OP-ED: GOP’s Medicaid & SNAP Cuts Will Hit Indiana Hard: “Local taxpayers will bear the weight of federal abandonment.”

By: State Rep. Robin Shackleford (D-Indianapolis)

Word Count: 825

When Congress plays politics with essential programs like Medicaid and SNAP, it’s not D.C. that pays the price - it’s us. It’s Indiana. As a state lawmaker who hears daily from working families, single parents and seniors trying to make ends meet, I can tell you exactly what Republicans’ so-called “big, beautiful” bill would mean for Indiana: higher burdens, fewer safety nets and deeper struggles for our most vulnerable neighbors.

This bill, passed with thin margins out of the U.S. House of Representatives and cheered on by the president, is being framed as a solution to government-spending overreach. But let’s be clear: Gutting Medicaid and slashing access to food assistance isn’t reform. It’s abandonment of the people who need help the most.

Changes to Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) alone would result in the loss of more than 100 million meals for Hoosier families over the next decade. In Indiana, more than 2 million people rely on Medicaid, including children, seniors, and people with disabilities. Over 600,000 Hoosiers depend on SNAP to keep food on the table. Under this bill, tens of thousands could lose that support overnight.

Who picks up the slack when families fall through the cracks? State governments. If Washington cuts Medicaid funding, Indiana will be forced to either slash services – on top of what was already cut during this past legislative session – or absorb the costs. And we all know those costs don’t disappear.

The cost shift to Indiana from federal cuts to programs like SNAP could be as high as $356 million over the next 10 years – and that figure only reflects SNAP. When federal support for essential programs is reduced, the ripple effects are widespread. That’s money the state will need to find not just to keep kids fed during school breaks, but also to prevent seniors from losing health coverage, to help working parents afford basic child care, and to maintain support systems for low-income families. If Indiana can’t –or doesn’t– fill the gap, the burden will fall to already overstretched local hospitals, food banks and community organizations. Emergency rooms will become overcrowded, untreated illnesses will spread and local governments will be forced to scramble for solutions. Ultimately, it’s local taxpayers who will bear the cost of federal disinvestment.

The federal legislation also introduces new work requirements for both Medicaid and SNAP recipients, mandating at least 80 hours per month of employment, education or community services for able-bodied adults without dependents. These requirements are set to begin in 2026 and apply to individuals aged 19 to 64. Exemptions are limited to individuals under 19, pregnant women or those who are caring for a young child or person with disabilities.

Additionally, Medicaid recipients will need to verify eligibility twice a year instead of once – which is less stringent than the recently passed Senate Enrolled Act 2 in Indiana that already imposes quarterly, monthly and yearly eligibility checks.

The bill also raises the age limit for SNAP work requirements from 54 to 64, meaning older adults would now be required to meet work conditions or risk losing their benefits.

For many seniors already facing health issues or barriers to employment, this is not realistic. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would slash Medicaid funding by over $700 billion, and Indiana could see an decrease of an estimated $15 billion in federal Medicaid funding.

We’ve seen this playbook before: shift the burden downward, call it “efficiency” and leave working families behind. These policies don’t just cut, they punish. They stigmatize poverty and make it harder for Hoosiers to access help when they need it most. And they ignore the real barriers many people face: lack of transportation, unpredictable child care, nonexistent livable wages or unstable housing, all of which make meeting rigid new requirements nearly impossible.

I’ve spoken with families in our district who are already facing financial struggles. For them, SNAP and Medicaid aren’t handouts – they’re the difference between stability and crisis. Stripping those supports won’t make people more self-sufficient. It will push them further into hardship.

State leaders should be sounding the alarm, not quietly absorbing the damage. We should be pushing back, demanding that Congress strengthen safety nets, not unravel them. We should invest in long-term solutions that empower families, grow our economy and reduce the need for emergency relief, not policies that punish people for needing help in the first place.

And here's the truth policymakers don’t say out loud: this is all about the money. But if that’s the case, we should be honest – investing in people now is the cost-saving solution. When families have access to livable wages, reliable transportation, healthy food, quality health care and stable housing, they’re more likely to thrive. That means fewer emergency room visits, fewer evictions and fewer public dollars spent on crisis response later.

Hoosiers are resilient. But resilience isn’t a substitute for support. And when Washington chooses cuts over care, it’s Indiana that pays the price.