AMAC Action On Capitol Hill

Adding Insult to Injury: CMS Proposes Additional Cuts to Medicare Home Healthcare

By – Andrew Mangione

The hits just keep on coming. AMAC has learned that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has proposed yet another reduction in funding for Medicare home healthcare services. The proposed $58 million cut would reduce access to this vital care for seniors who depend on in-home treatment to manage their chronic medical conditions.

This latest cut is in addition to the approximately $22 billion reduction over 4 years in funding that took effect in January of this year. Home healthcare services include therapeutic and rehabilitative care provided by clinicians and allied healthcare professionals to those Medicare patients who are home bound, usually live in rural areas, are sicker than most of the Medicare population and are aged.

The cuts to Medicare home healthcare are so drastic that even CMS estimated that 40% of the small businesses that provide this care will be out of business by 2017. That means that nearly 5,000 companies and 500,000 jobs could be lost due to these funding reductions. And where will the money that’s being cut from home healthcare go? It will be used to fund subsidies on the Obamacare insurance exchanges and to expand Medicaid.

AMAC has been leading the charge to rescind these cuts since before they became effective and we’ve had numerous meetings with Congressional offices requesting action to restore them. We’ve also rallied AMAC members to raise the narrative on how these cuts affect vulnerable seniors and disproportionately affect women at events across the country.

This is just one outrageous example of how Obamacare is being funded at the expense of seniors and women. AMAC will continue to fight this attack on mature Americans until all the money for Medicare has been restored.

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ivan Berry
7 years ago

As PaulE has indicated, his as well as other comments are germain to this article as well as the earlier one.
It really does appear that this administration has embraced a program of eugenics on steroids.

7 years ago
Reply to  Ivan Berry

Well the entire principle of eugenics, and the culling of so-called “undesirables” or “undesirable traits” from society, was a core value of the early Progressive (Socialist) movement, Many proponents of Progressivism openly embraced and championed it. It wasn’t until the world got a first-hand glimpse of what eugenics was really all about, via Hitler’s and Stalin’s murder of tens of millions in the 1930s through the early 1940s, that Progressives pretended to move away from support of eugenics. Note I say pretended, because Progressives still consider the practice of eliminating so-called “undesirables”, either via abortion or by euthanasia, as a perfectly acceptable way of ridding society of those that Progressives deem “no longer worthwhile” (the elderly) or costly (the unborn and the elderly). Progressives have just wrapped up the whole eugenics message in the so-called “free choices” argument to make it sound more appealing and reasonable to a largely ignorant and apathetic public. It also helps that most Americans are completely illiterate of history outside what has occurred in their own lifetimes or in many cases it seems the last few weeks.

Ivan Berry
7 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

Damn, you’re good, PaulE. You got a knack for saying what I should have said in the first place. Thanks for filling in my short-hand again.

K Brown
7 years ago

The really stupid part of this is that alot of people using home health care will have to go to nursing homes without it. That will cost a lot more than home health care. I think Obama just wants to kill off seniors so he can save all that money in SS and medicare payments. That along with the fact that the majority of seniors are Republican makes it really appealing to knock us off. Also consider the fact that the government will now take a lot more of any inheritance money a senior leaves to his or her family. He changed those rules too. Don’t quote me, but I believe the IRS can now take 50% of any inheritance over $350,000. Another wonderful new Obama law.

Richard Smith
7 years ago

You speak of cut to Medicare for seniors. Just what are the cuts that are proposed?

7 years ago

I posted these comments to another article you put up related to home health care cuts, but they are just as applicable here:

The systematic attack being conducted upon seniors, by attempting to drive the home health care industry out of existence via escalating regulations, reduced care and pharmaceutical choices and reduced reimbursements, is understandable if you look at how this administration and most Democrats view the elderly in this country. The elderly are, for the most part, fiscally conservative people who value their ability to live as independent as possible and to live within their means. They’re used to being able to make their own choices, as opposed to being told how they must live their daily lives. None of this is consistent with the profile of today’s typical Democrat voter. As such, seniors are not very receptive to the Democrat message of “the government is here to take care of you, so we will make all decisions for you”.

Democrats understand that most seniors will vote Republican, unless they fall for the time honored Democrat scare tactic of “the Republicans are going to take your Social Security and Medicare away” lie that’s trotted out each election cycle. That is the only way Democrats can trick seniors into voting Democrat and that is losing its effectiveness as a ploy. Especially as seniors understand more and more of what Obamacare really does to them over time. So when faced with what is still a significant voting block of generally pro-Republican voters, the Democrats are simply looking to “penalize” or eliminate as many of these voters as fast as they can. Harsh? Yes. The truth? Absolutely!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x