This statement can be attributed to Wendy Cervantes, director of Immigration and Immigrant Families at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
August 21, 2025, Washington, D.C.,—On Monday, August 25, a Trump Administration rule will go into effect that strips health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) from Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients. This comes at a time when DACA recipients and their families face harsh immigrant enforcement actions and increased barriers to basic needs programs.
Due to the persistent advocacy of CLASP, immigrant leaders, and other organizations, the Biden Administration issued a rule that allowed individuals with DACA to purchase health coverage through the ACA Marketplace starting on November 1, 2024—after more than a decade of being wrongfully denied such coverage. With access to health insurance, DACA recipients have been able to build healthier, more stable lives for themselves and their families.
A 2024 survey found that DACA recipients were nearly three times more likely to be unsinured than U.S. citizens. Removing access to ACA coverage will leave thousands of DACA recipients without anywhere else to turn for affordable health coverage. This rule will not only impact DACA recipients, but also the children in their households who benefit when their parents are healthy and are more likely to have access to health care themselves when their parents do. Nearly a third of DACA recipients are parents, according to a 2023 survey.
The end of health coverage for DACA recipients comes as the DACA program itself faces an uncertain future and families across the country are beginning to feel the devastating effects of Trump’s budget reconciliation bill, including cuts to health care coverage, food assistance, and other programs that help keep children and families out of poverty. With tax cuts for billionaires and the largest budget in U.S. history for immigrant detention and deportation, it is clear that the administration’s strategy of gutting basic needs resources for individuals and families has nothing to do with cost savings—it’s about cruelty.
CLASP firmly condemns this rule that will deny thousands of parents, breadwinners, entrepreneurs, and students the hard-won and short-lived lifeline of access to affordable health coverage. As members of Congress prepare to return to Washington in just a few weeks, we urge them to finally deliver on a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients and other immigrant youth, and invest in solutions that ensure all parents and children can lead healthy lives with dignity.
By Suzanne Wikle
Access to health insurance and health care has never been a right in this country. There has always been a division between those that are considered “worthy” and those that are not, mostly along wealth and racial lines. The recent political conversations about Medicaid unfortunately reinforce this division.
When policy makers debate eligibility criteria for Medicaid and other programs, they are really making a value statement about who deserves health care, food, or any other assistance. The new Medicaid rules, which will go into effect for the Medicaid expansion population in most states in 2027, make strong statements about who is worthy of Medicaid and who is not.
The recent bill pushed by President Trump and passed by Republicans in Congress on razor-thin margins cuts over $800 billion from Medicaid—“saving” money by causing people to lose their health insurance. One of the primary ways the bill does this is by changing eligibility for Medicaid and attaching a “work requirement” for the 20 million people who are eligible for the Medicaid expansion program in their state. More than 10 million people are expected to lose their Medicaid insurance as a result of this Republican-led legislation.
About half of people in the country have health insurance through their job, so it may seem like a natural step to attach Medicaid insurance to employment. Nothing could be further from the truth. This fundamental change in Medicaid eligibility undermines the intent of Medicaid and a large portion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), puts lives at risk, and ultimately declares with more clarity than ever who is deemed worthy of health insurance and who is not. A core vision of the ACA was to provide a pathway to affordable health insurance outside of employment. This meant creating affordable options for people who owned small businesses, retired early, don’t have employer-provided insurance, or aren’t employed.
In practice, the new Medicaid law draws arbitrary lines that determine eligibility. For example:
If you’re a parent with a low income and a child under age 13, you are worthy of Medicaid for your health insurance. If you’re a parent with a low income and your child is 14 or older, you’re not worthy unless you’re working at least 80 hours a month.
If you’re a waitress earning a low income and working at least 80 hours a month, you’re worthy. But if you get sick and need a few days off, you’ve worked less than 80 hours that month and are no longer worthy.
If you work for a landscaping company and work at least 80 hours per month during the busy seasons, you’re worthy of Medicaid. But if there’s a particularly rainy month or cold snap and your hours are cut below the threshold set by Congress, you are no longer worthy.
If you’re working in the gig economy to pay your bills and you are able to prove at least 80 hours of work per month, you are worthy and eligible. But if business slows down, your care is getting repaired for a few days, or you simply can’t produce the right documentation, you may not be worthy.
If you’re able to navigate the complex paperwork requirements to prove your work hours, then you’re eligible. But if you can’t navigate the system or you don’t have adequate internet access to upload your documents, you’re not worthy enough.
It’s not a coincidence that large racial inequities exist in health insurance rates. Systemic racism and states choosing not to expand Medicaid are two major reasons behind the disparities. In 2023, for adults ages 19-64 (the Medicaid expansion age range), white and Asian Americans had uninsurance rates of 7 percent and 6 percent, respectively. All other racial and ethnic groups had uninsurance rates at least double those: 23 percent for Hispanics, 12 percent for Black people, 21 percent for American Indian and Alaskan Natives, and 15 percent for Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders.
Medicaid disenrollments due to work reporting requirements, like other administrative burdens, will exacerbate these inequities. People of color are disproportionately insured by Medicaid and will disproportionately be harmed by additional red tape.
The ACA took many steps toward righting these wrongs and ensuring access to health insurance for everyone. It created a marketplace where people can get subsidies to purchase insurance that is required to cover essential health benefits. The ACA also expanded Medicaid to those with the lowest incomes—under 138 percent of the poverty line, or $36,777 per year for a family of three.
Collectively, the three pillars of the ACA—employer-based insurance, marketplace insurance, and Medicaid—should have provided affordable health care to nearly everyone. When the Supreme Court ruled Medicaid expansion as a decision left to states, that core pillar of the ACA was cracked because it wouldn’t be part of the health insurance landscape in many states. Ten states are still refusing billions in federal dollars to expand their Medicaid program.
What Congressional Republicans and President Trump have done in 2025 is another significant blow to Medicaid. Tying eligibility for Medicaid expansion population to proving work hours will have one outcome: people will lose their health insurance. People won’t lose their insurance because they aren’t working; most people are working, or caring for someone else, or will meet another exemption. The evidence from other programs is crystal clear: this is a red tape and bureaucratic hurdle created to deter people from applying or making it too difficult to complete the application process. This is not about promoting work and will not increase employment.
A Medicaid work reporting requirement also means that Medicaid will no longer be the safety net that someone can turn to when they lose their job. For those of us that receive health insurance through our employer, a job loss also means a loss of health insurance. For many in this position, keeping their insurance through COBRA is unaffordable. If they live in a Medicaid expansion state and their income drops below 138 percent of poverty, they have access to Medicaid.
During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic when millions of people lost their jobs, Medicaid was there for them. People who lost their jobs or were furloughed were 70 percent less likely to become uninsured if they lived in a Medicaid expansion state. Under the new eligibility rules mandating a work reporting requirement, people won’t have Medicaid to turn to when they are suddenly unemployed.
These decisions have real-life consequences. People will lose their health insurance, which will cause them to forgo medical care and accrue medical debt; and some people will die. Millions of others will live far below the level of dignity they could have if they were guaranteed access to health care.
Health insurance and health care access are policy decisions. CLASP strongly disagrees with the policy decisions of those who supported H.R. 1 and will continue to advocate for health care to be a basic human right for all.
By Kaelin Rapport and Isha Weerasinghe
In the United States, fear around mental health conditions experienced by people of color exacerbates violence against individuals experiencing mental health crises. On both the individual and systemic level, this violence stems from decades of racist policies that criminalize mental illness, reinforce negative stereotypes about mental and behavioral responses to poverty and discrimination among racial minorities, and shift responsibility for culturally responsive, non-threatening mental health treatment to under-resourced communities.
This statement can be attributed to Isha Weerasinghe, Director of Public Benefits Justice at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Washington, D.C., July 1, 2025—The budget reconciliation bill passed today by the Senate on a vote of 51-50, with Vice-President Vance casting the tie-breaking vote, will cause significant harm to millions of children and families, all for the sake of providing more tax breaks for the wealthy. The bill includes substantially more funds to accelerate the devastating immigration enforcement actions that are tearing families apart and undermining the safety and well-being of vulnerable children, including those who are U.S. citizens and asylum seekers.
The Senate’s version of the bill contains deeper cuts to Medicaid than the version passed by the House last month, excludes many lawfully present immigrants from eligibility, and expands the House’s work requirement to include some parents, which will cause millions more people to lose health insurance. This means that children and seniors, along with millions of middle-class and working families, people who need long-term care, and those who live in nursing homes will be at risk of losing their health insurance. An estimated 17 million people will lose health insurance, and 8 million people will be at risk for losing food assistance–in the same bill that gives tax breaks to billionaires and corporations.
In addition to these harmful Medicaid cuts, the bill also adds dangerous provisions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that will restrict access, tighten eligibility, and shift major costs from the federal government to states, potentially forcing them to end their SNAP programs entirely. This represents a major threat to the health care and food assistance that millions of families depend on for their health, well-being, and stability. The bill also denies immigrants key federal benefits like Medicaid and SNAP that they contribute to, and creates barriers for them to apply for legal or permanent status by raising fees.
The bill will also cut off access to the Child Tax Credit for an estimated 2.6 million U.S. citizen children simply because their only caregiver(s) lack a Social Security number. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy indicates that, under this bill, the wealthiest households in the country will see an average tax cut of about $65,000, while the households with the lowest incomes will only receive an average tax cut of $110. This disparity is particularly stark, given that this bill does nothing to support the needs of families with low incomes who are especially harmed by the lack of affordable child care and increased cost of living.
The Senate bill also affects college affordability and the financial well-being of students by limiting student loans for programs and eliminating repayment options for new borrowers facing economic hardship or unemployment. The bill would also restrict access to Pell Grants for over 4.4 million students, making it harder for students with low incomes to cover costs and finish their programs.
The bill will now go to the House, whose leadership has made it clear that they will push it through as quickly as possible to meet a self-imposed July 4th deadline. Given the disregard for children, workers, immigrants, and families shown in the House’s reconciliation bill, provisions targeting the most vulnerable are likely to remain intact.
Like the House bill, the Senate’s version will harm the health, security, and well-being of communities across the country. CLASP urges House lawmakers to reject this damaging bill and focus on policies that prioritize workers, children, and families over billionaires.
By Teon Hayes
Black women in America are more than three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than their White, Latina, and Asian counterparts—a devastating disparity rooted in this country’s systemic failures.1 Even more troubling, this heightened risk persists regardless of income or education, proving that both individual and systemic racism is the driving force behind these outcomes. No matter how “successful” a Black woman may be, she is still more likely to lose her life during pregnancy, childbirth, or the postpartum period.
As a Black woman who recently gave birth, I know this fear intimately. It was terrifying to know that there were forces far beyond my control that could have a fatal impact on both me and my son. No one should have to carry that fear while preparing to bring new life into the world. This stark statistic has become a rallying cry in health equity circles, sparking overdue attention to racism in maternal care. But one critical factor remains overlooked in too many of these conversations: food insecurity.
The nation’s food system is facing serious threats. In just the past year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture ended funding for several local and regional food programs that helped bring fresh, affordable food to communities in need. Current budget reconciliation proposals include hundreds of billions in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is the nation’s largest anti-hunger program. At the same time, the President’s budget for fiscal year 2026 calls for deep cuts to WIC, a vital source of nutrition support for pregnant women, infants, and young children.
These attacks on the nation’s food system come amid rising living costs and in the midst of a deepening Black maternal health crisis. If this trajectory continues, it will further impact the communities already facing the highest maternal mortality rates and could drive those numbers even higher.
Food insecurity or the lack of consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life is not just a symptom of poverty; it’s a silent force exacerbating the Black maternal health crisis. In many Black and historically underfunded communities, expecting mothers are navigating pregnancy while skipping meals, stretching limited food supplies, or relying on corner stores with few healthy options.
Poor nutrition during pregnancy is linked to high blood pressure, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, low birth weight, and complications during delivery. These are not rare or abstract conditions; rather, they’re some of the most common contributors to maternal death in the United States. When an expecting mother can’t access fresh fruits, vegetables, or protein-rich foods, she’s more vulnerable to a fatal outcome. These health risks are compounded by broader systemic inequities that shape where and how people live. The barriers to good nutrition and safe pregnancies are not just medical; they are rooted in longstanding structural inequities.
