---

Dr. Mehmet Oz’s October 31 post on X didn’t just raise concerns about Medicaid—it launched a calculated partisan attack. By naming only Democrat-led jurisdictions and portraying routine audits as evidence of lawbreaking, Oz weaponized a technical review to stoke political outrage. His post alleged that California, Illinois, Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and the District of Columbia misused $1.3 billion in federal Medicaid funds to cover undocumented immigrants, claiming CMS had already clawed back $300 million. Notably, no Republican-led states were mentioned, despite the fact that emergency Medicaid reimbursements occur nationwide.

The language was unmistakably political: phrases like “terrifying reality,” “Democrats violating federal law,” and “American taxpayers footing the bill” echoed familiar GOP immigration rhetoric. The timing—just as election season intensified—suggests strategic escalation rather than genuine policy concern. Oz’s framing implied guilt before due process and ignored a critical legal fact: emergency Medicaid for undocumented immigrants is not only permitted—it’s required under federal law.

State officials responded swiftly and forcefully. Colorado called the $1.5 million figure “incorrect” and said CMS had acknowledged the error. Oregon’s Health Authority said the $5.4 million figure was misrepresented and that CMS had privately admitted it was “significantly less” than what remains under review. Illinois labeled the post “misinformation,” emphasizing that no conspiracy exists to fund ineligible individuals. Washington clarified that the audits are still in the “education and discussion” phase—not enforcement.

The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) described Oz’s claim as “categorically false,” asserting it misrepresents both emergency Medicaid rules and CMS’s routine audit process. OHA confirmed the cited funds were spent on emergency services, which are explicitly allowed under federal law. Colorado officials stated that CMS staff had privately acknowledged the preliminary finding was incorrect. Illinois Medicaid stressed that the post misleads the public and politicizes a standard compliance review.

Federal law prohibits undocumented immigrants from receiving full Medicaid benefits but mandates coverage for emergency services—such as childbirth, heart attacks, and trauma care—regardless of immigration status. These services are reimbursable by federal financial participation only when they are actually rendered and medically necessary. States like Oregon also operate state-funded programs (e.g., Healthier Oregon) that extend coverage beyond federal limits. These programs do not use federal dollars, and CMS audits are not designed to challenge them.

In September 2025, CMS issued updated guidance clarifying that federal reimbursement for emergency services to individuals without lawful immigration status is available only for actual, necessary emergency care—not for risk-based capitation payments under managed-care contracts. The guidance advises states to use fee-for-service claims or non-risk contract arrangements to claim federal funding for these cases. It also warned that including this population in prospective capitation calculations or administrative spending could jeopardize federal participation—explaining why cost-allocation methods and contract structures are now under heightened scrutiny.

The audits cited by Oz were routine cost-allocation reviews, not fraud investigations. They examined how states assign costs across programs, including administrative and technology expenditures. Many of the disputed line items are nonclinical—shared IT systems, call centers, eligibility platforms—that are inherently difficult to apportion precisely between federally eligible and ineligible populations. Preliminary adjustments often shrink significantly once states present alternative methodologies. Treating these figures as definitive proof of illegal spending ignores the normal back-and-forth of audit reconciliation.

Claims that $300 million has already been “clawed back” are misleading. CMS distinguishes between recommended adjustments, provisional findings, and enforceable recoupments. Agencies typically enter an “education and discussion” phase to allow states to correct data, provide documentation, or reclassify expenditures before issuing any formal demand for repayment. Without a formal demand letter and exhausted administrative remedies, assertions of recovered funds are premature.

Experts and state officials say Oz’s post is part of a broader campaign to politicize Medicaid oversight. The audits were portrayed as unusual despite being routine. The language mirrored partisan talking points, and the timing aligned with electoral strategy. Multiple states report that Oz’s post contradicts CMS’s internal communications, where officials acknowledged errors and emphasized that the audits were not enforcement actions.

These audits were never intended as public indictments. By misrepresenting them as proof of illegal spending, Oz converted a technical review into a political weapon—targeting Democrat-led states, inflaming immigration fears, and undermining public trust in emergency care policy. This reframing amplifies public anxiety, pressures states into defensive postures, and erodes confidence in both Medicaid and federal oversight.

Here’s how the weaponization works: selective naming of only Democrat-led jurisdictions creates an implied partisan pattern; premature publicity treats provisional audit adjustments as settled clawbacks and admissions of guilt; emotional framing transforms procedural nuance into crisis; and the resulting media cascade forces reactive statements from states, turning a technical dispute into a political controversy.

The risks are real. Public confusion about Medicaid coverage. Administrative drag as states divert resources to rebuttals. A chilling effect on state-level innovation. The counter-strategy is clear: recenter the story on law and process, demand transparency from CMS, highlight due process, and humanize the impact with real-life examples of emergency care—such as childbirth, heart attacks, and trauma—that federal law protects.

With audits still underway and states demanding formal corrections, the clash between CMS and state Medicaid agencies is far from over. At stake are public trust in emergency care policy, the integrity of federal audits, and the line between legitimate oversight and political theater. A clear, fact-based counter-narrative is available: Oz’s Medicaid math targets Democrats—but the audits aren’t final, the law permits emergency care, and the numbers do not yet add up.

---

References

1. Oz, M. (2025, October 31). X post alleging improper Medicaid reimbursements [social post]. X. https://x.com/RealDrOz/status/
2. Oregon Health Authority. (2025, October–November). Press statements and response to CMS audit findings. https://www.oregon.gov/oha/Pages/News.aspx
3. Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing. (2025, October–November). Public statements on CMS audit and preliminary findings. https://hcpf.colorado.gov/news
4. Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. (2025, October–November). Responses to media claims about Medicaid reimbursements. https://www.illinois.gov/hfs/News/Pages/default.aspx
5. Washington State Health Care Authority. (2025, October–November). Statements on CMS audits and process status. https://www.hca.wa.gov/about-hca/news-events
6. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). (2025, September). Guidance on federal reimbursement for emergency services to noncitizens. https://www.cms.gov/
7. CMS Program Audit Memo. (2025). Audit methodology and compliance updates. https://www.cms.gov/
8. PolitiFact. (2025, November). Fact-check and state response coverage. https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/nov/03/trumps-hhs-medicaid-immigrants-cms/
9. Associated Press. (2025, October–November). Reporting on CMS audits and state reactions. https://apnews.com/
10. New York Times. (2025, October–November). Coverage of Medicaid audits and political context. https://www.nytimes.com/
11. Washington Post. (2025, October–November). Reporting on Medicaid audits and partisan framing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/
12. Mayer Brown; McDermott Will & Emery; McGuireWoods. (2025). Legal analyses of CMS enforcement trends. https://www.mwe.com/insights/
13. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2025). Medicaid emergency-care policy and state-funded expansion analysis. https://www.kff.org/
14. Health Affairs. (2025). Academic articles on Medicaid eligibility and emergency services. https://www.healthaffairs.org/