A plan to impose historic cuts on the federal Medicaid program could lead millions of low-income Californians to lose health care coverage and cause a cascade of negative health and economic impacts across the state, according to analyses authored by UC Berkeley experts.

Almost four in 10 Californians rely on Medi-Cal for their health care, says a report by Miranda Dietz, Nari Rhee and Laurel Lucia at the UC Berkeley Labor Center. 

Before the measure was approved last week in the U.S. House of Representatives, the researchers cited an external study showing that 2.3 million to 3.5 million Medi-Cal recipients could be at risk.

“We know just how important Medi-Cal is for our state, what an integral part of our health care system it is — from the coverage it provides to millions of people, to the support it gives to health care providers and health care workers, and then just the overall impact that those federal dollars have on our economy,” said Dietz. “This would be a major cut that really would impact all of us.”

The budget plan sent to the U.S. Senate for action would impose requirements that most Medicaid recipients hold a job or attend school, and regularly document their work and schooling. 

But most adults receiving Medi-Cal already work or attend school, the Labor Center report says, and the reporting requirements threaten to tangle them in bureaucratic red tape.

The proposed new requirements could lead to confusion, delays — and cancelled coverage.

A cascade of harmful impacts to health and economies

The measure passed last week as part of the Republicans’ “One Big, Beautiful Bill” represents the toughest restrictions ever placed on federal Medicaid programs. 

Reporting requirements would be more demanding, and recipients who don’t meet the requirements would find it more difficult to re-enroll. Fewer recipients would be exempt from the rules.

The Labor Center, a branch of the Berkeley Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, has extensively studied the health, economic and policy aspects of Medi-Cal. Recent research has detailed the impact of potentially massive federal cuts.

The harm would extend beyond recipients: The health of their children also could suffer as families fall deeper into stress. Health care networks could lose essential revenue, especially in rural areas such as the Central Valley, where a high share of residents are enrolled in Medi-Cal. Health facilities might shrink or close. Tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and other health workers could lose their jobs, and the lost income and reduced spending could lead to economic harm throughout those communities.

A separate report by Lucia last month said federal cuts to Medicaid funding could lead over time to the loss of 109,000 to 217,000 health care jobs in California, while reducing state and local tax revenues by up to $1.7 billion.

The Medi-Cal program relies on both state and federal funds, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, is also proposing to scale back some Medi-Cal benefits. But the federal cuts proposed by Republicans would be massive: The most recent estimates by the Congressional Budget Office projected more than $800 billion in cuts over the next 10 years.

The measure requires recipients of federal Medicaid dollars to document 80 hours per month of work, public service or school. Some groups would be exempted — parents of minor children, for example, or people with disabilities, complex medical conditions or substance abuse issues.

But most of the adults at risk of losing health care are already working, the Berkeley authors report. They cite a Kaiser Family Foundation study showing that 63% of adult Medi-Cal recipients hold paying jobs; another 29% can’t work because of family caregiving responsibilities, because they’re in school or because of an illness or disability.

The proposals under negotiation in Washington are intentionally “adding red tape to get people to fall off” the Medicaid rolls, said Dietz. “Requiring people to renew their eligibility every six months rather than every 12 months — that's twice the amount of paperwork, and twice the chance for people to fall off because something gets lost in the mail.”

Cautionary tales: Arkansas, New Hampshire and Georgia

Arkansas and New Hampshire have taken a similar approach in recent years, the authors wrote.

When Arkansas became the first state in the nation to institute work requirements in 2018, some 18,000 adult recipients were knocked off the rolls within six months. A federal judge ended the work requirement in March 2019.

The Berkeley authors wrote that a subsequent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that most people targeted by the Arkansas policy “had never heard of it, were confused about whether it applied to them, or had difficulty accessing assistance related to reporting requirements.”

The New Hampshire program soon met a similar fate.

