Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Decision Will Fuel the “Disuniting” of the United States and the Unraveling of American Democracy

Trump’s Denaturalization Push and the Erosion of Legal Immigration

Trump’s Denaturalization Push and the Erosion of Legal Immigration

After Callais: The Amendment Agenda the Framers Built

After Callais: The Amendment Agenda the Framers Built

Judicial Courage?

Judicial Courage?

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell sitting with his hands folded in front of him.

Why the Decision Not to Prosecute Jerome Powell Damages Democracy

Has Medicaid expansion in states improved health outcomes?

Protestors call for health care beneifts

People demonstrate in support of health care in 2017 in Montana, which expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

William Campbell-Corbis via Getty Images
Keshav Srikant
By Keshav SrikantJun 25, 2024
Keshav Srikant
Keshav Srikant, EconoFact is a contributor for The Fulcrum, a nonpartisan publication dedicated to strengthening democracy by fostering informed civic engagement and elevating diverse perspectives.
See More Writings by author

This fact brief was originally published by EconoFact. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.

Has Medicaid expansion in states improved health outcomes?

Yes.

Studies have shown that Medicaid expansion in states does lead to improved health outcomes.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to reduce the number of uninsured Americans through federal government subsidies of Medicaid coverage expansion. This Medicaid expansion was made optional to states, and as of May 2024 there were 10 U.S. states that had not yet implemented it. A study comparing outcomes of expansion vs. non-expansion states found a significant reduction in mortality in states that expanded Medicaid.

Individuals aged 55 to 64 with either less than a high school degree or income under the threshold (138 percent of the federal poverty level) experienced a 9.4 percent drop in mortality after expansion as compared to non-expansion states. Furthermore, research on states that already expanded Medicaid found no clear change in overall spending from state funds due to offsetting savings in health care costs.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

KFF Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions: Interactive Map

EconoFact Impact of Medicaid Expansion on State Budgets and Mortality


Latest news

Congressional Record: Capitol Hill’s Bipartisan Concert Starring Musical Congress Members
Bridging & Common Ground

Congressional Record: Capitol Hill’s Bipartisan Concert Starring Musical Congress Members

Preschool children playing with colorful shapes
Governance & Legislation

America Keeps Turning Its Back on Childcare; Families are Paying the Price.

Six Emerging Journalists Selected as 2026 Summer Fulcrum Fellows

Six Emerging Journalists Selected as 2026 Summer Fulcrum Fellows

Medicaid Cuts Could Threaten Key Student Services at IL Schools
Health

Medicaid Cuts Could Threaten Key Student Services at IL Schools

Read More

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime
Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026