable for private insurance companies, which typically charged them high premiums or more often declined to cover them at all.

Health care activists saw an opportunity. Veteran health care reformers such as Wilbur Cohen of the Social Security Administration, having lost the battle for universal coverage, envisioned a narrower program of government-funded health care for people over 65 and those with low incomes. Cohen and other reformers reasoned that if these populations could get coverage in a government-provided health insurance program, it might serve as a step toward an eventual universal health care system.

While President John F. Kennedy endorsed these plans, they would not be enacted until Johnson was sworn in following JFK’s assassination. In 1965, Johnson signed a landmark health care bill into law under the umbrella of his “Great Society” agenda, which also included antipoverty programs and civil rights legislation.

That law created Medicare and Medicaid.

From Reagan to Trump

As Medicaid enrollment grew throughout the 1970s and 1980s, conservatives increasingly conflated the program with the stigma of what they dismissed as unearned “welfare.” In the 1970s, California Gov. Ronald Reagan developed his national reputation as a leading figure in the conservative movement in part through his high-profile attempts to cut and privatize Medicaid services in his state.

Upon assuming the presidency in the early 1980s, Reagan slashed federal funding for Medicaid by 18%. The cuts resulted in some 600,000 people who depended on Medicaid suddenly losing their coverage, often with dire consequences.

Medicaid spending has since grown, but the program has been a source of partisan debate ever since.

In the 1990s and 2000s, Republicans attempted to change how Medicaid was funded. Instead of having the federal government match what states were spending at different levels that were based on what the states needed, they proposed a block grant system. That is, the federal government would have contributed a fixed amount to a state’s Medicaid budget, making it easier to constrain the program’s costs and potentially limiting how much health care it could fund.

These efforts failed, but Trump reintroduced that idea during his first term. And block grants are among the ideas House Republicans have floated since Trump’s second term began to achieve the spending cuts they seek.

The ACA’s expansion

The 2010 Affordable Care Act greatly expanded the Medicaid program by extending its coverage to adults with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty line. All but 10 states have joined the Medicaid expansion, which a U.S. Supreme Court ruling made optional.

As of 2023, Medicaid was the country’s largest source of public health insurance, making up 18% of health care expenditures and over half of all spending on long-term care. Medicaid covers nearly 4 in 10 children and 80% of children who live in poverty. Medicaid is a particularly crucial source of coverage for people of color and pregnant women. It also helps pay for low-income people who need skilled nursing and round-the-clock care to live in nursing homes.

In the absence of a universal health care system, Medicaid fills many of the gaps left by private insurance policies for millions of Americans. From Medi-Cal in California to Husky Health in Connecticut, Medicaid is a crucial pillar of the health care system. This makes the proposed House cuts easier said than done.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Ben Zdencanovic, University of California, Los Angeles

Read more:

• GOP lawmakers commit to big spending cuts, putting Medicaid under a spotlight – but trimming the low-income health insurance program would be hard
• Cutting Medicaid and federal programs are among 4 key Trump administration policy changes that could make life harder for disabled people
• From FDR’s food stamps to Trump’s harvest boxes: The history of helping the poor get enough to eat

Ben Zdencanovic does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Feature Image: President Lyndon B. Johnson, left, next to former President Harry S. Truman, signs into law the measure creating Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. AP Photo

The post Trump administration targets Medicaid, a cornerstone of healthcare for millions appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace opens its 2025 enrollment season, offering millions the opportunity to secure or adjust health insurance plans. This year’s opening enrollment is vital, particularly if Donald Trump is re-elected. The twice-impeached former president and MAGA Republicans have vowed to repeal the healthcare law, which would deprive an estimated 40 million Americans of coverage. Under Trump’s plan, millions of individuals with pre-existing conditions would also lose health insurance.

In 2024, approximately 4.2 million Floridians enrolled in an ACA health plan, marking a more than 200% increase from 2020, according to White House data. Florida, one of 10 states that hasn’t expanded Medicaid, is seeing around 823,000 residents lose Medicaid coverage.

More than 418,000 Michigan residents signed up for new health plans through HealthCare.gov—a nearly 30% increase over 2023. In Wisconsin, over 250,000 residents secured ACA coverage, as state officials reported. Meanwhile, 1.26 million Georgia residents enrolled, reflecting a 206% rise from 2020, with about 96% receiving an advanced premium tax credit to help cover premiums.

Maryland also saw a 33% increase in Black enrollees and a 30% increase in Hispanic enrollees. In Virginia, 389,568 residents enrolled, marking a 67% increase since 2020, with 88% receiving advanced premium tax credits to help cover costs. Meanwhile, 11,910 District of Columbia residents enrolled, although enrollment has decreased by 26% since 2020 — about 22% of D.C. enrollees qualified for advanced premium tax credits.

