Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

A Response to the Big Beautiful Bill: Seven Days in June

By John Zen Jackson on June 2, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In Englewood Hospital & Medical Center v. State of New Jersey decided in July 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court acknowledged the decades-old legislative declaration that it is of paramount public interest for the State to take all necessary and appropriate actions to ensure access to and the provision of high-quality and cost-effective hospital care to its citizens. Previously, in its 1982 decision in Right to Choose v. Byrne, while the Supreme Court did not sustain the lower court’s determination that the New Jersey Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to health, it nonetheless “recognize[d] that New Jersey accords a high priority to the preservation of health.”

Improving access to healthcare and keeping people healthy has since been made arguably more difficult with the passage of Federal H.R. 1, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). In information presented to the New Jersey Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee in May 2026, the New Jersey Department of Human Services described the anticipated devastating impact on Medicaid (NJ FamilyCare) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), along with new barriers to accessing healthcare and food assistance that were projected from the cuts to federal assistance.

As a result of the OBBBA changes, more than 300,000 NJ FamilyCare participants are expected to lose coverage. In addition, healthcare providers can expect funding reductions to federal matching funds and supplemental payments through managed care plans, with annual losses projected to grow to approximately $2.6 billion. The SNAP program will likely also be undermined by the expected reduction in participation of as many as 47,000 people a month. The economic value of the reductions ranges from $240 million in State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2026 to $425 million in SFY 2030.

In response, the American Public Health Association (APHA), along with a nonpartisan coalition of national and community-based groups, is organizing a national week of action called Seven Days in June: HEALTH is Primary. In announcing the effort, set for June 1-7, 2026, the APHA stated:

Medical research, affordable access to healthcare, vaccines, and treatment, and strong public health systems are fundamental to quality of life, economic stability, workforce strength and national security. Budget cuts to Medicaid, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are threats to the health of all Americans. The cuts passed by Congress last year will not go into effect until after this fall’s election, when they will also cause harm [to] local economies and the loss of more than one million jobs and billions in tax revenue. 

A nationwide candlelight vigil to honor those who have died because of healthcare gaps is planned for June 5.

It is a truism that when people can get care early, they are more likely to stay healthy, making families and communities stronger. Conversely, there is known to be a domino effect from governmental action and sweeping cuts. When health systems are underfunded or destabilized, people suffer, families are driven into bankruptcy, communities lose services, and the nation is less prepared for the next inevitable crisis. Moreover, cutting global health infrastructure exacerbates political instability elsewhere, thereby threatening American security interests.

Consistent with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s observation in Englewood Hospital, and the stated goal of the Seven Days in June undertaking, there is “a civic expectation that health must be treated as a core governing responsibility, regardless of ideology or party.” The challenge of meeting that goal is at hand.

Photo of John Zen Jackson John Zen Jackson

Of Counsel, Healthcare and Litigation

John focuses his practice on civil litigation including trial and appellate advocacy, primarily in the healthcare area, as well as in healthcare regulatory and compliance matters. He has represented healthcare providers in the defense of professional liability claims…

Of Counsel, Healthcare and Litigation

John focuses his practice on civil litigation including trial and appellate advocacy, primarily in the healthcare area, as well as in healthcare regulatory and compliance matters. He has represented healthcare providers in the defense of professional liability claims, licensure and credentialing disputes, reimbursement disputes, insurance coverage and insurance fraud cases, qui tam actions under the Federal False Claims Act, and hospital privilege disputes including termination litigation. He has been responsible for matters involving medical staff privileges at the internal hearing level and in subsequent court litigation. He has additional experience as a hearing officer in hospital privilege disputes and in drafting medical staff bylaws. He has authoritative expertise in medical liability, biomedical ethics, and end-of-life issues.

Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney, John has litigated matters in judicial forums, trying numerous jury trials to verdict, and has appeared extensively before state administrative agencies and hospital credentialing committees. He has assisted healthcare entities seeking to outsource the handling of physician investigations, and physicians facing investigative inquiries and disciplinary charges before the Board of Medical Examiners (BME). He handles the full range of BME proceedings, including responding to an initial inquiry and appearing at a preliminary evaluation, responding to Orders to Show Cause and temporary suspension applications, hearings in the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), addressing the BME on disposition and discipline issues, argument of appeals before the Appellate Division, and appearances before the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Contact information:

jjackson@greenbaumlaw.com | 732.476.3336 | vCard

For more information visit the Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP website.

Email
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Health Care and Life Sciences
  • Blog:
    Healthcare Perspectives
  • Organization:
    Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo