������Ƶ

Clarification issued on 7/27/2017: Several��Trump administration officials have recently claimed that the�� in Medicaid is not a “cut” ��.” ��ruled this assertion “Mostly False,” as “” As so interpreted, a “cut” applies not only to financial expenditures, but also the number of insured individuals. Thus, this blog has not erred in its reliance on the term “cut(s)” to characterize the GOP’s healthcare bills.��

Healthcare and education are among the most issues in American politics . While they are typically considered distinct issue areas in policy debates, the two are considerably interdependent. Inadequate healthcare implicates an inadequate education. The to repeal and replace the , or Obamacare, illustrate this reality.

Despite ����, earlier this week, on July 25, 2017, GOP Senators to begin repealing and replacing the ACA. They voted despite whether the or version of the healthcare bill would be enacted. Regardless of the ��of the bill they ultimately advance, the disaster wrought on millions of Americans would be .

������ (for instance, the projected rate of Americans to by 2026 under their plan) faces one of the : a projected funding deficit of����in the House version, and ��in the Senate version. The move would have dire for the poor and for disabled Americans, both of whom rely heavily on the federally subsidized healthcare program. It is particularly cruel because the cuts target students receiving —a finding noted by the , , and , amongst other and organizations.

How exactly would cutting so acutely impact students’ special education services? The answer lies in a landmark piece of federal legislation called the . Initially enacted by Congress in 1975 as the , and subsequently renamed in , IDEA formally codified the relationship between disabled peoples’ healthcare and education for the first time. Its core principles state that “all children with disabilities … [must be provided] a����which … [is] designed to meet their unique needs … [for] further education, employment, and independent living” .

Medically “related services” under ��include, among others: general transportation and aid services, educational counseling, vocational rehabilitation, medical diagnostic services, motility services, audiology services, speech-language therapy, physical therapy, mental health therapy, and early identification and diagnostic assessment. Note that early access to treatment is provided through Medicaid’s healthcare coverage benefit. Beneficiaries are entitled to treatment until the age of . This service is arguably the most important, since ��clearly that of is to minimize potential .

Healthcare and education walk hand-in-hand because IDEA compels schools to provide necessary healthcare services for students with special needs. However, Congress is not to ensure IDEA’s “related services” are ever , since it is a . The opposite is true for , a , which is not subject to annual review by the budgetary appropriations process. Worse yet, IDEA places a hard cap of on the amount the federal government may pay each state for its “excess cost” of educating disabled children. In the past 42 years, with exception, Congress has����come close to funding the IDEA maximum. For , it continued to punt the issue by funding only 16 percent ($12 billion) of the excess cost—a 0.70 percent increase from ($11.9 billion) and short of the full-funding commitment by more than 50 percent ($18 billion).

In light of the funding woes above, Medicaid is a necessary and vital bridge to fully fund the IDEA. In 2015, for instance, Medicaid paid more than in school-related healthcare services—a paltry 0.73 percent of the in total Medicaid expenditures that year. Under the current payment scheme, so long as the disabled child is covered by Medicaid, “related services” listed in his are covered. Schools provide the service; Medicaid covers it.

The GOP’s primary proposal—shifting Medicaid reimbursement from a “variable fixed percentage” to a “” basis—. The federal government would for any expense in excess of the cap. States would face the nigh impossible burden of . To compensate, they may cut Medicaid , enrollee benefits, and provider benefits. They may also , impose work requirements, and charge substantial premiums. None of today’s Medicaid enrollees would escape unscathed.

Students and their schools would be the . Since Medicaid expenditures for school-related healthcare services constitute less than of its total costs, states are likely to them write off as “waste”—smaller contributions mean lesser influence. As Center for American Progress has noted, occurred amidst the Great Recession and even in its aftermath. From 2008 to 2012, many states made up as much as of lost state revenue by reducing support for public services, including education, to “balance” the budget. From 2008 to 2016, on higher education than they did before the recession—Arizona and Illinois have hardly recovered, funding less than half of their pre-recession figures. ��

Medicaid cuts have clearly affected schools’ for even basic services, equipment, and essential staff, and the present circumstances are likely to worsen if the GOP’s healthcare bill is passed. They also affect the millions of people whose source of healthcare is Medicaid. For families of children with severe disabilities, such as Down syndrome, the GOP’s proposals will �£�𲹰����� of all such children are from low-to-middle income families, below the federal poverty level. ��The poor are already to attend and graduate from college, to suffer , such as ����, and have reduced . They need more aid, not less.

Healthcare and education are paramount for healthy mental and physical development.��Delaying necessary healthcare funding��would not only be civically and morally irresponsible, it would be irrational. Expanding coverage—not for the most vulnerable—is a clear step in the right direction, and a policy worth advancing.