Georgia in 2023 imposed strict work requirements on Medicaid recipients, and enlisted a vintage-car mechanic to endorse the initiative in a glossy media campaign. Within months, however, the mechanic’s health policy had been cancelled twice by bureaucratic red tape, and the mechanic went public with his frustration.

“Other states’ experiences demonstrate that work requirements do not increase employment among enrollees,” the Labor Center report said. “Instead, their onerous documentation requirements increase administrative costs and reduce enrollment and access to care, including for people who are already working or otherwise should be exempt.

“For policymakers interested in encouraging employment, this reduction in care access is counterproductive: Research shows that access to health care improves individuals’ ability to find and keep jobs.”

The threat to California’s rural communities

Dietz is a senior policy researcher at the Labor Center and a project director for the California Simulation of Insurance Markets initiative. In an interview, she said the consequences of deep Medicaid cuts could be “devastating” in the state’s rural regions.

While 38% of Californians are supported by Medicaid funding, in some parts of the Central Valley more than half of the population is enrolled in Medi-Cal.

That’s also the case in Lake County, where officials have reported 54% of residents are on Medi-Cal.

“Rural hospitals are deeply reliant on Medi-Cal for their funding,” Dietz explained. “If that funding gets cut, or the number of people coming through the door with Medi-Cal goes down, then they have more uncompensated care that they're providing. That would make it harder for them to stay open or shut down services.

“That means that for all of us, that hospital or that particular department would not be available.”

But, Dietz said, if less health care is available for people in need, the implications are clear.

“Very simply, Medicaid saves lives,” she said. “There's good evidence on this now, with economists confirming that if you have comprehensive health insurance coverage, you're more likely to get the care that you need. You're less likely to die.

“So there could be huge impacts for the folks who wind up uninsured as a result of these policies.”

Edward Lempinen writes for the UC Berkeley News Center.

Details

Written by: Edward Lempinen

Published: 27 May 2025

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced Bryan Anguiano is appointed by President Donald Trump to serve as the USDA Rural Development state director for the state of California. 

“When America’s farming communities prosper, the entire nation thrives. This new group of USDA appointees will ensure President Trump’s America First agenda is a reality in rural areas across the country. I am grateful for the leadership of these new state directors and look forward to their work reorienting the agency to put Farmers First again,” said Secretary Rollins.

“California farmers and ranchers feed America, and it’s time we give them the support and service they deserve to make our country strong,” Director Anguiano said. “I am so honored to serve as President Trump’s appointee to USDA Rural Development for the golden state. Together, we’ll work to support rural communities in all corners of California, so they may thrive and be prosperous for generations to come.”

Before being appointed to USDA, Anguiano served as California state director for the Republican National Committee and President Trump’s campaign. 

During his tenure with the RNC, he oversaw the RNC’s investment for four years and three election cycles, including the 2022 midterms, 2024 presidential elections and the California gubernatorial recall.

State directors serve as the chief executive officer of USDA Rural Development in the states and territories and are tasked with leading teams to carry out the mission of Rural Development to the benefit of all rural Americans. 

In conjunction with the guidance and support of the national office, state directors are responsible for advancing the key priorities and initiatives of the presidential administration, the secretary of agriculture and the deputy under secretary for rural development. 

State directors also provide key leadership to foster a mission-driven, accountable, and high-performing workforce focused on operational excellence, public trust, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources.

To learn more about USDA Rural Development’s leadership and programs, view www.rd.usda.gov. 

Details

Written by: LAKE COUNTY NEWS REPORTS

Published: 27 May 2025

U.S. consumer demand for renewable energy continues to grow, with more solar panel capacity installed in 2024 than in 2023, which saw more than in 2022. But U.S. trade policy is in flux, and high tariffs have been imposed on imported solar panels, which may cause shortages.