Food deserts don’t appear by accident. They are the result of decades of redlining, disinvestment, and discriminatory policies that have stripped Black neighborhoods of grocery stores, public transit, health services, and economic opportunity. One out of every five Black households is situated in a food desert. Many of the same communities where food insecurity is highest are also maternity care deserts. These are areas that do not have access to birthing hospitals, birth centers that offer obstetric care, or obstetric providers. This double bind means Black women are more likely to experience poor nutrition and receive substandard prenatal care.
That’s why protecting and strengthening nutrition programs is critical. Policymakers must take a holistic view and consider the ripple effects these decisions will have on communities. Undermining the nation’s food system will only widen racial inequities and may further increase Black maternal mortality rates. These outcomes aren’t the result of individual failures—they reflect systemic ones. Addressing food insecurity requires fully funding and restructuring the food system and maternal care infrastructure to ensure every Black birthing person has consistent access to nutritious food, while also dismantling inherently racist policies that restrict access and deepen health inequities.
This multifaceted approach should include but not limited to:
If we’re serious about ending the Black maternal mortality crisis, we have to think beyond hospital walls. A mother’s health starts long before labor. It begins with the food on her plate, the safety of her neighborhood, and the policies that shape her access to care.
—–
1 CLASP recognizes that people of all genders can be pregnant and give birth. Some use the terms “birthing people” and “pregnant people” to capture this. In most cases, we have chosen to use “women” to be consistent with the terminology used in the statistics throughout this piece.
This statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, executive director and president of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).
Washington, D.C., June 5, 2025—Late last week, President Trump sent details of his 2026 budget proposal to Congress. This document makes no secret of Trump’s disregard for children, families, immigrants, and workers, all of whom would be grievously harmed by his proposal.
Trump’s proposed budget slashes $12 billion from federal education programs; $5 billion from agriculture programs and initiatives; $4.6 billion from the Department of Labor (representing more than a third of the department’s total budget); and more than $60 billion from health, housing, and community development work, including $1.1 billion from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The proposed budget would also more than double funding for the Department of Homeland Security, in order to fund mass deportation and family separations.
This draconian budget would harm millions of people who are already forced to live on the margins. Among those who would be adversely affected by these cuts are students with low incomes trying to earn a degree, people who rely on housing choice vouchers or public housing for shelter, immigrant families who will be driven even further into the shadows, workers seeking to unionize for fair wages, and working families who need affordable child care.
It’s also notable that funding cuts to the IRS will greatly reduce the agency’s capacity to ensure that the wealthiest are paying their fair share of taxes.
Trump’s proposed budget clearly shows that his administration’s main priorities are attacking diversity, funding massive tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, and laying waste to the services, initiatives, and programs that have enriched the lives of Americans for generations. This budget, coupled with cuts to Medicaid and SNAP in the reconciliation bill, will deepen poverty and exacerbate inequality. CLASP calls on Congress to reject the Trump budget and support policies that truly support children, families, and communities across the country.
June 4, 2025, Washington, D.C. – Last July, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) voluntarily recognized CLASP Workers United, a new employee union represented by Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), Local 2. On May 23, 2025, CLASP Workers United and CLASP ratified their first-ever collective bargaining agreement, which was effective immediately and covers the next 24 months.
The agreement addressed the bargaining unit’s rights and protections, hiring processes, pay scale, leave policy, and workplace disputes, among other provisions.
“With this contract, our goal was to set a strong foundation for the negotiating team that will come to the table two years from now. We absolutely achieved that goal,” said Jesse Fairbanks, CLASP Workers United’s President, “We secured several systemic changes in this contract that can be built upon by future members of our union.”
“I am proud of management and staff for coming together on a collaboratively developed agreement rooted in mutual respect and shared values. It embodies our values, codifies fair labor and compensation practices, reinforces clear promotion pathways, and embraces equity and transparency,” said Wendy Chun-Hoon, CLASP’s new president and executive director. “This agreement strengthens both our internal culture and external impact.”
