Media round-up of HHS efforts to curb psychiatric overprescribing at a MAHA Institute summit on mental health and overmedicalization.

The White House’s newly released strategy for tackling the nation’s drug and addiction crisis calls for a number of ambitious public health approaches that some experts say are laudable but will be hampered by the administration’s own actions.

The sweeping 195-page National Drug Control Strategy, published May 4, advocates for making access to treatment easier than getting drugs, preventing young people from developing addictions in the first place, increasing support for people in recovery, and reducing overdose deaths.

Those broad goals are widely supported by public health researchers, addiction treatment clinicians, and recovery advocates.

But accomplishing such goals will be difficult in the face of the administration’s mass layoffs of federal employees, cancellation of research and community grants, attacks on organizations and practices that serve people who use drugs, and cuts to Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people that is the largest payer for addiction and mental health care nationwide.

Many components of the National Drug Control Strategy are “things that we would agree with and that we fully support,” said Libby Jones, who leads overdose prevention efforts at the Global Health Advocacy Incubator, a public health advocacy group.

But there are “disconnects in what the strategy says is important and then what they’re actually going to fund,” she said of the Trump administration. “Those inconsistencies feel particularly loud in this strategy.”

The White House’s National Drug Control Strategy, released every two years, is a touchstone document meant to lay out the federal government’s coordinated approach to what in recent decades has been one of the country’s defining problems.

Since 2000, more than 1.1 million people have died of drug overdoses. Although deaths have decreased recently, the numbers remain elevated compared with earlier decades, and research suggests overdose death rates among Black Americans and Native Americans are disproportionately high.

The strategy document published this week is the first of President Donald Trump’s current term. In keeping with the administration’s approach to addiction issues, it places heavy emphasis on law enforcement efforts to reduce the supply of illicit drugs. The document repeatedly refers to the ongoing “war” against “foreign terrorist organizations” — the Trump administration’s term for drug cartels — and touts increased enforcement at U.S. borders.

It also outlines plans to implement artificial intelligence technologies to screen for illicit drugs brought into the country and wastewater testing to detect illegal drug use nationwide.

The second half of the strategy focuses on reducing the demand for drugs through public health prevention efforts, addiction treatment, and support for people in recovery. It promotes the role of religion in recovery and calls for the widespread use of overdose reversal medications, such as naloxone.

In a news release, the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy called the document a “roadmap” that will “continue dismantling the drug supply and defeating the scourge of illicit drugs in our country.”

The Trump administration did not respond to requests for comment about how the strategy aligns with its other actions.

In December, Trump signed a reauthorization of the SUPPORT Act, which continues several grants related to treatment and recovery and the requirement for Medicaid to cover all FDA-approved medications for opioid use disorder. In January, he announced the Great American Recovery Initiative, including a $100 million investment to address homelessness, opioid addiction, and public safety.

However, few details have been provided about the initiative, and in January, about a month after the SUPPORT Act passed, billions of dollars in addiction-related grants were abruptly terminated and reinstated within a frantic 24-hour period.

That “whiplash” left “a sense of instability and uncertainty in the field,” said Yngvild Olsen, a national adviser with the Manatt Health consultancy. She led substance use treatment policy at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or SAMHSA, under the Biden administration and left about six months into Trump’s second term.

That insecurity was exacerbated by the president’s 2027 budget request, which proposes cuts to several addiction and mental health programs and the consolidation of key federal agencies working on those matters. Jones’ group and nearly 100 others in the field have signed a letter asking Congress to reject the proposals, as it did with similar requests last year.

The national drug strategy adds new, potentially contradictory information to this confusing landscape.

Increasing Access to Treatment

One of the most significant public health goals in the strategy, mentioned at least half a dozen times, is to make it easier to get treatment than it is to buy illegal drugs.

National data underscores the necessity: More than 80% of Americans who need substance use treatment don’t receive it.

The administration’s actions on health insurance may make it difficult to improve that statistic.

Medicaid is the main source of health care coverage for adults with opioid use disorder. When implemented, the Medicaid work requirements in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act are projected to strip that coverage from about 1.6 million people with substance use disorders.

The last time Medicaid rolls were purged — after covid-era protections expired — many people who had been receiving medication treatment for opioid addiction stopped it and fewer people started treatment, according to a study published last year.

Olsen, who is also an addiction medicine doctor, said she loves the strategy’s emphasis on making treatment readily available to anyone who wants it. But she said that’s “hard to really imagine when now people may have to pay for it themselves because they may be losing their Medicaid insurance coverage.”

One analysis estimated the upcoming Medicaid changes could lead 156,000 people to lose access to medications for opioid use disorder and result in more than 1,000 additional fatal overdoses per year.

People with private insurance may be affected, too.

The Trump administration has refused to enforce Biden-era regulations aimed at bolstering mental health parity, the idea that insurers must cover mental illness and addiction treatment comparably to physical treatments. And recently, the administration said it would redo those regulations altogether, raising fears that addiction treatment could become increasingly unaffordable.

The administration did not respond to specific questions about how it reconciles its actions on Medicaid and parity with the goal of increasing treatment.

Prioritizing Prevention

The strategy highlights preventing addictions before they begin as one of the keys to reducing demand for drugs. It calls for “promoting a drug-free America as the social norm” and implementing school and community-based programs that are backed by science.

“Investing in primary prevention, before drug use starts, saves lives and resources,” it says, citing several studies about the cost-effectiveness of such programs.

Yet, the president’s budget proposes cuts to these types of programs, and federal layoffs have decimated the agencies that would implement such work.

The White House’s most recent budget request proposes cutting roughly $220 million from SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention and nearly $40 million from the Drug-Free Communities program.

Since the new administration started, SAMHSA has lost about half of its staff, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is down about a quarter. 

“It’s not clear to me that they’re really going to be able to have the funds or the people to be able to carry that out,” Olsen said of the strategy’s prevention goals.

Another wrinkle appears in the strategy’s discussion of marijuana. The document points to marijuana use as one of the drivers of increasing drug use disorders and reports that “convergent evidence from multiple sources” suggests cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis. It calls for developing new tools to treat marijuana withdrawal and addiction.

However, just two weeks ago, the White House moved to reclassify medical marijuana to a lower tier of scheduled substances and is moving to hold a hearing to do the same for marijuana broadly.

“The administration, on the one hand, is moving in a direction of liberalizing access to cannabis,” Jones said, “but at the same time, in the strategy, it talks about the dangers of doing so.”

“There’s a disconnect there that just makes you question: Which one do you believe?” she added.

The administration did not respond to specific questions about its marijuana policies.

Stopping Overdose Deaths

One of the more surprising elements of the National Drug Control Strategy comes in the last paragraph of the final chapter. It focuses on public drug-checking programs, which often involve using test strips to help people who use drugs determine whether there are more-dangerous substances, such as fentanyl or xylazine, in the batch they bought. That helps them determine whether or how to safely use those drugs.