I am a scholar who studies the Sun, as well as an entrepreneur who is working to harness its power here on Earth by creating new designs for generating solar electricity. As part of that effort, I’ve studied market trends and manufacturing capabilities in the U.S. and abroad. Right now, U.S. manufacturers do not produce enough solar panels to meet the nation’s demand, but industry investments and federal tax incentives have been making progress, though recent federal moves have created uncertainty.

In 2024, U.S. installers put up enough solar panels to generate 50 gigawatts of electricity – enough to power New York City for a year.

U.S. manufacturers made only a small fraction of that – 4.2 GW of solar modules in the first half of 2024. That was a big boost, though – a 75% increase compared with the same period in 2023. And the prices were roughly three times the cost of imports.

A look at recent imports

In 2024, the U.S. imported far more panels than the country needed, suggesting developers may be stockpiling panels for future projects.

Most of those imported panels were made in Asia, particularly Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand. In fact, nearly all of the U.S.-made panels used at least some components from overseas. China currently makes about 97% of the world’s supply of photovoltaic wafers, which are building blocks of solar panels.

The effects of proposed U.S. trade policies on the solar industry remain unclear. Through 2024, manufacturing continued a yearslong ramp-up to take advantage of government policies favoring domestic manufacturing. And imported panels seem slated to suffer from ever-increasing tariffs, which drive up costs.

Domestic production rises

Since 2010, U.S. solar panel production has increased about eightfold. But U.S.-made panels are more expensive than imported alternatives. In 2024, U.S.-made panels typically cost 31 cents per watt, but imported panels, even including tariffs that existed before President Donald Trump’s second term, cost about one-third of that: 11 cents per watt.

But domestic manufacturers are bringing costs down by ramping up production while relying on the government to maintain or increase tariffs on imports, which may make U.S. panels more competitive domestically in the future.

Reliance on overseas sources

Despite that increase in domestic production, U.S. demand for solar panels has grown even faster. To meet demand, the U.S. imports a substantial portion of its solar photovoltaic modules.

Tariffs, including a 30% tariff on solar cells and solar panels starting in 2018, aimed to boost domestic manufacturing.

But those tariffs and falling global prices made solar installations more costly in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. The average global cost of installed solar systems dropped from $1.15 per watt in 2012 to $0.72 per watt in 2016, nearly half that of U.S. installations.

The 2018 tariffs, as well as earlier rounds in 2012 and 2014, have shifted the source of U.S. imports of solar panels – from China and Taiwan to Malaysia and South Korea. Manufacturers are also building solar panels in Singapore and Germany to maintain access to the U.S. market. And Chinese companies are even investing in U.S. solar manufacturers to take advantage of federal incentives and avoid tariffs.

New tariffs emerge

Trump’s proposal for new tariffs on foreign-made solar goods, including panels and components, particularly target Chinese-owned companies in Southeast Asia.

They could include a potential 375% tariff on Thai products – nearly quadrupling prices – and a 3,500% tariff on products from Cambodia.

In contrast, U.S.-made solar panels will be cheaper. But a reduced supply of solar panels will raise prices even of domestic-made panels, at least until U.S. manufacturing can catch up with the demand. Some developers have begun to delay or cancel solar installations to address rising costs.

Domestic investment

Due in large part to the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, enacted in 2022, the U.S. solar panel industry has seen significant investments.

Since the law’s enactment, more than 95 GW of manufacturing capability have been added across the solar supply chain in the U.S., including new facilities that in a year can construct enough solar panels to produce nearly 42 GW, beyond existing manufacturing levels. This growth in manufacturing capabilities is largely located in Texas and Georgia.

Still, the new administration’s shifting priorities and trade policies make the landscape uncertain. Before Trump began discussing various solar-related trade policies, the industry projected it would install an average of 45 GW of solar panels every year for the next decade.

Mojtaba Akhavan-Tafti, Associate Research Scientist, University of Michigan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Details

Written by: Mojtaba Akhavan-Tafti, University of Michigan

Published: 27 May 2025