Report on Federal Budgetary Changes and Their Impact on Sustainable Development Goals in New York State

Recent federal legislative proposals, specifically the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” introduce substantial budgetary cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid. These changes pose a significant threat to the well-being of nearly 1.5 million individuals in New York and challenge the progress toward several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly in the Rochester region.

Analysis of Proposed Legislative Changes

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

• A projected $186 billion in cuts through 2034.
• Reduction of the federal share of administrative costs from 50 percent to 25 percent, shifting the fiscal burden to states.
• Expansion of work requirements to previously exempt groups, including veterans, unhoused individuals, and former foster youth.
• Exclusion of non-citizen groups such as refugees, asylees, and trafficking survivors from eligibility.

Medicaid Program

• Approximately $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade.
• Implementation of work requirements for eligibility without the need for a Section 1115 waiver.
• Restriction of eligibility to U.S. citizens, green card holders, and other selected immigrant groups.
• An estimated fiscal impact of over $12 billion annually on New York State.

Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

The proposed cuts directly undermine efforts to eradicate poverty and hunger. SNAP is a critical anti-poverty and anti-hunger program, and its reduction will exacerbate food insecurity.

• The Urban Institute predicts 22.3 million U.S. families will be negatively affected by cuts to SNAP.
• In Monroe County, where nearly 100,000 people are food insecure, the impact will be severe. The 14605 ZIP code in Rochester has the second-highest food insecurity rate in the state at 31.7 percent.
• Foodlink, a regional food bank, has increased its emergency food budget in anticipation of heightened demand and has already lost over $1 million in food supplies due to other federal funding cuts.

SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

Access to healthcare is a cornerstone of SDG 3, and the proposed Medicaid cuts threaten to reverse progress in public health.

• Up to 1.5 million New York residents are at risk of becoming uninsured.
• The Congressional Budget Office estimates 11.8 million Americans may lose health insurance over the next decade.
• Reduced access to primary and preventative care is expected to increase reliance on emergency services for advanced conditions, placing a greater strain on the healthcare system.
• Rural hospitals are particularly vulnerable, as they serve a higher proportion of Medicaid patients and often have lower financial reserves.

SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

The economic consequences of the cuts extend to employment and regional economic stability, while disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations.

• Analysis indicates the potential loss of nearly 2,000 hospital jobs and $801 million in economic activity in New York’s 25th Congressional District.
• The legislative changes exacerbate inequalities by targeting low-income families, refugees, and residents of rural areas.
• The Rochester-Monroe Anti-Poverty Initiative (RMAPI) warns that the cuts could reverse years of progress in poverty reduction.

Regional Consequences: The Rochester Area Case Study

Healthcare System Strain

• An estimated 35,475 individuals in the 25th Congressional District (Monroe and part of Ontario County) could become uninsured.
• The district faces a total annual fiscal impact of $295 million.
• Local hospitals could face an additional financial burden of more than $102 million.
• The University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) has developed contingency plans, anticipating that up to 40,000 of its patients could lose coverage.

Food Insecurity Crisis

• In the city of Rochester, nearly 30,000 households rely on SNAP benefits.
• New York’s SNAP payment error rate of 14.09 percent would require the state to cover 15 percent of food costs ($1.2 billion annually) under the new rules, potentially jeopardizing the program’s existence in the state.

Institutional Responses and Mitigation Strategies

Local Service Providers

1. Foodlink: The organization is increasing its emergency food budget and adapting its outreach programs to help individuals navigate the new eligibility requirements.
2. University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC): Leadership is actively engaging with federal agencies and collaborating with state and local partners to monitor the situation and support patients in maintaining health insurance coverage.

Advocacy and Governmental Action

• RMAPI and 25 partner organizations have formally urged New York’s federal representatives to take action against the cuts.
• Governor Kathy Hochul and other elected officials have held press conferences to warn of the devastating ramifications and have pledged to fight back against the proposed changes.
• Congressional representatives are utilizing legislative and oversight tools to challenge the implementation of the cuts.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • The article directly connects the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to poverty reduction, quoting Mitch Gruber from Foodlink: “SNAP is not just an anti-hunger program. It is an anti-poverty program.” The proposed cuts to these federal safety net programs are described as threatening to reverse progress made in poverty reduction, as highlighted by the Rochester-Monroe Anti-Poverty Initiative (RMAPI), which notes that “Rochester’s poverty rate has dropped by more than 20 percent” since 2015, but this progress is “fragile.”

