-snap-wic-grocery-shopping-food-cpi.webp?height=700&t=1760638169&width=800)
House Republican budget reconciliation proposals would make historic cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid that could have a substantial impact on rural communities, advocates warn.
Anti-hunger and rural health groups have been rallying against potential cuts to SNAP and Medicaid since the beginning of the reconciliation process. Now that committees have put proposals on paper, their full impact is more measurable.
The House Agriculture Committee aims to cut $290 billion, nearly 30%, of SNAP costs in the next 10 years.
Anti-hunger groups warn that the bill could threaten SNAP entirely in some states.
"The order of magnitude of people who would be cut off SNAP entirely is millions. The order of magnitude of people who would see a reduction in benefits, either right away or in the future, is millions," said Katie Bergh, food assistance policy analyst at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. "Added together, this would be the single largest cut to food assistance in history, if it was enacted."
One cost-saving measure would prevent future benefit increases through adjustments in the Thrifty Food Plan, which is based on food costs. In 2024 about 41 million people used SNAP, which offers about $6.16 per day in benefits.
“Preventing future benefit increases will result in outdated benefits and prevent recipients from keeping pace with the rising costs associated with maintaining a healthy diet,” wrote Kyle Ross, policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, in an article about the cuts.
Perhaps the most controversial measure in the bill would shift some SNAP costs to the states for the first time. Currently, the federal government is responsible for 100% of program costs.
The House Agriculture Committee bill suggests moving some of the costs to states starting in 2028, with the full amount of the cost-share determined by state SNAP error rates.
Under the proposal, all states would start at a 5% cost-share. States with error rates between 6% and 8% will have to contribute 15% of the cost. States with 8% to 10% error rates will have to pitch in 20%, and states with error rates 10% or higher will be responsible for 25% of the match.
States have already warned Congress that they may be unable to absorb costs, which could result in benefit cuts or eligibility restrictions. The costs could be so untenable for some states that they opt out of the program entirely, according to the CBPP.
“We don't have those dollars here at the state to do that, and that means we'll have to decide which people will get benefits. I don't think we can make that choice. We shouldn’t have to make that choice,” said Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek in a call with Senate Democrats Tuesday.
Tina Kotek (Photo: National Governors Association)The CAP article also notes that SNAP error rates do not necessarily track fraud. Instead, they are often a result of unintentional clerical errors.
House Republicans often point to Alaska’s most recent SNAP error rates as proof states need to take more responsibility for costs, and that not all states should be penalized equally. In FY 2023, Alaska had a 60.37% error rate, far above the national average of 11.68%.
This error rate was caused in part by state officials misinterpreting a federal policy they thought allowed them to extend eligibility recertification, according to local media. When the state fixed the issue, it caused a backlog of SNAP applications. Alaska then reversed course to clear the backlog and ensure people did not lose benefits.
USDA already has a system in place to penalize states with persistently high error rates. States are required to correct payment errors and in some cases are subject to a fine. Instead of paying the entire fine, states could opt to reinvest half of the amount into improving their administrative efforts. This has been effective in the past at helping states dramatically reduce error rates.
The House bill also proposes increasing state shares of administrative costs from 50% to 75%.
Some fear the added cost would derail plans to improve SNAP administration or limit resources to improve error rates. It could also overwhelm state budgets, particularly in times of increased economic hardship when SNAP participation rises as state revenue falls, CAP's Ross wrote.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here
The reconciliation proposal lowers the threshold of what is considered an error. It also eliminates some administrative simplification and requires calculating utility costs for households, all of which increase administrative burden for states and create more chance of error.
“All of these incentives for states kind of align in one direction, and that is erecting as many barriers as possible to make it much, much harder for eligible, low-income people to access the food assistance that they need,” said Bergh.
Work requirements could kick millions off SNAP
A proposal to expand work requirements, anti-hunger groups say, don’t boost employment and instead would cut benefits for participants.
The proposal would increase the age at which able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) must work from 54 to 64 and change the definition of dependent child from under 18 to under 7.
CBPP estimates that the work requirement proposals could put 6 million adults at risk of being cut off and could reduce benefits for over 4 million kids aged 7 to 17 who live with them.
Bergh said this includes 1.4 million childless, nondisabled people aged 55 through 64 and more than 3 million who parents or grandparents living in households with school-age children. It also covers about 1.6 million in areas that now qualify for waivers due to labor market conditions.
While work requirements, state-cost share and TFP restrictions are the main proposals, smaller provisions would immediately cut benefits for some.
The bill restricts SNAP benefits for noncitizens who are not lawful permanent residents, including refugees and asylum seekers, according to CBPP. In 2023, 434,000 refugees and asylees participated.
Democrats were likely to pressure Republicans today during the second part of the committee markup. One area they may emphasize is the importance of SNAP to rural economies.
Jamie Bussel, senior program officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said people spend their SNAP dollars at local farmers markets and stores, and the program can help grow jobs and lower health care costs. Spending $1 billion on SNAP supports over 13,000 jobs and creates $32 million in farm income, she said.
“This really is about rural America as well, and the budget cuts … are going to deepen inequality and weaken the foundation of local economies and our public health systems,” Bussel said.
Jamie Bussel (photo by RWJF)Medicaid cuts could hit rural communities
The House Energy and Commerce Committee released its portion of reconciliation and began markup Tuesday afternoon.
The committee was told to cut $880 billion. An early estimate from the Congressional Budget Office says the plan would reduce the deficit by $912 billion between 2025 and 2034.
At least $715 billion of the savings would come from Medicaid, according to CBO. This could lead to 8.6 million people becoming uninsured by 2034.
Rural health advocates have warned cuts to Medicaid would have an outsized impact on rural communities and hospitals.
Rural areas tend to rely on Medicaid for coverage more than urban residents, said Alexa McKinley Abel, government affairs and policy director of the National Rural Health Association. Public payers like Medicaid make up a large share of rural hospital services.
“Drastic cuts, such as those proposed by the Energy and Commerce Committee, will force many rural facilities to reduce or cut service lines or close their doors entirely, impacting access to care for everyone who lives in in the community,” Abel said in a statement.
The bill proposes work requirements for Medicaid recipients between 19 and 64 without dependents. They would be required to work, volunteer or attend school for 80 hours a month.
The bill also requires states to check eligibility every six months rather than every 12 months.
House Republicans did leave out some other big measures, including a change in the federal match rate for Medicaid expansion and a proposal placing caps on how much the federal government would spend per Medicaid enrollee in a state’s expansion program.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