In particular, the agreement bolsters compensation and workplace practices by:
“We are pleased to welcome the employees at CLASP into the OPEIU Local 2 family. Among other things, I was impressed with the bargaining team’s unwavering dedication to ensuring that the lowest-paid employees were elevated to a living wage. This speaks highly of their commitment to the principles of the labor movement as well as the principles that brought them to CLASP employment,” said Sarah Levesque, Secretary-Treasurer, OPEIU, Local 2.
# # # #
The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) is a national, nonpartisan, anti-poverty organization advancing policy solutions for people with low incomes. Because poverty in America is inextricably tied to systemic racism, CLASP focuses its policy and advocacy efforts for economic and racial justice on addressing systemic racism as the primary cause of poverty for communities of color.
CLASP Workers United (CWU) unionized in 2024 as a member of OPEIU Local 2. Our union aims to ensure a balance of institutional power between CLASP management and its workers through increased transparency and shared decision-making. We make space for workers at CLASP to step into their people power and demand organizational change.
This statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, executive director and president of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).
Washington, D.C., May 22, 2025—CLASP is outraged that the U.S. House of Representatives voted today to pass its reconciliation bill. This bill guts health care, restricts access to food, sacrifices our higher education system, and punishes immigrant families, all to provide more tax breaks for wealthy people and corporations. The legislation will now go to the Senate, where further changes are expected to be made.
The reconciliation bill contains numerous policies that will make life even more difficult for millions of children, families, and people living on the margins. Cuts to essential benefit programs will cause disproportionate hardship to communities of color, individuals with disabilities, immigrants, U.S. citizen children with one or more undocumented parents, and college students with low incomes. If signed into law, states across the country will see costs shift to them as the federal government pulls back funding for important programs. This will negatively impact state budgets and force states to push people off Medicaid, SNAP, and end other public services.
Proposed changes to the Child Tax Credit could lead to an estimated 4.5 million children who are U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents no longer benefiting from this credit. Medicaid could see $715 billion in cuts, and an estimated 13.7 million people are at risk of losing health insurance. The new provisions to SNAP would cut nearly $300 billion from the program—marking the largest reduction in its history—meaning 11 million adults and children may receive less food assistance or lose it entirely. A proposed increase of $45 billion in funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement puts millions of mixed-status immigrant families at risk of being detained and deported as part of the administration’s devastating mass deportation plan. And education-related cuts include severe restrictions on federal student aid for students with low incomes.
These numbers only include people who will be directly harmed by funding cuts. They don’t account for the local economies that will be destabilized by residents having to choose between buying groceries or paying rent, missing work out of fear of immigration raids, or forgoing needed health care because they are no longer covered by Medicaid or afraid to access it even if they are eligible.
Millions of families will lose their health care, access to food, and the Child Tax Credit if this bill is passed into law, and more immigrant children and families will suffer long-term harm. CLASP is opposed to this bill and calls on the Senate to do everything it can to stop this bill from becoming law.
CLASP’s budget reconciliation blog series examines the policies put forward that have particular resonance for children, families, and communities with low incomes. The series can be found here.
By Suzanne Wikle
As Congress works to advance the proposed budget reconciliation bill of 2025, CLASP’s series “The 2025 Budget Reconciliation’s Impact on People with Low Incomes” will examine the policies put forward that have particular resonance for the children, families, and communities with low incomes. This is the fourth blog in the series.
On May 13, the House Energy and Commerce Committee began marking up its portion of the GOP’s proposed reconciliation bill. One of the main topics of discussion was changes to Medicaid.
Medicaid currently provides health insurance for over 70 million people, including 30 million children and 60 percent of all nursing home residents; the program also covers 40 percent of all births in the United States. In addition, Medicaid is the largest payer of mental health care in the country, paying for 1 in 4 dollars spent on mental health care.
Policymakers have proposed cuts totaling $715 billion to the program, which, if enacted, would represent the largest cuts to Medicaid in its nearly 60-year history. Based on the committee’s text, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that at least 8.6 million people on Medicaid would lose their health insurance by 2034. Combined with other health care cuts, the reconciliation bill is estimated to cause 13.7 million people to lose health insurance.