2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • This is a central theme of the article. It discusses the “surge in need for food assistance” and the role of organizations like Foodlink in “tackling food insecurity.” The article focuses on the impact of massive cuts to SNAP, described as “the most effective anti-hunger program in the country,” which directly threatens food access for millions. Specific data on food insecurity is provided, such as “nearly 100,000 people in Monroe County are food insecure” and one Rochester ZIP code having a food insecurity rate of 31.7 percent.

3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • The article extensively details the threat to healthcare access due to proposed cuts of nearly “$1 trillion in cuts over the next decade” to Medicaid. It warns that these changes threaten health insurance coverage for millions in New York, leading to more people being uninsured. The article quotes URMC CEO David Linehan, who explains that losing coverage makes it “more difficult for them to access primary care and preventative services,” leading to patients presenting with more advanced diseases in emergency rooms.

4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • The article highlights how the proposed policy changes would disproportionately affect vulnerable and marginalized groups, thereby increasing inequality. It specifies that under the new bill, “Veterans, unhoused individuals, and former foster youth will lose work-requirement exemptions,” and other groups like “refugees, asylees, and trafficking survivors are now excluded from SNAP” and will lose immediate eligibility for Medicaid. These changes target specific populations, removing protections and access to essential services, which directly relates to reducing inequalities.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all… and achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.

   • The article is centered on the proposed cuts to major national social protection systems in the United States, namely SNAP and Medicaid. It discusses how these programs provide a “lifeline” and a “federal safety net” for millions of poor and vulnerable individuals. The entire conflict described in the article revolves around the scaling back of these systems, which runs counter to the goal of achieving substantial coverage.

2. Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.

   • The article directly addresses this target by focusing on SNAP, a program designed to ensure access to food. The proposed “$186 billion in cuts” to SNAP through 2034 is presented as a direct threat to food access for millions of families. The work of Foodlink, which provides “emergency food provisions,” further underscores the relevance of this target, as their services are needed to fill the gap in food access.

3. Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services… for all.

   • The discussion around Medicaid cuts directly relates to this target. The article states that the changes “threaten health insurance coverage for more than 2 million New York residents” and that “up to 1.5 million people at risk of becoming uninsured.” This loss of coverage is a significant step away from universal health coverage and financial risk protection, as hospitals would face an “additional burden of more than $102 million” to cover uninsured patients.

4. Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.

   • The article analyzes a specific fiscal policy—the “federal budget reconciliation bill”—and its negative impact on equality. By removing exemptions and eligibility for vulnerable groups such as refugees, asylees, veterans, and former foster youth, the policy actively increases inequality rather than reducing it. The debate detailed in the article is a clear example of how fiscal and social protection policies can either promote or undermine the goal of achieving greater equality.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

   • Proportion of population covered by social protection systems: The article provides numerous figures that serve as indicators, such as “nearly 1.5 million individuals throughout New York” who rely on these programs, “205,000 people in the state’s 25th Congressional District… enrolled in Medicaid,” and “nearly 30,000 households on SNAP benefits” in Rochester. Tracking these numbers would measure coverage.
   • Exclusion of specific vulnerable groups: The article explicitly mentions that “Veterans, unhoused individuals, and former foster youth will lose work-requirement exemptions, while refugees, asylees, and trafficking survivors are now excluded from SNAP.” The number of people in these categories who lose benefits would be a direct indicator of rising inequality.

2. Indicators for SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

   • Prevalence of food insecurity: The article provides specific data points that can be used as indicators, stating that “nearly 100,000 people in Monroe County are food insecure” and citing a food insecurity rate of “31.7 percent” in the 14605 ZIP code. These statistics are direct measures of hunger.
   • Value of food assistance benefits: The article mentions that “$7.8 billion in SNAP benefits are issued annually statewide.” Changes in this total amount would indicate a change in the level of support for ending hunger.

3. Indicators for SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

   • Proportion of population with health insurance: The article provides clear estimates that can serve as indicators, such as the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that “up to 11.8 million Americans may lose health insurance” and the state’s analysis that “up to 1.5 million people at risk of becoming uninsured” in New York.
   • Financial burden on healthcare providers: The article mentions that in one district, “hospitals facing an additional burden of more than $102 million to ensure services can cover those at risk of losing insurance.” This financial strain on the health system is an indicator of the challenges in providing universal access to care.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: rochesterbeacon.com