The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
What are the new Medicaid work requirements, and are they more lenient or more restrictive than what previously existed?
The Big Beautiful Bill imposes federal work requirements for Medicaid for the first time. Starting January 1, 2027, most able-bodied adults must work, volunteer, or attend school for at least 80 hours per month to maintain coverage. Exemptions apply to seniors over 65, pregnant women, and parents of children under 14—but caregivers of older dependents or those with disabilities may not qualify for exemptions, making the policy more restrictive than prior state-level waivers.
Previously, work requirements were only allowed through state waivers and were often blocked or reversed by courts or federal agencies. The new law nationalizes and tightens these rules, adding complex reporting requirements and frequent verification deadlines. Analysts warn this will likely lead to coverage losses, especially among low-income workers, caregivers, and those facing logistical barriers like unreliable transportation or internet access.
Does Medicaid still cover gender-affirming care? No. The bill bans Medicaid funding for gender transition therapies, including hormone treatments and surgeries.
How does the bill change retroactive Medicaid coverage? The Big Beautiful Bill reduces the retroactive Medicaid coverage window from 90 days to 30 days, significantly limiting the timeframe in which past medical expenses can be reimbursed.
What is retroactive Medicaid coverage? Retroactive coverage allows Medicaid to pay for medical bills incurred up to three months before a person formally applies, as long as they would have qualified during that time. For example, if someone is hospitalized in January but doesn’t apply for Medicaid until March, retroactive eligibility could cover those January and February bills—assuming they met income and asset requirements then.
This provision has historically served as a safety net for low-income individuals facing sudden illness, injury, or hospitalization before they could complete the complex Medicaid application process. By shortening the window to just 30 days, the bill reduces flexibility for patients and providers, and may leave more people with unpaid medical debt during critical health events.
Can states still impose fees or assessments on healthcare providers—like hospitals, nursing homes, or clinics—that help states fund their share of Medicaid costs, and if not, how will this impact costs for Americans?
Under the Big Beautiful Bill, states are prohibited from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing ones. These taxes have historically been levied on hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers, and they have been a key mechanism for states to generate revenue that qualifies for federal Medicaid matching funds. By restricting this tool, the bill limits states’ ability to finance their share of Medicaid, especially during economic downturns or budget shortfalls.
What changes affect the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and how will this impact child care costs for Americans?
The Big Beautiful Bill imposes a series of constraints on CHIP, including a reduction in retroactive coverage from 90 days to 30 days, and a 10-year moratorium on new eligibility and enrollment regulations. It also freezes modernization efforts that would have expanded access and streamlined enrollment for children in low-income families.
Additionally, the bill penalizes expansion states that cover lawfully residing immigrant children under CHIP, potentially forcing up to 17 states to drop coverage or absorb higher costs. These changes could lead to coverage losses, increased administrative burdens, and reduced flexibility for states to respond to child health needs.
While CHIP itself doesn’t directly subsidize child care, its erosion can have indirect financial consequences:
- Families losing CHIP coverage may face higher out-of-pocket medical expenses, reducing disposable income available for child care.
- Children without coverage may experience delayed care or untreated conditions, increasing the need for specialized or emergency child care.
- States may redirect funds from child care subsidies to offset CHIP-related shortfalls, especially in expansion states facing penalties.
In parallel, the Big Beautiful Bill expands dependent care tax credits, raising the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit from 35% to 50% of qualified expenses, and increasing Dependent Care Assistance Plan limits from $5,000 to $7,500. These provisions may offer partial relief to families—but only for those who qualify and can navigate the new tax structures.
How does the bill impact ACA Marketplace subsidies and enrollment?
Special enrollment based on projected income is eliminated. Annual income verification is now required, and repayment caps for excess tax credits are removed.
Can undocumented immigrants access ACA subsidies under the new law?
No. The bill bars undocumented and temporarily documented immigrants from receiving Affordable Care Act tax credits.
What reforms target Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs)?
The bill introduces pricing transparency and regulatory oversight to potentially reduce PBM influence and lower prescription drug costs.
How is Medicare fraud detection enhanced?
$25 million is allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services to deploy artificial intelligence for identifying and recovering improper Medicare payments.
Will Medicare funding be affected by deficit triggers?
Yes. Automatic sequestration provisions could reduce Medicare reimbursements if federal deficit thresholds are exceeded.
What support is provided for rural hospitals?
Closed rural hospitals may reopen under the Rural Emergency Hospital (REH) designation, expanding access in underserved communities.
What is the projected impact on health insurance coverage?
According to the Congressional Budget Office, up to 13.7 million Americans could lose health coverage by 2034, including 7.8 million from Medicaid alone.
How much federal healthcare spending is cut?
The bill reduces direct healthcare reimbursements by an estimated $910 billion over the next decade.
David Nevins is publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.