Health

States Sue Over 25% HHS Cuts Threatening Medicaid and Disease Control

States Sue Over 25% HHS Cuts Threatening Medicaid and Disease Control
healthcare
lawsuit
medicaid
Key Points
  • 19 states and D.C. file federal lawsuit in Rhode Island court
  • MAHA Directive eliminated 25% of HHS workforce since 2023
  • Critical programs for cancer tracking and vaccine distribution dismantled

Attorneys general from 20 jurisdictions launched a landmark legal challenge against sweeping reductions at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The coalition alleges the Make America Healthy Againrestructuring eliminated over 20,000 positions since 2023 - a quarter of the department's workforce - without congressional approval. This includes complete dissolution of teams managing federal poverty guidelines essential for determining Medicaid eligibility.

Regional health crises now emerging reveal the policy's human cost. Rhode Island hospitals reported delayed measles outbreak containment due to reduced CDC staffing, while New Mexico clinics lost maternal mortality tracking systems. Industry analysts note these cuts come as states face record Medicaid enrollment, creating dangerous gaps in safety net coverage verification.

Three critical insights emerge from the restructuring fallout:

  • Rural hospitals now spend 38% more administrative hours verifying patient eligibility
  • Nonprofit health providers report 22% increase in uncompensated care costs
  • Pharmaceutical companies face $900M in delayed clinical trial approvals

The lawsuit specifically targets elimination of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which maintained national standards for cancer risk assessment. With its dissolution, 17 states have lost access to firefighter cancer registry data essential for workers' compensation claims. Mental health advocates warn that SAMHSA staffing reductions coincide with rising opioid overdose rates in Midwestern states.

Legal experts highlight precedent from Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) requiring agencies to maintain congressionally mandated functions. The plaintiffs argue HHS violated this principle by terminating programs protecting vulnerable populations without legislative approval. A favorable ruling could force reinstatement of eliminated services and set limits on executive restructuring powers.