With increased enrollment nationwide, this year’s Marketplace offers more options than ever. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), consumers can choose from a broader array of plans, with benchmark silver plans averaging a 4% premium increase and bronze plans up by 5%. However, enhanced subsidies introduced under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) continue to make coverage affordable, capping monthly premiums at a percentage of income. Most enrollees on HealthCare.gov can find plans for under $10 per month, despite unsubsidized premiums reaching $497 for a 40-year-old on a benchmark silver plan. KFF researchers noted that some states, like Vermont, Alaska, and North Dakota, face double-digit premium hikes, while others, like Louisiana, see decreases in low-cost plans.

Under the Biden-Harris administration, the ACA Marketplace has expanded to include more insurers, with an average of 9.6 participating insurers per state, allowing 97% of Healthcare.gov users to choose from at least three insurers. The range of options includes silver and bronze plans tailored to meet different healthcare needs. Silver plans, which serve as the basis for subsidy calculations, offer a balance of coverage and cost, while bronze plans provide lower premiums but higher deductibles.

Federal funding has also been allocated to ensure continued support for enrollees. The Biden-Harris administration committed $100 million to the Navigator program, providing more resources to help Americans understand and select the best health plan. Enhanced subsidies—initially introduced under the American Rescue Plan Act and extended by the IRA—are set to expire at the end of 2025 unless renewed by Congress. Without renewal, millions would face premium hikes in 2026, with costs doubling in some cases. A young family of four in Pennsylvania earning $125,000 would see an annual increase of $6,448, while a 45-year-old in Wisconsin with a $60,000 income would experience a $1,354 hike.

DACA recipients are eligible for ACA coverage for the first time, with subsidies that help reduce costs. Effective November 1, this new eligibility offers a special enrollment window for an estimated 100,000 DACA recipients despite ongoing litigation. Additionally, states like California and New Mexico are leveraging federal tax credits to reduce deductibles, enhancing affordability for those with lower incomes.

KFF found that further safeguards and protections accompany this year’s enrollment. Stricter fraud protections require brokers to secure consent before making plan changes and respond to complaints about unauthorized plan modifications. Non-ACA-compliant short-term plans are now limited to four months and must display clear disclaimers noting they lack comprehensive health coverage. Similarly, fixed indemnity plans, which pay a set amount for specific medical events but lack ACA protections, now carry required disclaimers.

New network adequacy standards for federal Marketplace plans also ensure timely access to care. Wait times are capped in 2025 at ten business days for behavioral health, 15 days for primary care, and 30 days for non-urgent specialty care. Compliance will be monitored through “secret shoppers” surveys to verify access.

Health officials said the ACA Marketplace’s enrollment success reflects expanded access under the Biden-Harris administration. However, political opposition from Trump and MAGA Republicans threatens these gains.

To register for health insurance for 2025, visit www.Healthcare.gov.

The post ACA marketplace opens with expanded options appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

If you needed long-term care, could you afford it?

For many Americans, especially those with a middle-class income and little savings, the answer to that question is absolutely not.

Nursing homes charge somewhere around US$100,000 a year, while frequent visits from a paid caregiver may set you back more than $5,000 a month. With long-term care so expensive for growing numbers of older Americans, and the federal government doing little to make it accessible, some states are taking matters into their own hands to find better ways to cover costs.

Washington state has gone the furthest so far, but the future of its innovative program is not ensured. In November 2024, the state’s citizens will vote on whether to make paying the program tax voluntary, which would essentially make it financially unworkable.

I’ve spent the past few years as part of a team of four scholars examining the solutions that Washington and three other states have come up with to help the middle class pay for long-term care.

No one to foot the bill

As more Americans require long-term care, many of them are belatedly discovering they have few, if any, ways to pay for it. Some are surprised to learn that Medicare, which provides Americans over 65 with health insurance, largely doesn’t cover long-term care.

Medicaid, the government’s health insurance program for low-income Americans, does provide long-term care coverage, but only if someone already is low income or if they spend down their savings and then qualify for support.

About 7.2 million people over age 65 have Medicaid coverage, while a slightly higher number, roughly 7.5 million, have long-term care insurance coverage through a private insurer. Private long-term care insurance premiums for women in their mid-50s, for example, can cost nearly $1,500 a year. And that’s on top of what someone is already spending on their health insurance. For someone older, their premium would be higher – about $2,700 per year for a woman buying a policy at age 65.

That leaves out at least 43 million people over 65, about 75% of Americans in their golden years, who would be stuck footing the bill should they require assisted living, in-home nursing or round-the-clock care in a nursing home.

This system isn’t working for anyone. It provides low-quality care that’s delivered by low-paid workers, and it can put pressure on family caregivers to make do without outside help.

Trying to fill the void

There’s been relatively little progress made toward making long-term care more affordable during the Biden administration, aside from some pandemic-related supplemental payments for providers that have now ended. More recently there has been federal action in support of family caregivers.

Many states searching for solutions are looking at social insurance models as a promising approach. That is, they want to establish a universal program administered by state governments to make long-term care more affordable and accessible to the largest number of people possible.

Social Security offers a good model for these programs: People would pay into a fund during their working years through a payroll tax.

If those taxpayers should need long-term care later in life, they would have at least some guaranteed coverage.

Leading for now

Washington state is by far the furthest along in creating a new long-term care social insurance program, called the WA Cares Fund.
That program began collecting a 0.58% tax out of residents’ paychecks in July 2023 – or 58 cents out of every $100 earned.

Benefits are slated to begin to be paid out in 2026 and would total up to $36,500 in a taxpayer’s lifetime. Only people paying into the fund will be eligible – the benefits are not available for a taxpayer’s spouse, children or other dependents who aren’t in the workforce.

The benefits will help many people who need long-term care, but they will clearly not cover all costs for everyone, particularly those who need extensive care in a nursing facility for more than a few months. It should also help family caregivers by enabling people to purchase paid care to supplement their own efforts.

Introducing a new tax and using that revenue to fund a new program surely sounds practical. It’s not clear, however, whether the state’s strategy is going to work out.

Washington’s innovative and supportive program is already under fire: A measure before the state’s voters in the November 2024 elections would make paying the long-term care tax optional for everyone instead of mandatory with a few exemptions.

The group Let’s Go Washington, funded by hedge fund executive Brian Heywood, is trying to eliminate WA Cares by making it voluntary.

That would undermine the program’s financial stability, making it unworkable. And Washington state might have to start over.

I’m very pessimistic about the potential for a voluntary approach because there’s a precedent. A federal long-term care program created through the CLASS Plan, an offshoot of the Affordable Care Act, was voluntary. The law was repealed in early 2013 without even completing a pilot program.

Moving forward cautiously

California, Massachusetts and Minnesota, meanwhile, are in exploratory stages to see what might work best for them.

California has already started helping people access long-term care by expanding eligibility for Medicaid. Minnesota is trying to make private insurance for long-term care more affordable. Massachusetts has recently funded a study to look at the costs and benefits of alternative social insurance approaches.

All three are doing actuarial studies, which apply mathematical and statistical methods to assess different populations and examine the costs and benefits of different program possibilities.

These studies aim to see what trade-offs might need to be made to keep a state-run, long-term care insurance program affordable and politically tenable.

The four states have been working for upward of a decade on the issue, indicating that the road to long-term care financing reform is both bumpy and full of detours. Anyone trying to solve this problem must be ready to stick it out.

Given how much is at stake for millions of retiring Americans, it is a journey worth making. The problem is not going away and will only grow to be more challenging if not addressed sooner rather than later.

Allison Cook, Sally Oh and Grant Williams at MIT’s Community Innovators Lab (CoLab) contributed to this research.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Marc Cohen, UMass Boston

Read more:

• As life expectancies rise, so are expectations for healthy aging
• Cost of getting sick for older people of color is 25% higher than for white Americans – new research
• Where the government draws the line for Medicaid coverage leaves out many older Americans who may need help paying for medical and long-term care bills – new research

I have provided expertise to Washington State during the WA Cares program development phase and consulted to the state on issues related to program implementation;

The post States seek solutions for long-term care appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

As a caregiver the responsibility of placing a loved one into a facility is a major decision not to be taken lightly. The decision to place a loved one into care has an emotional and economic impact. What the caregiver has to determine is your parent struggling to live alone in their home? The family or agencies that support your loved one may notice significant memory challenges, or their inability to manage the day-to-day creating a concern about their safety and care living at home. Now the emotion and family conversation occur about what and how do we support mom, dad, and/or spouse? The moment the need for additional care becomes the moment a series of questions need to be addressed by family while getting outside support to manage the best decision possible.

