In July as Congress passed the Trump administration’s budget reconciliation bill known through much of its legislative journey as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” an array of reports speculated about the short-term impacts of the law.

Now, a new report from Boston Indicators is turning the focus to longer-range impacts of the budget reconciliation bill.

Beyond the immediate effects of reduced access to food and health care, limited access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid will probably mean increased financial instability for low- and middle-income families across the state, said Kimberly Goulart, a senior research analyst at Boston Indicators and co-author of the report.

Those changes could leave people in a new state of financial instability, she said.

“If there’s an emergency that comes up, you then will have to drain your emergency savings — if you have any,” Goulart said. “It constantly resets the cycle of having to put more away, dig into your savings and then have to start rebuilding again.”

That sort of resetting of the cycle will make it harder for families to save to buy a home, she said, and could increase racial wealth gaps in the state.

The Boston Indicators report takes a new tack in considering the impacts of the federal legislation. Much of the reporting during or immediately following the passage of the law focused on the estimated tens of millions of people that could lose access to some or all of their benefits under changes to SNAP and the estimated 10 million people who could lose their health insurance coverage by 2034 through new rules for Medicaid.

Locally, those impacts could affect tens or hundreds of thousands of Greater Boston residents.

A September report from Boston Indicators, the research arm of the Boston Foundation, found that more than 40,000 adults in Greater Boston could be at risk of losing access to SNAP through updated work requirements and another nearly 10,000 legally present immigrants could lose access under the new eligibility rules.

A September report published by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Massachusetts projected between 141,000 and 203,000 people statewide could lose coverage depending on how new work requirements and eligibility verification efforts are implemented.

The report found that, beyond immediate impacts, the changes will “almost certainly make lower-income individuals and families worse off in the long run” through higher out-of-pocket medical costs and reduced access to preventive health care.

When it comes to the Medicaid cuts, the report highlighted Black and Hispanic residents as most at risk.

Data from the state’s Center for Health Information and Analysis found that, in 2023, Black and Hispanic people were more likely to receive insurance through MassHealth than their white counterparts. According to the state data, 33% of Black residents and 42% of Hispanic residents received insurance through the state’s Medicaid program.

Those same populations were also about twice as likely as white residents in the state to report having financial strain when paying for medical expenses.

According to the Boston Indicators report, the changes to Medicaid and SNAP will allow the federal government to fund an array of tax cuts also implemented or made permanent in the budget reconciliation law.

The legislation, in some ways, acted as a follow-up to President Donald Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, the largest overhaul to the country’s tax code in two decades.

The new law makes permanent tax changes like lower marginal tax rates for high earners and exemptions on the federal estate tax, which is paid on the property of a deceased person before it is distributed to their heirs.

According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, under tax cuts made in 2017 and made permanent in 2024, families making less than $50,000 per year could see about $300 in tax relief in 2027. A family making more than $1 million could see $90,000 in tax relief.

Low-income families, who already pay little to no federal income tax, see almost no gain from the provisions, the report found.

And the 2017 law made individual estates of less than $15 million exempt from taxation — previously estates $7.2 million or less for individuals were exempt. The 2024 budget reconciliation law made that change permanent, when it was due to reset in 2026.

Of the families whose estates fall between the $7.2 million threshold that would have been back in place without the 2024 law, and the now-permanent $15 million threshold, 94% are white.

Less than 1% combined are Black or Hispanic, according to the Federal Reserve’s survey of consumer finances.

That divide means that families of color who are most likely to be impacted by cuts to Medicaid and SNAP are less likely to see benefits or savings through the tax changes, said Alyssa Benalfew-Ramos, policy chief at the Black Economic Council of Massachusetts in an email.

“Because these tax benefits primarily go to families who are not Black, these cuts leave communities of color without a financial cushion,” Benalfew-Ramos said. “The reduction in access to healthcare, food assistance, and other essential resources limits Black families’ ability to save, weather emergencies, and build long-term wealth.”

Some elements of the law — like the widely reported new restrictions to Medicaid and SNAP access — will clearly pose increased challenges for low- and moderate-income families.

Others may have more nuanced effects, where the specific impacts may come down to how they’re implemented or what specific rules and policies are developed for them.

For example, Goulart pointed to the law’s “Trump Accounts,” a five-year pilot program that would create a new way to invest in children across the country, as one element of the legislation where its final impact is a matter of the devil being in the details.

That pilot would create investment accounts with a federal seed investment of $1,000, which families, friends and employers could later contribute to, but specific elements of its implementation around factors weren’t specifically written out in the passage of the law.

For example, the law doesn’t specify if families would be automatically enrolled for the program — which the Boston Indicators report said is the best way to reach all families. It also didn’t provide details on whether balances would impact families’ access to public benefits or if families could roll over balances from Trump accounts into other tax-advantaged savings accounts.

Benalfew-Ramos said that the program could help some families but lacks the safeguards or clarity to ensure success.

“Without clear guidance on how the funds can be used or strong protections to ensure equitable access, these accounts may not provide the same reliable, long-term wealth-building benefits as more robust programs,” she said.

In other areas of the law, the impacts may vary based on how Massachusetts responds or implements changes.

For example, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation report identified a range of more than 60,000 people when it estimated how many might lose access to MassHealth. That uncertainty is based on questions about how the state will put in place verification of the new work requirements now required under the budget reconciliation law.

“I think that will be a really important part of mitigating some of this immediate harm that will then have lasting impact.”

In her written comments, Benalfew-Ramos said she would encourage the state to implement new policies to try to balance, at least a little, the cuts at the federal level.