“Rapid test strips and similar technologies that detect fentanyl and other drugs are an important tool that should be legal,” the strategy document says.

However, SAMHSA announced in a recent letter that it would no longer pay for test strips, as part of the Trump administration’s “clear shift away from harm reduction and practices that facilitate illicit drug use.”

The administration has similarly attacked harm reduction programs in an executive order and its budget requests. It did not respond to specific questions about how this position interacts with the drug control strategy.

Regina LaBelle, a Georgetown University professor who served as acting director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Biden administration, wrote about the contradiction in a blog post: “It is the height of rhetoric over reality to champion a tool while simultaneously cutting off the funding used to acquire it.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/public-health/trump-national-drug-control-strategy-addiction-treatment-funding-cuts/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2234746&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Starting in July, Medicare beneficiaries may be able to get a GLP-1 prescription for weight loss for $50 a month. It’s a notable shift for Medicare, which has long been barred from covering weight loss treatments.

The drugs, such as Wegovy and Zepbound, are effective but can be expensive without insurance coverage. They’re available in injection or pill form. Even with discounts, current cash prices typically range from $149 to $699 per month.

About half of GLP-1 users say these drugs were difficult for them to afford, according to KFF polling. A quarter said they were “very difficult” to afford.

But the new Medicare benefit comes with caveats, particularly around clinical guidelines and what happens when the short-term program ends.

What Is This Program?

The initiative, announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, is a short-term pilot program known as the Medicare GLP-1 Bridge. It will run from July 1, 2026, through Dec. 31, 2027. It’s meant to “bridge” the gap before a longer-term program that might — or might not — begin in 2028.

The pilot program will offer coverage for the following GLP-1 medications approved for weight loss: the pill and injectable formulations of Wegovy, the KwikPen formulation of Zepbound, and the Foundayo pill.

Who Can Participate?

To get access to these weight loss medications, you must be enrolled in a Medicare Part D plan, which covers prescription drugs. After that, eligibility is based mainly on body weight and health status. People will qualify if they have a body mass index of 27 or higher and have a condition such as heart disease or prediabetes, among others. People with BMIs of 35 or higher automatically qualify. About 40% of American adults are clinically obese, with a BMI of 30 or higher, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

How the Program Works (It’s a Bit Unusual)

This is not your typical Medicare benefit. Even though Part D enrollment is required, the Bridge program itself works differently.

Instead of going through your regular Part D plan, you will need prior authorization. Your doctor will send the prescription to a central system run by CMS contractor Humana, using a system already in place for another Medicare drug program. Doctors don’t need to be enrolled as Medicare providers to write a prescription or submit a prior authorization request under this program. Once they get approval, patients will pay the flat $50 copayment at the pharmacy when they pick up the prescription.

What Are the Benefits?

The cost savings could make these drugs accessible to patients who simply couldn’t afford them before. Even with discounts, the prices can be daunting without insurance coverage. TrumpRx, a new government website, provides links to direct-to-consumer prescription drug discounts for patients not using their health insurance. On that site, Wegovy injectables range in price from $199 for a lower dosage for the first two months to $399 for a higher dosage. The KwikPen formulation of Zepbound costs up to $699 per month. At the highest dosages, the daily Wegovy pill costs up to $299 while Foundayo tops out at $349.

Most people who use these drugs will need a higher dose to maintain weight loss. The Bridge program is unique in that it offers a predictable $50 copayment that does not go up as dosages increase.

What Are the Downsides?

Like many pilot programs, there are trade-offs. The $50 copay will not count toward the Part D deductible, nor does it count toward the $2,100 annual out-of-pocket cap on prescription drug costs. The pilot program will also end in December 2027. Most studies have shown that many people who stop using the GLP-1 drugs regain weight they lost while taking them.

Still Obstacles for Those With Low Incomes

If you receive the low-income subsidy, also known as the Medicare Extra Help program, you cannot use that assistance for the drugs covered by the GLP-1 Bridge program. For beneficiaries accustomed to paying a $5 or $10 copay for their pharmaceuticals, a $50 copay could still be a big financial barrier.

“Fifty dollars a month sounds like a great deal compared to paying the discounted prices through TrumpRx and these other direct-to-consumer options, but it’s a lot of money for somebody who’s living on a $750-a-month Social Security check,” said Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of the Program on Medicare Policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

The $50 Copay Is Only for Weight Loss

If you’re already taking one of these medications for a qualifying condition such as Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease risk reduction, or sleep apnea, you’ll continue to get it through your regular Part D plan. That means you’ll pay your plan’s price, which may be higher than the $50 Bridge copay, meaning the same drug could cost different amounts depending on the reason it is prescribed.

If you’re already on a GLP-1 for weight loss, you may qualify for the Bridge program. Your prescriber will need to attest that you met the clinical criteria when you first started the medication. For example, if you started a GLP-1 in September 2024 with a BMI of 37 but in July 2026 you’ve lost weight and now have a BMI of 34, the prescriber should attest in the prior authorization request that you met the BMI criteria of 35 or over when the GLP-1 therapy started.

What Happens After 2027?

The Trump administration had proposed a two-step approach to expand coverage of GLP-1s for obesity in Medicare. The Bridge program was initially planned to last six months — after that, the idea was to launch a longer-term program that would shift the cost of the drugs from the government to insurers. A recent study found the long-term program would have cost insurance companies billions of dollars in the first year. Not enough insurers signed on for the voluntary plan by the April deadline, so CMS instead announced it would extend the Bridge program to 18 months, with a new end date of December 2027.

The move will give insurance companies more data on how many people with Medicare get GLP-1 drugs during the Bridge program and more time to negotiate with the Trump administration.

But extending the Bridge program will be “really expensive” for Medicare, Cubanski said, because the program heavily subsidizes the cost of the drugs.

“There’s no sense right now of the cost of the Bridge model, but it is likely to be billions of dollars a year in additional spending for Medicare,” Cubanski said.

The cost to Medicare will depend largely on how many people use the Bridge program. CMS has not provided any projections publicly, but a previous KFF analysis estimated that in 2020 close to 14 million Medicare beneficiaries were overweight or obese.

“This will just cost additional money, and we don’t know how much, because they haven’t disclosed it,” Cubanski said.

Are you on Medicare and interested in getting a GLP-1 for weight loss? Is a $50 copay manageable? Click here to contact KFF Health News’ reporting team.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/medicare/cheaper-glp-1-weight-loss-medicare-bridge-wegovy-zepbound-foundayo/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2232451&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">

ARPA-H, an division of HHS, launched its Intelligent Generator of Research (IGoR) program, a systemic effort to deliver gold-standard biomedical science faster.

LOS ANGELES — At Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital, patients on gurneys line the hallways of the emergency department waiting for care, and overflow mental health patients are consigned to outdoor tents.