The questions are finding a long-term care home for your loved one. Where do you begin? The questions are complicated especially for Black and Hispanic families who do not typically place their family in care. “Health care utilization and, in particular, nursing home use varies by race and ethnicity. Blacks and Hispanics are less likely than Whites to use nursing home care despite having a greater need. Therefore, Blacks’ and Hispanics’ lower use is likely due to factors above and beyond need,” reports the Claude Pepper Center in 2021. Yet, as Black families are now 15% and Hispanics are 6% to those of Whites that are 75% in care. The fact is people of color placing their family members in care is on the rise yet still small enough to encounter inequities in healthcare. So, what are your options?

The next step is to contact an agency that can address some of the questions a family may have to make the best decision for their loved one and all concerned.

Locally serving the Cincinnati area your local long-term care ombudsman can help. Located within the nonprofit organization Pro Seniors, the ombudsman office can provide advice for the five-county area in Southwest Ohio—Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, and Warren counties. Visit our website www.proseniors.org (Home Options – How to Select) or call 513-458-5518 to set an appointment to speak with an ombudsman specialist at Pro Seniors.

When you speak to the ombudsman, they will help educate you on available online search tools to narrow your options, key questions about quality of care and quality of life, understanding levels of care, and how to pay for long-term care. As part of a nonprofit and part of the state and federal Long-Term Care Ombudsman program, we do not charge for our services, and they do not receive commissions or other payments from long-term care providers for our advice.

Dementia and the African American community

African Americans are often at higher risk for Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia, which can result in someone entering assisted living or nursing home care. Among Black Americans age 70+, 21.3% are living with Alzheimer’s high blood pressure is thought to be a contributing factor. “While older Black Americans are twice as likely as older Whites to have Alzheimer’s or another dementia, research hasn’t yet identified the cause. Higher cardiovascular (heart and blood vessels) disease rates may play a role. Some studies indicate that after correcting for overall health and socioeconomic status, these differences disappear.” (source: Alz.org)

Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to place their family members into care. As a caregiver, I elected not to place my mom into care unless for a short time such as respite or recovery when needed. In my experience the family member has to weigh what they can manage emotionally and financially when making these care decisions. It is important to note that all facilities are not equal, and many considerations need to be considered such as staff-to-patient ratios and the quality of time given to each patient. No matter if you place a loved one into a facility it is still necessary to manage their care strategically and daily.

One of the first decisions in choosing care is understanding the level of care needed. Memory care services can be offered in an assisted living setting or a nursing home level of care. Is help needed with showering, toileting, eating, dressing, walking, transferring to or from the bed, wheelchair, toilet, or taking medications? These are known as Activities for Daily Living (ADL). With one or two ADLs assisted living might be an appropriate level of care, but with three or more ADLs it’s likely a nursing home level of care is needed.

Next, your ombudsman can point you to public information about the past performance of a provider and show you how to compare based on your loved one’s needs. Those providers that hold themselves out as specifically providing “memory care” must meet certain state requirements as a certified memory care provider. In assisted living, for example, these include:

• Single-occupancy resident unit.

• At least three therapeutic, social, or recreational activities a day for individuals designed to meet individuals’ needs and preferences.

• Ensuring safe access to outdoor space for individuals.

• A sufficient number (20% greater than standard assisted living) of registered nurses (RN), or licensed practical nurses under the direction of an RN, on call or on site at all times for individuals receiving memory care.

A nursing or assisted living home visit is an essential next step. The ombudsman will arm you with key questions to ask. Visit in the evenings or weekends, when staffing is sometimes lighter. Observe how the staff treat the residents. Are the floors clean? Any unpleasant smells? Is there a calendar posted with resident activities for every day of the week? Visit during mealtime. How does the food look and smell? How responsive is the staff to call bells and requests for help? Don’t be afraid to approach residents in a common area and ask them about their living experience at this home. Remember, there is still bias in healthcare. National Institutes of Health (NIH) conducted research and “uncovered racial disparities in nursing home care, possibly due to unconscious bias, systemic issues, and other circumstances. These inequalities present a serious public health problem that deserves attention.

“The consensus from the existing literature is that minority [residents] do not receive nursing home care of comparable quality to white [residents].”— National Institutes of Health (NIH)

The actions of the family and caregiver are profound when making healthcare decisions. Here are some helpful tips when considering transitioning anyone into a facility:

1. How many aides to patient ratio. How many aides are on staff for every patient for all three shifts to accommodate patient care.

2. How often are patients bathed, cleaned, or assisted in hygiene functions.

3. What is the racial makeup of the facility, patients, and workers.

4.How many full-time aides to temporary aides, nursing staff are within the facility.

5. Have there been incidents of unsafe actions that led to harm to patients or a lack of safety in their environment?

6. What are the facilities safety and maintenance protocols. Unclean rooms and areas can lead to health problems.

7. How often does the doctor visit the facility? What is the turnaround time on labs, medicines, and return phone calls to families?