The proposed changes include introducing work requirements, shifting costs to states and individuals, and increasing red tape:
Work Requirements
While states were allowed to implement work requirements through a waiver process during the first Trump Administration, there has never been a federal work requirement for people to access Medicaid.
The work requirements program proposed in this bill is modeled after a work requirements program in Georgia. An evaluation of that program conducted after its first year of operation found that not only did the requirement increase eligibility, but it also cost the state $58 million, greatly increased the paperwork requirement for eligible applicants, and shifted the cost burden to Georgia taxpayers.
As both the Georgia experiment and decades of research show, policies like this do not meaningfully increase employment, particularly not the kind of employment that offers affordable health insurance. Rather, work requirements are just a cut to Medicaid by another name. They implement burdensome paperwork requirements that cause eligible people to become disenrolled and lose their health insurance. Work requirements also increase administrative costs to states, which will have to stand up new components of eligibility systems to implement this provision.
Although the bill has many exemptions, the reality is that those exemptions don’t often work as intended. For example, if someone has a medical condition that is considered serious and complex and thereby qualifies for an exemption, how will they obtain documentation of their condition if they are uninsured? If a doctor’s note is required to prove a medical condition, how will someone get that before they enroll? And who at the state level is determining whether the note is enough proof to qualify for exemption? The process will be cumbersome and complicated, and many people who are eligible will fall through the cracks.
More Frequent Redeterminations
Currently, most adults insured through Medicaid receive a 12-month determination if they are deemed eligible. They are required to submit any changes to the state that would affect their eligibility at any point during their enrollment, and many states do behind-the-scenes checks against state wage databases to ensure people remain eligible.
These checks and balances are adequate to ensure that people receiving Medicaid are indeed eligible for the program. Implementing more frequent checks – including redeterminations every six months for certain individuals – will only increase the number of eligible people losing coverage and re-enrolling. The only purpose of this provision is to cut people off Medicaid.
Codifying Exclusion of DACA Recipients
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients have long been excluded from coverage until a rule the Biden Administration made them eligible for coverage under the ACA Marketplace. The current bill language would codify into law a Trump Administration rule that excludes DACA recipients from health coverage. Over a quarter of a million children have a parent with DACA, the vast majority of whom are U.S. citizens. Research has shown that children of uninsured parents are more likely to be uninsured themselves than the children of parents with insurance coverage.
Shifting Costs to Individuals
The bill would require people living above the poverty line to pay $35 for each medical encounter, up to a certain limit. This is a direct cost shift to people and will be prohibitive for many people to access care.
In addition, the bill would eliminate the special enrollment period for people making under 150 percent of the poverty level to enroll in insurance through the Marketplace; allow states to change retroactive coverage from 90 days to 30 days; and prohibit Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program from allowing gender affirming therapy as an Essential Health Benefit. All of these amount to more out-of-pocket costs for individuals and families.
Shifting Costs to States and Reducing State Autonomy
The bill calls for reducing the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) by 10 percent in states that choose to use state dollars to cover people regardless of their immigration status, which restricts states’ autonomy over their own health care programs and sets a dangerous precedent. While federal law restricts undocumented immigrants’ access to federally supported health coverage, it doesn’t limit states’ ability to spend state dollars on similar programs. No member of Congress should support a provision that places such limits on a state’s own budget authority.
Cutting federal Medicaid funding to states that use their own funding to provide benefits to immigrants would harm all families, including U.S. citizens. This proposal is a direct cost-shift to states, which will have to replace the lost FMAP or cut people, regardless of immigration status, off Medicaid. Estimates show that states could lose up to $75 billion in funding through fiscal year 2034.
Bottom Line: This Bill Cuts Eligible People Off Medicaid
As currently written, the committee’s proposal makes it more difficult for millions of people to apply and to stay enrolled despite being eligible. It increases costs to states, will increase their administrative burden, and undermines their ability to ensure all communities in their states have access to health insurance coverage. By denying people affordable health care, this bill threatens the safety and well-being of communities, states, and the entire country.
CLASP submitted this statement for the record in response to the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions “Hearing on Fiscal Year 2026 Department of Health and Human Services Budget.”