The 152-bed hospital, which sits on a sprawling medical campus close to the predominantly Latino and Black neighborhood of Watts, is struggling for financial stability. Its patients are poorer and sicker than average, many of them are uninsured, and three-quarters of MLK’s patient care revenue comes from Medi-Cal, the state’s version of the Medicaid program, which pays low rates. For hospitals statewide, by comparison, less than one-third of patient revenue comes from Medi-Cal.

And MLK Community Healthcare, which comprises the hospital and two nearby clinics, is independent, so it cannot fall back on a larger chain to absorb some of the financial pressure.  

Similar problems plague hundreds of financially vulnerable hospitals around the country, in rural and urban areas. And their financial woes are about to get worse.

The Republican budget measure known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump last July, is expected to cut federal Medicaid spending by $911 billion over 10 years. And it could contribute to an increase of more than 14 million in the number of uninsured people, many of whom will go to already crowded emergency rooms to get care they can’t pay for.

The law does include a special fund to boost rural healthcare, totaling $50 billion over five years. But that’s far less than the $137 billion it is expected to cut from rural health spending over the next decade. And the rural health fund does little or nothing to help the numerous urban hospitals, such as MLK, that also face serious financial troubles.

MLK, like many other hospitals, is scrambling to secure outside financing to avert serious disruptions of medical services when the brunt of the policies contained in the federal law begins to hit early next year. The hospital’s leadership team projects a revenue hole of $80 million to $100 million annually for the foreseeable future. It would be MLK’s largest budget gap since it opened in 2015.

“Even if we cut services that our community needs — maternity care, behavioral healthcare, diabetes management — it wouldn’t make a significant dent in the gap we’re facing,” said Elaine Batchlor, the CEO of MLK Community Healthcare. ”Many of those same people would still come to us through our emergency department, only they’d be in worse shape and might need more expensive care.”

MLK Community Healthcare CEO Elaine Batchlor stands outside the check-in area for Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital’s emergency department, a long tent outside the main building in Los Angeles. (Bernard J. Wolfson/KFF Health News)

Across the U.S., hospitals and patient advocates are looking to state lawmakers and local officials to help shore up shaky finances. In California, Assembly member Esmeralda Soria, a Democrat representing Fresno, is pushing legislation to expand a 2023 “distressed hospital loan fund” that allocated nearly $300 million in zero-interest loans to 16 hospitals in the state, including $14 million to MLK. The state would pony up another $300 million under Soria’s bill.

At least two other states are weighing similar programs. A bill in Pennsylvania would create a $100 million “distressed hospital grant” program. And a funding bill for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services contains a provision to create an $85 million loan program for troubled hospitals.

Carmela Coyle, the CEO of the California Hospital Association, said the original $300 million disbursed by the state legislature helped but was not enough.

“This program is focused on those who are standing on the edge of that financial cliff, and it’s intended to give them a little space, brush them a little bit back from the edge,” Coyle said. “But we’ve got many more hospitals that are taking giant leaps toward the edge of that cliff every day.”

Despite the association’s influence, an expansion of the loan program is far from certain, given fiscal constraints that have already induced state leaders to roll back California’s ambitious healthcare agenda, with restrictions on coverage for immigrants and funding cuts for community clinics. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom recently warned lawmakers to expect more cuts in his revised May budget — and that’s before the main federal spending reductions kick in.

“This is a very difficult budget environment,” said Kristof Stremikis, director of market analysis and insight at the California Health Care Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for healthcare improvement. “It is hard to come up with funding for new programs and even existing programs right now.”

MLK Community Hospital is a 152-bed facility in Los Angeles near the predominantly Latino and Black neighborhood of Watts. The hospital’s leadership team projects a revenue hole of $80 million to $100 million annually for the foreseeable future. (Bernard J. Wolfson/KFF Health News)

Some lawmakers noted skeptically that the initial loans are now on their way to at least partial debt cancellation, which is allowed under existing law. Soria’s bill spells out a clearer path to loan forgiveness.

“Are these loans or are these grants? Because they seem to be turning, really, into grants,” Assembly member Pilar Schiavo, a Democrat in Santa Clarita, said during an April 21 hearing on the bill.

Ultimately, it might not be desirable to save struggling institutions by pouring dollars into them, because care is increasingly offered outside of hospitals, Stremikis said.

In the short term, though, the financial health of hospitals that received loans appears to have improved, according to a KFF Health News analysis of state data. The average operating margin of the 15 loan recipients for which comparable data is available shifted from a loss of 15.4% the year before the program to a gain of 2.3% after the money was disbursed.

It is unclear how much of the improvement can be attributed to the loans. Hospitals also secured other sources of funding, and they adopted efficiencies as a condition for the interest-free money.

MLK reduced the use of high-cost temporary labor by hiring more permanent staff, cut the average length of patient hospital stays to decrease staffing hours, streamlined billing, and negotiated more-favorable contracts with insurers, said Atul Nakhasi, a practicing physician who is also MLK’s vice president of government affairs and community relations. Batchlor said that the loan helped MLK get through a cash flow crunch and that a second loan, if it became available, would be used for the same purpose.

This summer, MLK expects to open a psychiatric assessment unit, where patients in mental distress can be stabilized in an environment replete with plush reclining chairs and “calming” rooms. Hospital executives hope the new unit will provide a significant new source of revenue, while taking pressure off the emergency department.

Batchlor sits on a beanbag chair in one of the “calming” rooms in MLK Community Hospital’s new emergency psychiatric assessment, treatment, and healing unit. (Bernard J. Wolfson/KFF Health News) The main EmPATH patient area contains large reclining chairs for people who need to be evaluated and stabilized. Hospital officials say the unit will be a welcome new revenue source and help take pressure off MLK’s perennially crowded emergency room. (Bernard J. Wolfson/KFF Health News)

Kaweah Health in Visalia, California, suspended some services, temporarily stopped contributing to employees’ retirement, and briefly froze wages in exchange for a loan of just under $21 million, said the organization’s CEO, Marc Mertz.

Madera Community Hospital got a $57 million loan — the largest disbursement from the state fund — to reopen after being shuttered for more than two years. The hospital reopened early last year, but it has not yet stabilized financially, said Matthew Beehler, the chief strategy officer at American Advanced Management, a privately held company that bought Madera out of bankruptcy.

“You can definitely say the hospital would not have been opened without the distressed hospital loan,” though the company has also invested more than $50 million, Beehler said. He said Madera would hope for another loan if the program were extended.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/health-care-costs/medicaid-cuts-distressed-hospitals-aid-california/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2231578&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">

HHS laid out a new action plan to curb psychiatric overprescribing at a MAHA Institute summit on mental health and overmedicalization.

Complaints about hospital food are certainly not new, and Jell-O and fruit juice are often the butt of related jokes. But the Trump administration has recently upped the ante.

It is urging the public to report hospitals and nursing homes that serve sugary drinks, nutrition shakes, or meals that it says don’t meet dietary guidelines established last year by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with officials vowing to withhold millions of dollars in federal funding if violations occur.

The initiative from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is spurring backlash from some doctors and medical providers who say it fails to account for patients’ unique dietary needs and is anathema to Republicans who have long embraced an anti-regulatory stance.

It’s also not clear that HHS has the regulatory authority to enforce its threat without going through a formal rulemaking process, lawyers and dietitians say.

“Most of this is political theater. HHS doesn’t have the power to do much,” said Kevin Klatt, a dietitian and research scientist who is an assistant professor at the University of Toronto. “Also, if it’s to the point that you’re trying to control people’s choices, well, you look a little fascist.”

The agency sent notices to hospitals asking them to align their food purchases with the administration’s 2025-30 dietary guidelines to ensure continued eligibility for Medicaid and Medicare payments, Kennedy said at a March 30 press event.

“We are going to bring all the hospitals in the country in line with good food,” he said, describing the instructions as “essentially a federal mandate.”

“If a hospital is serving patients sugary drinks, they are out of compliance with government standards and are putting their reimbursements in jeopardy,” top Kennedy adviser Calley Means posted on X. “If you see patients being served sugary drinks, please post information below or let CMS know.”

The comment included a link to an HHS webpage with a toll-free number for reporting complaints typically used for medical bills. Withholding federal funding from hospitals is one of the most extreme enforcement tools available to regulators, one the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has seldom deployed.

Even serving liquid nutrition products like Ensure to patients could put hospitals in jeopardy, Means warned. “They need to change or lose reimbursement. Please report them if you see it,” he told an X user.

Medicare and Medicaid, combined, are the largest payers of hospital expenditures.

The notice came in the form of a “Conditions of Participation” update released by CMS to ensure hospital patients’ food adheres to the dietary guidelines, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said. “We commend the many hospitals who have made commitments to improve their food offerings, and expect every hospital system to do so,” he said.

Means did not respond directly to requests for comment from KFF Health News, instead posting on X shortly after he was contacted: “‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ has led Democrats to defend the medical importance of mass-serving soda and junk food to American patients.” In a text with KFF Health News, he said, “That’s to cite if you want. I don’t have a comment.”

Still, some administration officials have made it clear they will not shy away from halting federal funding, a rarely taken step that can imperil the ability of a hospital to remain open.

A Carrot and a Stick

HHS can withhold or threaten federal funding if hospitals violate mandatory minimum health and safety standards set by the agency. The standards stipulate that hospitals must protect patient privacy, for example, and uphold infection control.

The standards do address hospital food, but they don’t explicitly refer to the 2025-30 dietary guidelines established by the USDA.

Rather, the standards require that “individual patient nutritional needs must be met in accordance with recognized dietary practices,” and list other requirements for hospitals, such as having access to a qualified dietitian.

“CMS has never before interpreted this requirement as mandating adherence to any set of dietary guidelines,” according to an April 13 brief from law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

The CMS memo shows the agency is taking the “notable step” to incorporate the dietary guidelines “into the hospital regulatory framework without new rulemaking,” according to the brief.

Hospitals are likely to comply because they are loath to cross the federal government and want to avoid a legal tussle or enforcement action by Kennedy, some lawyers say.

“He doesn’t have a legal basis to do this, but hospitals and nursing homes can’t afford to ignore it altogether because of what it signals about potential enforcement action,” said Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor.

If federal funding were withheld, hospitals could always sue to try and challenge HHS’ authority.

“When the agency goes to the hospital and says, We’re going to take away your money for this, the hospital can sue and say, Look, nothing requires us to fry our fries in beef tallow or whatever,” Bagley said.

For hospitals looking to comply, the agency’s memo provides examples of what should and shouldn’t be served to patients.

Food as Medicine

What the guidance calls “don’ts”: sugar-sweetened beverages or juice. And “do’s”: water, unsweetened tea, milk, or coffee. Meals suggested in the memo include grilled salmon with quinoa or bean-based entrees with leafy greens.

Some nutritionists welcomed the focus on hospital food for patients. Marion Nestle, a public health advocate and molecular biologist, lauded the initiative, saying, “These sound terrific!” in an April 8 post on her blog, Food Politics.

Other health leaders and doctors pushed back, noting hospitalized patients often have more individualized nutrition needs that may not conform to federal dietary recommendations.

For “a patient struggling to swallow from just having a stroke, salmon and quinoa is the worst thing for them. They’re going to risk aspirating on it,” said Klatt, the University of Toronto dietitian.

Hospitals that neglect to provide certain standards of care, such as protein shakes to treat malnutrition or an unhealthy weight loss, could open themselves up to possible legal liability. Eighty percent of malnourished elderly patients gained weight and improved muscle mass on nutritional supplements such as Ensure, according to the results of a clinical trial published in Nutrición Hospitalaria, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Abbott, which manufactures Ensure, makes a range of products including shakes for people who “could be malnourished due to medical treatments, such as chemotherapy, and not be getting the calories they need because they don’t have much of an appetite,” company spokesperson John Koval said in a statement.

“It’s always a struggle to get people to eat. Losing weight in the hospital raises the risk of mortality,” said Mary Talley Bowden, a sleep medicine specialist, who has often sided with Make America Healthy Again causes but criticized the administration’s call to report violations on X, posting: “Give me a break Calley. A hospital snitch line for soda?”

“It’s a little tyrannical,” she said in an interview.

The focus on hospital food came in late March as part of Kennedy’s MAHA initiative, in which he has touted changes to federal dietary guidelines that emphasize protein and healthy fats while eschewing processed foods.

Kennedy has leaned heavily into his work on changing eating habits, which fits into the MAHA gestalt and polls well with both Democratic and Republican voters. Eighty-six percent of registered voters surveyed said it should be easier for every American family to access fresh fruits and vegetables, according to a poll released in September by Navigator Research.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/health-industry/hhs-healthy-hospital-food-patient-dietary-guidelines-backlash/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2232433&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">

If you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental health crisis, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by dialing or texting “988.”

Someone in America dies by suicide every 11 minutes. It’s that common. But that doesn’t make it normal.

Humans have evolved over centuries to survive. So when people try to kill themselves, something has gone wrong. Typically, the assumption is that something happened in the person’s mind — a mental illness.

That’s led prevention efforts to typically focus on connecting people with treatment in moments of crisis.

But that’s changing. There’s a growing movement asking a different question: What went wrong in the world around that person?

During the covid pandemic, rates of anxiety and depression spiked — not because everyone’s brain chemistry suddenly changed but because the world changed. People were out of work, isolated, struggling to make ends meet.

That led many people in the mental health advocacy world to call for a broader approach. Treatments and crisis care are vital, they say, but the goal of suicide prevention needs to expand beyond stopping people from dying to also giving them reasons to live.

Decades of research supports this idea. Interventions that improve people’s lives and prospects, such as running food banks to ensure families don’t go hungry or hosting weekly book clubs for homebound seniors to make friends, can reduce suicide.

I spoke with Chris Pawelski, a fourth-generation farmer in Orange County, New York, for this story. He told me how his dad’s passing, caring for his mom with dementia, and the struggling finances of his family’s onion farm brought him to consider suicide.

“It’s all stuff collapsing down upon you,” he said. “It’s weeks, months, years of dealing with all sorts of pressures that you can’t alleviate.”

What helped him through that time was not just family support and therapy. It was also an economic plan. He worked with an organization called NY FarmNet, which provided a free financial consultant who helped Pawelski transition from farming onions for wholesale to a new model, growing varied produce to sell directly to consumers.

Today, Pawelski’s business has stabilized, and he and his wife are paying down debt. He advocates for programs to help others in similar situations.

That can mean crisis hotlines and access to affordable therapy, Pawelski said. But what he really wants are policy changes that help people address underlying hardships before a crisis strikes.

“We need to think broader and longer-term than a helpline,” he said. That’s “a band-aid on a gunshot wound.”

ELEVEN MINUTES Saving Lives by Changing Lives: The Next Frontier in Suicide Prevention

Someone in America dies by suicide every 11 minutes. It’s a tragic and entrenched problem. A new approach to prevention shifts the focus from stopping harm in moments of crisis to upstream policies that give people reasons to live.

By Aneri Pattani April 29, 2026 KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/mental-health/the-week-in-brief-suicide-prevention-efforts-broader-approach/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2233444&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — In his earliest days in the governor’s office, Democrat Gavin Newsom huddled with his advisers to consider how to realize a key campaign promise: transforming a healthcare system replete with insurance company intermediaries into the nation’s first state-run single-payer model providing comprehensive coverage to all residents, similar to those in Canada and Taiwan.

He’d need to secure tax increases to help cover the high cost of a single-payer system, once pegged at about $500 billion a year, and Republican President Donald Trump, then in his first term, would have to give California permission to use federal funding to convert the system of coverage from one determined by employment, age, or income.

Neither was politically feasible.

Instead, in the years that followed, Newsom muscled through a compassionate healthcare agenda that poured billions into new benefits, including Medi-Cal coverage for low-income immigrants without legal status and incarcerated people leaving jail or prison, as well as programs for people experiencing homelessness in America’s richest and most populous state. Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, now includes housing services, including six months of free rent for those in need, and home-delivered healthy meals for low-income Californians with chronic health conditions. He made it a priority to expand mental health and addiction treatment, especially for the tens of thousands living on the streets.

He also tackled the soaring cost of healthcare, including by offering bigger subsidies for low- and middle-income earners to purchase insurance and empowering a new state agency to slow the rise in healthcare spending. Years before TrumpRx, the president’s program to lower prices for some medicines for people without insurance, Newsom signed into law a policy setting up a state-branded generic prescription drug label known as CalRx to provide lower-priced drugs. And amid a federal attack on reproductive rights, Newsom led efforts to safeguard abortion.

The liberal values that guided Newsom’s healthcare ambitions were forged early in his life and cultivated during his two terms as mayor of San Francisco. His approach in the governor’s office is described by allies as socially liberal and fiscally pragmatic. The policies he has supported offer a road map for the direction he would lead the nation, should he run for and be elected president in 2028. Now in his final term as governor, Newsom will be scrutinized for his healthcare record, criticized by liberals as too moderate and by Republicans as too radical.

Newsom, 58, is known for his all-out approach, a style that leads him to take on a barrage of flashy and complicated policy proposals at once, earning him a reputation in some political circles of overpromising and underdelivering. Newsom has notched some successes, but his record is also marked by failures. He hasn’t housed as many people as he envisioned — there are nearly 190,000 homeless people in California, according to the most recent federal estimates, more than when he became governor. Medicaid spending has more than doubled under his watch, drawing criticism from Republicans, and patients around the state are experiencing problems getting timely medical appointments and quality care.

Newsom’s closest allies argue that he has balanced efforts to make healthcare more equitable, accessible, and affordable. They argue his unmet policy goals are not failures but investments and long-term strategies to better serve poor and marginalized people while containing healthcare costs.

“We would talk about how you win by losing,” said Mark Ghaly, who served as Newsom’s health and human services secretary until 2024. “The governor isn’t afraid to fail. But by failing you learn about how to make it successful.”

Although voters in the Democratic stronghold of California have supported many of his ideas, residents have grown increasingly weary in their support. An early 2026 poll from the University of California-Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies showed Newsom’s job approval slipping as he has focused on attacking Trump on the national stage.

Rising costs have become a top concern for voters across the political spectrum. Two-thirds of the public in January said they worried about being able to afford healthcare for themselves and their families, according to a KFF national survey. And a recent Gallup poll found roughly a third of adults in America have made at least one trade-off to afford healthcare, such as driving less, skipping meals, cutting utility use, rationing prescriptions, or borrowing money.

Despite the criticisms, Newsom’s extensive record on healthcare can give him an edge in a presidential primary contest, said Celinda Lake, a national Democratic strategist who specializes in healthcare polling. “Newsom has, by far, the most comprehensive and authentic agenda of any Democrat out there,” she said.

Universal Healthcare

Newsom has said that healthcare should be a basic human right, not a privilege. Though he backed away from single-payer, he remains steadfast in his support for a universal healthcare system that covers everybody, regardless of immigration status or ability to pay.

When he was mayor of San Francisco, in 2006, he signed into law Healthy San Francisco, a universal health program that extended care to all uninsured adults who had been unable to access coverage. The program, paid for through a combination of public funds, employer contributions, and a sliding fee scale for patients based on income, became immensely popular, extending care to 85% of adults who had been uninsured.

Newsom also waded into the national healthcare debate leading up to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, pushing for a government-run insurance plan to compete with commercial health insurers. “Healthcare reform without a public option is not reform,” Newsom said in 2009.

In 2017, amid his two terms as lieutenant governor, Newsom had launched his run for governor and gained momentum by making healthcare a central pillar of his campaign. During the gubernatorial primary, he said healthcare “is the issue of our time.” He set himself apart by tacking left and earned a critical endorsement from the California Nurses Association, pledging to fight for single-payer.

“It’s time for a new approach,” Newsom said during his campaign. “I’m tired of politicians saying they support single-payer but that it’s too soon, too expensive, or someone else’s problem.”

On his first day in office, he signed a series of directives to explore the feasibility of single-payer, in part by seeking federal healthcare waivers that would be needed to fund a new system. He didn’t deliver, but advisers argued he mimicked some components of single-payer, including cost containment, comprehensive benefits, and universal coverage.

“He looks much more broadly at the healthcare system, and what it can do to help people,” said Newsom Deputy Cabinet Secretary Richard Figueroa. “There is also a role for the government to play in cost containment. The governor has been trying to set up some fundamental changes to move toward a more accountable healthcare system.”

The nurses union, however, blasted Newsom for backtracking, arguing he kept the profit-driven insurance system intact and failed to deliver a critical healthcare promise.

Jasmine Ruddy, director of the National Nurses United and California Nurses Association’s community and Medicare for All campaigns, said Newsom pulled a bait and switch on Californians, purposely mixing up universal healthcare with single-payer. She pointed to a report commissioned by the Newsom administration that found single-payer could increase taxes but, in one scenario, would save an estimated $16 billion the first year in state healthcare costs.

“Covering everyone is important, but Newsom is supporting a system that still has insurance premiums, deductibles, and copays,” Ruddy said. “And you can still wind up with an enormous hospital bill and medical debt. That is not the same as guaranteeing healthcare for all.”

The pressure is already building for Newsom to get behind single-payer — at home and nationally. Ruddy said, “If he runs for president as a progressive, he has no choice but to support Medicare for all.”

A Behavioral Health Crisis

Newsom has taken an ambitious approach to homelessness, framing it as a public health crisis fueled by a lack of affordable housing and inadequate mental health and addiction care. Arguing that the state had ignored the problem for too long, he took ownership of the challenge by increasing temporary funding for cities and counties to move people off the streets and into housing. At the same time, he called for a statewide push to dislodge homeless encampments.

Although his policies rankled homeless advocates by sweeping people from their encampments without providing enough services or housing, Newsom considers it his highest calling. “The junction of mental illness, drug addiction, and homelessness was why I had even pursued a life in politics in the first place,” he wrote in his memoir, Young Man in a Hurry, published in February.

Since Newsom took office in 2019, California has doled out an unprecedented $37 billion for homelessness and housing-related programs.

His interest in mental health and addiction, he said, stems from personal experience, and seeing that it touches so many Californians. “It’s not just about what’s happening on the streets and sidewalks; it’s what’s happening behind closed doors as well,” Newsom said in response to a question from KFF Health News in March. He referenced his grandfather, saying, “He ultimately took his life, committed suicide.”

In his memoir, Newsom alludes to those family issues. He also references his drinking as mayor of San Francisco, a time when his political celebrity was rising and he had an affair with the wife of his campaign manager. Although he never went to traditional rehab, he said he stopped drinking until a family friend who operated a rehabilitation center gave him permission to drink again. For all his investments in the healthcare safety net, Newsom’s critics say his policies have weakened access to basic care and failed to solve homelessness.

“Despite all that spending, there are still so many people who can’t even get in to see a doctor, and who might be covered on paper but aren’t able to actually get the care they need,” said Rep. Kevin Kiley, a Republican-turned-independent who is running in a newly drawn House seat and served in the Democratic-controlled state legislature earlier in Newsom’s tenure as governor. “Billions of dollars have gone to immigrants, when our own citizens haven’t had access to healthcare.”

Assembly member David Tangipa, a Fresno Republican, said Newsom is bankrupting the state, referring to ballooning costs in Medi-Cal, which have grown from $100.7 billion in 2019 to $222.4 billion for the fiscal year starting July 1. “It’s baffling to see this governor attacking the president, when we have our own problems: Doctors are leaving this state, and we have hospitals on the verge of collapse,” he said.

Newsom’s healthcare record could be a political liability. “Single-payer is a perfect example of Gavin Newsom — that when things get tough, he cuts and runs,” said Lanhee Chen, a health policy fellow at the conservative-leaning Hoover Institution.

Now in his final full year in office, Newsom is confronting massive fiscal challenges.

Recent state financial deficits, worsened by the healthcare cuts in congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, have forced Newsom to partially backtrack on his expansion, particularly of Medi-Cal. This year, he froze new enrollments for adult immigrants living in the country without authorization.

Yet he is still framing his healthcare record as one of success. In an interview with Axios, Newsom proclaimed that he had achieved universal healthcare. “We delivered it,” he said.

But California does not have universal healthcare. Before passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, estimates showed nearly 2.6 million Californians were uninsured, including people who chose to forgo coverage and immigrants without legal status who earned too much money to be eligible for Medi-Cal.

Projections in 2025 showed that 6% of Californians remained uninsured, lower than the roughly 8% when Newsom took office. Yet the number of uninsured residents is expected to climb as a result of Trump administration healthcare policies. Estimates show the GOP bill will cost the state an estimated $30 billion over the next 10 years and result in up to 3.4 million Californians losing coverage.

Even so, Newsom has been reluctant to raise taxes. He opposes one to backfill federal healthcare funding losses through a one-time 5% levy on the state’s more than 200 billionaires.

“That’s not what we need right now, at a time of so much uncertainty,” Newsom said. “Quite the contrary.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/insurance/gavin-newsom-california-single-payer-universal-healthcare-2028/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2229103&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Hundreds of foreign doctors about to complete training in the U.S. will have to leave the country if the federal government doesn’t rapidly process their visa waiver applications, which have been languishing since the fall and winter, immigration attorneys say.

The waiver program, run by the Department of Health and Human Services, allows physicians who aren’t U.S. citizens to stay in the country while transitioning from the visa they used during their training to temporary worker status. In exchange, the doctors agree to work in underserved areas for at least three years.

“It will be the patients that suffer the most because in about three months, there’s going to be hundreds of places that are not going to have a physician that should have,” said a psychiatrist caught in the delay.

The doctor — whom KFF Health News agreed not to identify because they fear government reprisal — was among hundreds who applied this year for a J-1 visa waiver through the HHS Exchange Visitor Program.

If they receive one, the psychiatrist — who attended medical school in their home country in Europe before coming to the U.S. for their residency and fellowship — would work with vulnerable and disadvantaged patients in New York.

In recent years, the HHS program reviewed waiver applications in one to three weeks, according to two immigration attorneys.

But it currently has a backlog of hundreds of applications, which still need to be reviewed by the State Department and approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, according to four attorneys interviewed by KFF Health News.

They said the foreign physicians will likely have to return to their home countries if their applications don’t advance to USCIS by July 30.

For them to reenter the U.S., their employers would have to pay a new $100,000 fee associated with the H-1B work visa. It’s a cost that many hospitals and clinics in rural and underserved areas say they can’t afford. “That’s the cliff that this train is headed for,” said Charles Wintersteen, a Chicago-based attorney who specializes in health workforce-related immigration.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard didn’t answer questions about the number of pending applications or explain what caused the delays. But she said the Exchange Visitor Program has reviewed all fiscal year 2025 clinical J-1 waiver applications, as well as some from fiscal 2026.

The department is “implementing key process improvements to prevent future delays” and “working diligently” to evaluate remaining applications ahead of the July 30 deadline, she said.

The psychiatrist in limbo said employers hiring J-1 waiver physicians have to show they were unable to fill positions with American workers. If the doctors they planned to hire can’t arrive on time — or at all — patients will have to wait even longer for those vacancies to be filled, they said.

Wintersteen said postgraduate medical education positions are largely funded through Medicare and that “the taxpayers who pay for that training will not get the benefit of it.”

Physicians and immigration attorneys said HHS hasn’t explained the delays or let them know what to expect from their applications.

“Why would HHS want to take a program that is working — a program that places hundreds of U.S. trained international physicians in highly underserved parts of the country every year — and slow-walk it into non-existence,” Jennifer Minear, a Virginia-based health workforce immigration lawyer, said in an email. “How does that serve the public health? It is baffling.”

Waylaid Waivers

The U.S. healthcare system depends on foreign-born professionals to fill its ranks of doctors, nurses, technicians, and other health providers, particularly in chronically understaffed facilities in rural and low-income urban communities.

Nearly a quarter of physicians in the U.S. went to medical school outside the U.S. or Canada, according to 2025 licensing data.

Once noncitizens complete postgraduate education in the U.S., which typically ends on June 30, they must return to their home country and wait two years before applying for an H-1B work visa. Or, they can seek a J-1 waiver, which lets them remain in the U.S. on H-1B status in exchange for working for three years in a provider shortage area.

The attorneys said they’re seeing delays only in the Exchange Visitor Program, not in the other federal or state J-1 waiver programs.

The HHS clinical care program received 750 waiver applications last year, Minear and Wintersteen said, and is reserved for doctors working in pediatrics, psychiatry, family and internal medicine, or obstetrics and gynecology.

The program typically needs to forward recommendations to the State Department by mid-March, according to a letter from John Whyte, CEO of the American Medical Association.

Minear said HHS stopped processing applications in late September or early October before it started forwarding them again a few months ago.

“But the pace is dramatically slower” than usual, she said.

Minear said the State Department usually takes two or three months to review HHS recommendations and must send them to USCIS before July 30 for most of the doctors to stay in the country.

If they don’t make that deadline, Wintersteen said, doctors will have to leave the country unless they obtain another kind of visa, get a J-1 waiver through another program, or extend their current visa by taking board exams or doing additional training.

The psychiatrist, who is supposed to start work on July 1, said they applied for a waiver in order to stay in the U.S with their partner, and because it would let them help the most vulnerable mental health patients. They said their future clients would likely include trafficking survivors, homeless people, and prison or jail inmates. “That’s the population I want to work with,” they said.

Waiver Delay Meets H-1B Dilemma

President Donald Trump issued a September proclamation that railed against the tech industry’s use of H-1B work visas. The order created the $100,000 fee that applies to workers in all fields — not only tech — living outside the U.S. The payment doesn’t apply to those already in the country.

As of Feb. 15, employers had paid the fee for 85 workers, according to a court filing from USCIS. It’s unclear if any of those payments were for physicians or other medical providers.

The psychiatrist said officials at the hospital that plans to hire them said they can’t afford to pay to bring them back to the U.S. if they must go home.

“A lot of hospitals who hire J-1 waiver physicians are in underserved areas, and so they treat Medicare and Medicaid patients,” they said. “By definition, for the most part, they’re not rich hospitals.”

Barry Walker, an attorney in Tupelo, Mississippi, focused on health workforce-related immigration, said employers have already spent money on recruiters and attorneys like him to help with the waiver process.

Adding the H-1B fee is “just a deal killer, especially for the small, rural hospitals,” he said.

Attorneys said most employers will sponsor physicians in need of an H-1B visa only if they’re in lucrative specialties, such as cardiology or orthopedics, in which they can recover the cost of the fee.

They said healthcare facilities are much less likely to pay the fee to hire foreign nurses, lab technicians, and other healthcare professionals who are more likely than physicians to complete their training outside the U.S.

Employers can request fee exemptions, but attorneys said they haven’t heard of a hospital or clinic being granted one.

Fighting on Two Fronts

Physicians, hospital leaders, lawmakers, and immigration experts are trying to draw attention to the J-1 waiver delays at HHS while hoping to overturn or limit the new H-1B fee.

The Trump administration hasn’t acted on letters from hospitals, medical societies, and rural health organizations that requested an exception to the $100,000 fee for physicians or all healthcare workers.

In March, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a bill that would create a healthcare exemption. It has not yet had a hearing.

At least three lawsuits — from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a group of 20 states, and a coalition of plaintiffs that includes a company that recruits foreign nurses and a union that represents medical graduates — are seeking to end the fee entirely.

As for the J-1 waiver delays, the American Medical Association CEO asked the Exchange Visitor Program to use “emergency batch processing” for physicians with contracts to start work this summer.

Efrén Manjarrez, president of the Society of Hospital Medicine, which represents doctors who work in inpatient units, also called for emergency measures.

“Every day this backlog persists is a day that hospitalized patients in these communities face greater risk,” he wrote in a letter to the program.

Meanwhile, Canadian hospitals have been recruiting foreign physicians completing their training in the U.S, the psychiatrist said. They said one of their friends accepted an offer, withdrawing their HHS waiver application to head north.

The psychiatrist said if they must leave the U.S., they’ll be separated from their partner and out of a job for months as they work to get licensed in their home country.

Even if their employer were able to afford the H-1B fee, they’re not sure they’d want to return.

“This entire process has been so incredibly painful and just soul-crushing,” they said. “I would rather go to a country that would appreciate my motivation to work with patients.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/health-industry/hhs-exchange-visitor-program-visa-waiver-j1-h1b-delays-foreign-doctors-deadline/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2233436&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">

The Host Julie Rovner KFF Health News @jrovner @julierovner.bsky.social Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

Republicans and Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee had strong words for hospital CEOs about their prices at a hearing this week. But it remains unclear whether they will follow up their words with actions to force prices down.

Meanwhile, in a rare bit of positive health policy news, a study of the first two years of the new 988 suicide prevention hotline shows it reduced suicides among young people, and more so in states that fielded more calls.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Panelists Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico @JoanneKenen @joannekenen.bsky.social Read Joanne's bio. Shefali Luthra The 19th @shefali.bsky.social Read Shefali's stories. Rachel Roubein The Washington Post @rachel_roubein Read Rachel's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Hospitals have long been the most sacrosanct of healthcare stakeholders to politicians, partly because every member of Congress has at least one in their district. Hospitals are often major employers and have a powerful lobbying presence. So it was notable that members of Congress from both parties were willing to criticize hospital CEOs strongly at a hearing to examine hospital prices.
• The Supreme Court heard arguments this week about labeling for the controversial pesticide glyphosate, which may or may not cause or contribute to cancers. The issue divides the Make America Healthy Again movement, which sees the Trump administration’s support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that the product is not carcinogenic as a political betrayal.
• A study demonstrating the effectiveness of the national 988 suicide prevention hotline in reducing youth suicide is a bit of good news stemming from a rare bipartisan effort to address a serious problem.
• Another pair of studies this week suggest that the Trump administration’s delay of the recommended birth dose of the vaccine to prevent hepatitis B could increase the number of cases of the disease and cost millions more in health spending to treat its complications.

Plus for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week they think you should read, too: 

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “While Advising Kennedy, Top Aide Had More Than $25 Million Stake in Wellness Company,” by Christina Jewett and Benjamin Mueller.

Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “Unfounded Health Concerns Are Powering a Solar Backlash,” by Anna Clark.

Rachel Roubein: KFF Health News’ “Big Companies Position Themselves for Payday from $50B Federal Rural Health Fund,” by Sarah Jane Tribble.

Shefali Luthra: The Atlantic and KFF Health News’ “A ‘Barbaric’ Problem in American Hospitals Is Only Getting Bigger,” by Elisabeth Rosenthal.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• KFF’s “KFF Health Tracking Poll: Health Care Costs and the Midterms,” by Audrey Kearney, Mardet Mulugeta, Alex Montero, Isabelle Valdes, Lunna Lopes, and Ashley Kirzinger.
• KFF’s “Reaching Voters on Health,” by Drew Altman.
• JAMA’s “Suicide Mortality Among Adolescents and Young Adults After Launch of a Suicide and Crisis Lifeline,” by Vishal R. Patel; Michael Liu; and Anupam B. Jena.
• JAMA Pediatrics’ “Economic Impact of Delaying the Infant Hepatitis B Vaccination Schedule,” by Eric W. Hall; Prabhu Gounder, Heather Bradley, and Noele P. Nelson.
• JAMA Pediatrics’ “Impact of Removing the Universal Hepatitis B Birth-Dose Vaccination in the US,” by Margaret L. Lind, Matt D.T. Hitchings, Roshni P. Singh, Benjamin P. Linas, Derek A.T. Cummings, and Rachel L. Epstein.

Credits Francis Ying Audio producer Stephanie Stapleton Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From KFF Health News” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, the NPR app, YouTube, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/podcast/what-the-health-444-hospital-pricing-congress-988-suicide-april-30-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2232481&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Media round-up about the FDA taking major steps to advance the implementation of real-time clinical trials.

HHS welcomes the release of the 2026 Report of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, issued by DOJ.

State officials remain uncertain on how to enforce a requirement that many adult Medicaid enrollees show they’re working — even as one state launches its program this week — and they’re taking a variety of approaches to the job, including, in a handful of states, using artificial intelligence.

A KFF survey of Medicaid officials from 42 states and the District of Columbia offers insights into key policy decisions state officials face as the Jan. 1, 2027, deadline for implementing the work requirement nears. Lingering questions include which diseases and illnesses will qualify Medicaid beneficiaries for exemptions and how to automate compliance verification. 

Federal guidance is not expected to be released until June. But some states are moving forward with their own definitions of “medical frailty,” which under congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act will allow Medicaid enrollees to escape the requirement.

The law, President Donald Trump’s signature domestic achievement, revamps Medicaid in more than 40 states that, along with Washington, D.C., fully or partially expanded the program for low-income people to cover adults without children who don’t get insurance through a job. While most adult Medicaid beneficiaries already work or are disabled, caregivers for other people, or in school, many Republicans contend that people enrolled in the program who don’t work sap resources that ought to support low-income children, pregnant women, and disabled people.

About 20 million people gained Medicaid coverage from the expansion, created by the Affordable Care Act — a law that most Republicans still oppose.

The new work rules require that a person be a student at least part-time or work or participate in other qualifying activities, such as community service, for at least 80 hours each month. The requirement could potentially reshape who is eligible for Medicaid and applies to people who are already enrolled.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that work requirements will reduce federal Medicaid spending by about $326 billion over 10 years. The agency also estimates that 4.8 million more people will be uninsured in 2034 because of the work requirement.

 “A lot of states are working on a super-condensed timeline,” said Amaya Diana, a policy analyst at KFF who worked on the survey. They are “still making these big decisions with less than a year before implementation.”

KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

The law permits short exemptions from work requirements for enrollees experiencing certain hardships — natural disasters, residing in a county with a high unemployment rate, admission to a hospital or nursing home, or having to travel for an extended period to obtain medical care.

While 28 states and Washington, D.C., will offer hardship exemptions, three of those states won’t adopt all four exemptions allowed by the law and two — Iowa and Indiana — don’t plan to adopt any.

People can also be exempted from the work requirements if they are “medically frail.” But the federal government has not told states how to define that term or how to determine whether an enrollee falls into the category.

The survey showed that 21 states, as of March, had not defined medical frailty. Nebraska, which is implementing its work requirement May 1, recently issued a list of thousands of health conditions that could qualify enrollees as “frail” and exempt them from working.

Some states plan to allow patients to self-attest to medical frailty, while others will require confirmation by a medical professional. The most common way of verifying medical frailty, which will be used in just over 30 states, is by examining Medicaid claims data.

Mehmet Oz, administrator for the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, told KFF Health News in an interview this week that “we don’t like self-attesting” and that “documentation is critical.”

Many beneficiaries and their advocates have expressed concerns about losing coverage for administrative reasons. When Arkansas briefly implemented Medicaid work rules, for instance, most lost coverage not because they did not meet the requirements but for failing to correctly submit paperwork in time.

Six states plan to use AI to assist with the work requirement implementation in some way, such as for document processing or comparing beneficiary data from different sources, KFF found. Two states, Maryland and New Mexico, plan to use AI to analyze claims data.

Three states — Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma — plan to use AI to interact directly with people on Medicaid and assist them with identifying and uploading verification documents and data.

Adults on Medicaid will have to reverify that they’re working, or that they’re exempt from the requirement, at least every six months. Some states plan to check quarterly.

When possible, states must use available data sources to verify exemptions or compliance with work requirements.

For example, data from the National Student Clearinghouse will be used by about 10 states to verify school attendance. Some states also plan to tap sources including the Department of Veterans Affairs, AmeriCorps, and service commissions.

But more than half of states told KFF’s researchers that they have insufficient time to add new data sources and cited ongoing costs as a challenge.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/medicaid/medicaid-work-requirements-kff-survey-state-implementation-strategies/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2232959&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">

FDA announced results from the largest and most rigorous examination ever conducted focused on chemical contaminants in infant formula available on the U.S. market.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/health-industry-5/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2232781&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/public-health-20/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2232780&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/cancer/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2232779&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/cap-watch-2/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2232778&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/opioid-pharma/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2232777&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">