8. If a family has its own services, how can the family opt out of certain services that may have a price tag attached?

9. Review the payment structure and who is responsible for what bills such as private pay versus Medicare/Medicare or insurance.

10. Before you choose a facility, assess the asset transfer. Review the 5-year Medicaid asset transfer and the exceptions to the Look-Back period.

When placing someone into a facility do your due diligence. Pro Seniors is one step to answering some of the important questions all families need. For more information on how to select long-term care, visit our website (www.prosenior.org/LTCO/Home-Options) or call 513-458-5518 to set an appointment with an ombudsman.

The post Choosing long-term care appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Peter Osborne

Herald Contributor

Congressman Greg Landsman, during a recent regional youth mental health forum that he co-hosted with Beech Acres Parenting Center, announced that he has formally asked Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra to evaluate Medicaid coverage for mental health prevention, screening and family services, while also studying ways to increase access to prevention and early intervention services for children and adolescents who may display mental health concerns but do not yet have a diagnosis, effectively preventing their care.

“Our young people are struggling, and their mental health issues have become a community crisis,” Landsman said. “Today, in partnership with local mental health leaders, we’ve sent a letter to Secretary Xavier Becerra urging the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to pursue every opportunity to improve access to mental health services and supports. Only through broad and diverse coalitions involving local and federal partners can we get our young people the support they need.”

Landsman’s request was announced in connection with a regional youth mental health forum, attended by leading experts from hospitals and other providers, government leaders, schools, nonprofit agencies and funders. He noted a growing shortage of mental health professionals and the need to offer robust screenings, prevention and support through schools and community organizations to help children before they reach a crisis point.

Laura Mitchell, president and CEO of Beech Acres Parenting Center, praised this request of Secretary Becerra and urged mental health providers to join Congressman Landsman in advocating for funding that will address prevention.

“Expanded emphasis on early prevention and early diagnosis could make a huge difference now, and later in the lives of our children,” Mitchell said. “We need these services, and yet there is not enough work being done to increase proactive support for mental health in Ohio or the U.S. While improving capacity and treatment options are also important, we need to be doing it all to help our children, including innovative prevention strategies.”

Carrie Bunger, Ph.D., Beech Acres vice president of effective school solutions, expressed concern about access to care.

“In Ohio, Medicaid eligible kids can’t even access care without a mental health diagnosis.” Bunger reported. “That means that we’re giving 3-, 4- and 5-year-olds a potentially stigmatizing diagnosis, just so we can help them develop strong coping skills at a critical developmental age. With greater access to prevention dollars, we could empower families, teachers and communities to build resilience before the crisis happens.”

During the forum, Mitchell and Landsman also urged cross sector collaboration to address the ongoing mental health crisis in children, with experts in housing, employment, poverty, education and other critical sectors joining forces with mental health professionals to generate the greatest possible benefit for young people at the center of this crisis.

The post Landsman’s request for Medicaid funding for preventative mental health care earns praise appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

Provided

The Biden-Harris Administration will open a Special Enrollment Period for Americans to sign up for health coverage and roll back attacks on the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, and access to reproductive health care

After four years of attempts to strip health care from millions of Americans, President Biden will sign two executive actions that will begin to restore and strengthen Americans’ access to quality, affordable health care. The Biden-Harris administration will re-open enrollment to the Health Insurance Marketplace, take additional steps to strengthen Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, and protect women’s health. These actions demonstrate a strong commitment by the Biden-Harris Administration to protect and build on the Affordable Care Act, meet the health care needs created by the pandemic, reduce health care costs, protect access to reproductive health care, and make our health care system easier to navigate and more equitable.

The post President Biden to Sign Executive Orders Strengthening Americans’ Access to Quality, Affordable Health Care appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

It is critically important that emergency departments keep their focus on treating COVID’19 patients. If you are new or established patient experiencing dental problems, Cincinnati Health Department centers are providing emergency dental care through coordinated walk-in and virtual visits.

For your safety, CHD is encouraging all patients to call any of our three available locations first for a telephone or video call evaluation. In case an office visit is necessary, you will be immediately contacted to schedule an appointment. You can also reach CHD’s on-call dental provider after office hours at 1 866 485-0271. 

Call these centers: Bobbie Sterne, (513) 352-2927; Crest Smile Shoppe, (513) 352-4072; and Millvale, (513) 3196. Monday – Thursday: 7 a.m. – 5 p.m.; Friday: 7 a.m, 1 p.m.      

CHD accepts Medicaid and most major private insurances, and offer income based fees for patients without insurance.

The post Cincinnati Health has three dental centers open appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .