OCR and Deer Oaks Behavioral Health Solution reach a settlement to resolve potential HIPAA violations.

KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner discussed how cuts to Medicaid in President Donald Trump’s megabill will affect Americans’ access to health care on NPR’s “Up First,” CNN’s “CNN This Morning” and WNYC’s “The Brian Lehrer Show” on July 2. Rovner also discussed U.S. domestic and global vaccine policy on WAMU’s “1A” on July 1.

• Click here to hear Rovner on “Up First”
• Click here to watch Rovner on “CNN This Morning”
• Click here to hear Rovner on “The Brian Lehrer Show”
• Click here to hear Rovner on “1A”
• Read “Republican Megabill Will Mean Higher Health Costs for Many Americans,” by Phil Galewitz, Julie Appleby, Renuka Rayasam, and Bernard J. Wolfson

Céline Gounder, KFF Health News’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed a new study that found a link between a common type of hormone therapy and higher rates of breast cancer on CBS’ “CBS Mornings” on July 2. Gounder also discussed a breakthrough drug for HIV prevention on CBS’ “CBS Mornings Plus” on July 1.

• Click here to watch Gounder discuss the hormone therapy study on “CBS Mornings”
• Click here to watch Gounder discuss the new HIV prevention drug on “CBS Mornings Plus”

KFF Health News chief rural correspondent Sarah Jane Tribble discussed how Medicaid cuts in President Trump’s megabill could strain rural hospitals on CNN’s “CNN News Central” and on NPR’s “All Things Considered” on July 2 and July 1, respectively.

• Click here to watch Tribble on “CNN News Central”
• Click here to hear Tribble on “All Things Considered”
• Read “Republican Megabill Will Mean Higher Health Costs for Many Americans,” by Phil Galewitz, Julie Appleby, Renuka Rayasam, and Bernard J. Wolfson

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Shorter enrollment periods. More paperwork. Higher premiums. The sweeping tax and spending bill pushed by President Donald Trump includes provisions that would not only reshape people’s experience with the Affordable Care Act but, according to some policy analysts, also sharply undermine the gains in health insurance coverage associated with it.

The moves affect consumers and have particular resonance for the 19 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that run their own ACA exchanges.

Many of those states fear that the additional red tape — especially requirements that would end automatic reenrollment — would have an outsize impact on their policyholders. That’s because a greater percentage of people in those states use those rollovers versus shopping around each year, which is more commonly done by people in states that use the federal healthcare.gov marketplace.

“The federal marketplace always had a message of, ‘Come back in and shop,’ while the state-based markets, on average, have a message of, ‘Hey, here’s what you’re going to have next year, here’s what it will cost; if you like it, you don’t have to do anything,’” said Ellen Montz, who oversaw the federal ACA marketplace under the Biden administration as deputy administrator and director at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. She is now a managing director with the Manatt Health consulting group.

Millions — perhaps up to half of enrollees in some states — may lose or drop coverage as a result of that and other changes in the legislation combined with a new rule from the Trump administration and the likely expiration at year’s end of enhanced premium subsidies put in place during the covid-19 pandemic. Without an extension of those subsidies, which have been an important driver of Obamacare enrollment in recent years, premiums are expected to rise 75% on average next year. That’s starting to happen already, based on some early state rate requests for next year, which are hitting double digits.

“We estimate a minimum 30% enrollment loss, and, in the worst-case scenario, a 50% loss,” said Devon Trolley, executive director of Pennie, the ACA marketplace in Pennsylvania, which had 496,661 enrollees this year, a record.

Drops of that magnitude nationally, coupled with the expected loss of Medicaid coverage for millions more people under the legislation Trump calls the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” could undo inroads made in the nation’s uninsured rate, which dropped by about half from the time most of the ACA’s provisions went into effect in 2014, when it hovered around 14% to 15% of the population, to just over 8%, according to the most recent data.

Premiums would rise along with the uninsured rate, because older or sicker policyholders are more likely to try to jump enrollment hurdles, while those who rarely use coverage — and are thus less expensive — would not.

After a dramatic all-night session, House Republicans passed the bill, meeting the president’s July 4 deadline. Trump is expected to sign the measure on Independence Day. It would increase the federal deficit by trillions of dollars and cut spending on a variety of programs, including Medicaid and nutrition assistance, to partly offset the cost of extending tax cuts put in place during the first Trump administration.

The administration and its supporters say the GOP-backed changes to the ACA are needed to combat fraud. Democrats and ACA supporters see this effort as the latest in a long history of Republican efforts to weaken or repeal Obamacare. Among other things, the legislation would end several changes put in place by the Biden administration that were credited with making it easier to sign up, such as lengthening the annual open enrollment period and launching a special program for very low-income people that essentially allows them to sign up year-round.

In addition, automatic reenrollment, used by more than 10 million people for 2025 ACA coverage, would end in the 2028 sign-up season. Instead, consumers would have to update their information, starting in August each year, before the close of open enrollment, which would end Dec. 15, a month earlier than currently.

That’s a key change to combat rising enrollment fraud, said Brian Blase, president of the conservative Paragon Health Institute, because it gets at what he calls the Biden era’s “lax verification requirements.”

He blames automatic reenrollment, coupled with the availability of zero-premium plans for people with lower incomes that qualify them for large subsidies, for a sharp uptick in complaints from insurers, consumers, and brokers about fraudulent enrollments in 2023 and 2024. Those complaints centered on consumers’ being enrolled in an ACA plan, or switched from one to another, without authorization, often by commission-seeking brokers.

In testimony to Congress on June 25, Blase wrote that “this simple step will close a massive loophole and significantly reduce improper enrollment and spending.”

States that run their own marketplaces, however, saw few, if any, such problems, which were confined mainly to the 31 states using the federal healthcare.gov.

The state-run marketplaces credit their additional security measures and tighter control over broker access than healthcare.gov for the relative lack of problems.

“If you look at California and the other states that have expanded their Medicaid programs, you don’t see that kind of fraud problem,” said Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, the state’s Obamacare marketplace. “I don’t have a single case of a consumer calling Covered California saying, ‘I was enrolled without consent.’”

Such rollovers are common with other forms of health insurance, such as job-based coverage.

“By requiring everyone to come back in and provide additional information, and the fact that they can’t get a tax credit until they take this step, it is essentially making marketplace coverage the most difficult coverage to enroll in,” said Trolley at Pennie, 65% of whose policyholders were automatically reenrolled this year, according to KFF data. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Federal data shows about 22% of federal sign-ups in 2024 were automatic-reenrollments, versus 58% in state-based plans. Besides Pennsylvania, the states that saw such sign-ups for more than 60% of enrollees include California, New York, Georgia, New Jersey, and Virginia, according to KFF.

States do check income and other eligibility information for all enrollees — including those being automatically renewed, those signing up for the first time, and those enrolling outside the normal open enrollment period because they’ve experienced a loss of coverage or other life event or meet the rules for the low-income enrollment period.

“We have access to many data sources on the back end that we ping, to make sure nothing has changed. Most people sail through and are able to stay covered without taking any proactive step,” Altman said.

If flagged for mismatched data, applicants are asked for additional information. Under current law, “we have 90 days for them to have a tax credit while they submit paperwork,” Altman said.

That would change under the tax and spending plan before Congress, ending presumptive eligibility while a person submits the information.

A white paper written for Capital Policy Analytics, a Washington-based consultancy that specializes in economic analysis, concluded there appears to be little upside to the changes.

While “tighter verification can curb improper enrollments,” the additional paperwork, along with the expiration of higher premiums from the enhanced tax subsidies, “would push four to six million eligible people out of Marketplace plans, trading limited fraud savings for a surge in uninsurance,” wrote free market economists Ike Brannon and Anthony LoSasso.

“Insurers would be left with a smaller, sicker risk pool and heightened pricing uncertainty, making further premium increases and selective market exits [by insurers] likely,” they wrote.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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.

Early Thursday afternoon, the House approved a budget reconciliation bill that not only would make permanent many of President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, but also impose deep cuts to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and, indirectly, Medicare.

Meanwhile, those appointed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to a key vaccine advisory panel used their first official meeting to cast doubt on a preservative that has been used in flu vaccines for decades — with studies showing no evidence of its harm in low doses.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Maya Goldman of Axios, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists Maya Goldman Axios @mayagoldman_ @maya-goldman.bsky.social Read Maya's stories Sarah Karlin-Smith Pink Sheet @SarahKarlin @sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social Read Sarah's stories. Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico @AliceOllstein @alicemiranda.bsky.social Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• This week the GOP steamrolled toward a major constriction of the nation’s social safety net, pushing through Trump’s tax and spending bill. The legislation contains significant changes to the way Medicaid is funded and delivered — in particular, through imposing the program’s first federal work requirement on many enrollees. Hospitals say the changes would be devastating, potentially resulting in the loss of services and facilities that could touch all patients, not only those on Medicaid.
• Some proposals in Trump’s bill were dropped during the Senate’s consideration, including a ban on Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care and federal funding cuts for states that use their own Medicaid funds to cover immigrants without legal status. And for all the talk of not touching Medicare, the legislation’s repercussions for the deficit are expected to trigger spending cuts to the program that covers those over 65 and some with disabilities — potentially as soon as the next fiscal year.
• The newly reconstituted Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met last week, and it looked pretty different from previous meetings: In addition to new members, there were fewer staffers on hand from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — and the notable presence of vaccine critics. The panel’s vote to reverse the recommendation of flu shots containing a mercury-based preservative — plus its plans to review the childhood vaccine schedule — hint at what’s to come.

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

Julie Rovner: The Lancet’s “Evaluating the Impact of Two Decades of USAID Interventions and Projecting the Effects of Defunding on Mortality up to 2030: A Retrospective Impact Evaluation and Forecasting Analysis,” by Daniella Medeiros Cavalcanti, et al.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “‘I Feel Like I’ve Been Lied To’: When a Measles Outbreak Hits Home,” by Eli Saslow.

Maya Goldman: Axios’ “New Docs Get Schooled in Old Diseases as Vax Rates Fall,” by Tina Reed.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Wired’s “Snake Venom, Urine, and a Quest to Live Forever: Inside a Biohacking Conference Emboldened by MAHA,” by Will Bahr.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• NBC News’ “Crisis Pregnancy Centers Told To Avoid Ultrasounds for Suspected Ectopic Pregnancies,” by Abigail Brooks.
• ProPublica’s “A ‘Striking’ Trend: After Texas Banned Abortion, More Women Nearly Bled to Death During Miscarriage,” by Kavitha Surana, Lizzie Presser, and Andrea Suozzo.
• The Washington Post’s “DOGE Loses Control Over Government Grants Website, Freeing Up Billions,” by Dan Diamond and Hannah Natanson.

Credits Francis Ying Audio producer Emmarie Huetteman Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, 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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Four years before Kimberly Gallagher enrolled in Medicaid herself, the public health insurance program’s rules prompted her to make an excruciating choice — to give up guardianship of her son so she could work as his caregiver.

Now, another proposed twist in the rules could mean that, even though Missouri pays her to do that work, she might still have to prove to the state that she’s not unemployed.

The Kansas City, Missouri, resident has cared for her disabled son, Daniel, for all 31 years of his life. A rare genetic condition called Prader-Willi syndrome, in addition to autism, left him with an intellectual disability; a constant, excessive hunger; and an inability to speak. His needs left Gallagher, an elementary school teacher by training, with little opportunity to work outside her home.

As congressional Republicans slash about $1 trillion in federal Medicaid spending, Gallagher is among the 18.5 million Americans who could be required to prove that they work enough to keep their health insurance.

A budget bill that passed the House and Senate would require 80 hours of work or community service a month for adults who are insured through the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion program, which has allowed states to extend Medicaid coverage to more adults with low incomes. Forty states, plus Washington, D.C., have expanded their programs, additions that now cover about 20 million Americans, including Gallagher.

She enrolled in the coverage in December 2023, after she could no longer afford her private insurance. Before her husband died of cancer in 2019, the couple paid for private insurance and supported themselves on the income he earned as a master watchmaker. After his death, Gallagher was left to earn a living and find insurance on her own. At 59, she’s too young to collect her husband’s Social Security survivor benefit.

The Medicaid program that pays for in-home care for Daniel and 8,000 other Missourians with disabilities allows family members to be compensated for caregiving, but only if they’re not the legal guardian of the person they care for. So, Gallagher went to court to give up her rights to make decisions for her son and transfer authority to her parents.

“I think it’s appalling that it’s required, but it was necessary,” she said. “There was no way I could work outside of taking care of Daniel.”

Republicans have touted Medicaid work requirements both as a way to reduce federal spending on the program and as a moral imperative for Americans.

“Go out there. Do entry-level jobs. Get into the workforce. Prove that you matter. Get agency into your own life,” Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said in a recent interview on Fox Business.

Democrats, meanwhile, have cast the requirements as bureaucratic red tape that won’t meaningfully increase employment but will cause eligible people to lose their health insurance because of administrative hurdles.

Indeed, the vast majority of Americans enrolled in Medicaid expansion are already working, caregiving, attending school, or have a disability, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

And while the Congressional Budget Office estimates the work requirement included in the House bill would cause 4.8 million Americans to lose their insurance, only about 300,000 of those people are unemployed because of lack of interest in working, according to the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research group. Recent history in states that have tried work requirements suggests technical and paperwork problems have caused a substantial portion of coverage losses.

Still, the provisions are generally popular among Republican lawmakers and the public. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has repeatedly cautioned against cutting people off from Medicaid, has signaled support for adding work requirements.

And 68% of Americans favor the requirement described in the House bill, according to a recent poll conducted by KFF. But support for work requirements dropped as low as 35% when respondents learned that most Medicaid recipients already work and could lose their coverage because of paperwork requirements.

That’s what happened in Arkansas, where 18,000 people lost their Medicaid coverage in 2018 after the state phased in a work requirement. Thousands more were on pace to lose coverage in 2019 before a federal judge halted the requirement, largely over concerns about coverage losses. In discussions with focus groups, KFF found that many Arkansas Medicaid participants did not fully understand the requirements, despite the state’s outreach efforts, and some people didn’t receive mailed notices. Others were confused because the work-reporting paperwork and separate forms to renew Medicaid coverage asked for similar information.

Many family caregivers would be exempt from the work requirements proposed in Congress, but Gallagher probably would not, since she had to relinquish guardianship of her son to be paid for the work. While the hours she already logs should be enough to satisfy the requirement, she’ll need to report them again — unless the state can identify her through its existing data. But Missouri has a history of procedural problems in the state agency that administers Medicaid.

In early 2022, for example, Missouri was taking more than 100 days on average to process applications for Medicaid expansion, a wait that prompted patients to put off needed care and was more than twice the processing time allowed by federal law.

And 79% of the more than 378,000 Missourians who lost Medicaid coverage when covid-era enrollment protections ended in 2023 did so because of procedural reasons.

The next year, a federal judge ruled that Missourians were illegally being denied food aid by the state, in part because insufficient staffing at call centers left eligible people without assistance.

“They’re historically understaffed,” Timothy McBride, a health economist at Washington University in St. Louis, said of the state agency that administers Medicaid and food assistance. “I think that’s really the underlying problem.”

McBride’s analysis of Missouri’s Medicaid recipients found that fewer than 45,000 of the people enrolled in expansion in 2023 were unemployed for reasons other than caregiving, disability, attending school, or retirement. But more than twice that many Missourians could lose their insurance if work requirements prompt disenrollment rates similar to Arkansas’ implementation, according to a study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank that analyzes government policies.

The estimate assumes many otherwise eligible people would still lose coverage as a result of falling through the cracks, McBride said.

Hawley, who backed the Senate bill, declined to comment for this article. The senator previously told reporters that “we can sort that out” when asked about eligible people inadvertently losing Medicaid because of work requirements.

Gallagher worries about her coverage, because she recently was diagnosed with Hashimoto’s disease, an autoimmune disorder that attacks the thyroid gland. She said she had to search for her Medicaid card to fill the prescription that followed, having barely used it in the year in a half she’s been covered.

She also worries about her son’s Medicaid. A nursing home is not a realistic option, considering his needs. His coverage doubles as Gallagher’s only source of income and also pays for other caregivers, when she can find them, who give her breaks to tend to her own health and to her aging parents.

But nearly all in-home services like those Daniel receives are optional programs that states are not required to include in their Medicaid programs. And the magnitude of the cuts being proposed have prompted fears that the optional programs could be chopped.

“It would destroy our lives,” Gallagher said. “The only income we would have would be Daniel’s Social Security.”

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The last time a Republican-controlled Congress and President Donald Trump moved to slash Medicaid spending, in 2017, a key political force stood in their way: GOP governors.

Now, as Congress steamrolls toward passing historic Medicaid cuts of about $1 trillion over 10 years through Trump’s tax and spending legislation, red-state governors are saying little publicly about what it does to health care — even as they face reductions that will punch multibillion-dollar holes in their states’ budgets.

Medicaid, a program jointly run by states and the federal government, covers more than 70 million low-income or disabled people, including nearly half of the nation’s children. Republicans say the $900 billion-a-year program was allowed to grow too large under Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden by adding nondisabled adults they say don’t deserve government assistance, and they have long sought to scale it back.

Some of the biggest health cuts in the legislation Trump calls the “One Big Beautiful Bill” are achieved through new policies that would reduce enrollment by imposing more paperwork demands on enrollees, including a requirement that many prove they’re working. Those policies would affect only states that expanded Medicaid to more low-income people under the Affordable Care Act.

Nineteen of those states are led by Republican governors. Their silence on the bill’s health measures is giving political cover to GOP lawmakers from their states as they seek to cut Medicaid coverage for millions of people who gained it within the last decade.

KFF Health News contacted all 19 governors for comment on the legislation’s Medicaid cuts. Only six responded. Most said they backed imposing a work requirement on adult Medicaid enrollees.

“Implementing work requirements for able-bodied adults is a good and necessary reform so that Medicaid is being used for temporary assistance and not a permanent entitlement,” said Drew Galang, a spokesperson for Gov. Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia.

“Governor Rhoden supports workforce participation as a requirement of Medicaid expansion eligibility,” said Josie Harms, a spokesperson for South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden, adding that congressional lawmakers have the governor’s support: “South Dakota has an excellent federal delegation, and Governor Rhoden trusts them to fight for South Dakota’s priorities while delivering on President Trump’s promises.”

In a sign of how the political winds have changed, none of the governors said anything about another of the legislation’s significant cuts, to provider taxes — a tool that nearly all of their states use to help pay their share of Medicaid and gain additional funds from the federal government. That change is expected to cost states billions.

No Longer a Bipartisan Issue

In contrast to the radio silence from GOP governors, Democratic governors have campaigned against the megabill for weeks.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro posted on the social platform X that Trump and congressional Republicans were misleading Americans by saying they were cutting only waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid.

“They’re rushing to kick hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians off their healthcare — and lying about it,” he posted. “The damage this will do here in Pennsylvania and across America is staggering and will be felt for years to come.”

In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul on July 1 charged that Trump’s legislation would devastate hospitals and could lead to more than 34,000 job cuts in her state.

“The collective impact of the GOP reconciliation bill in Washington, D.C., could force hospitals to curtail critically needed services such as maternity care and psychiatric treatment, not to mention to downsize operations, and even close entirely,” she said in a statement.

In 2017, the chorus was bipartisan, as Republican governors in Ohio, Nevada, and Massachusetts spoke out against cutting Medicaid. Trump’s bill to repeal much of the Affordable Care Act and roll back its Medicaid expansion narrowly failed in the Senate.

“It’s been surprising that red-state governors, particularly those in Medicaid expansion states, haven’t spoken out against Medicaid cuts,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. “Republican governors were a potent political force in the failed 2017 effort to repeal and replace the ACA, including Medicaid expansion.”

What’s changed since 2017, policy experts say, is that there are fewer moderate Republican governors, and GOP state executives who advocated for Medicaid expansion over a decade ago are no longer in office.

Additionally, seven of the then-red states that expanded Medicaid did so via ballot initiative, mostly over opposition from their governors.

In fact, the Medicaid work requirement is backed by many Republican governors, even if it means less federal Medicaid money and leads to fewer people covered.

Several states, including Arkansas and Ohio, have already passed state laws to implement a requirement that adults enrolled under the ACA’s Medicaid expansion work, volunteer, go to school, or participate in job training. Most states have yet to bring work requirement programs to fruition because they are waiting for federal government approval.

Charles “Chip” Kahn, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a trade group of investor-owned hospitals, said that while fewer governors have engaged publicly in trying to block Medicaid cuts under the bill, federal lawmakers are hearing from legislators in their states.

A political dilemma for Republican governors is that, unlike in 2017, the bill before Congress is not legislation aimed expressly at repealing Obamacare. With a scope broader than health care, it would extend many of Trump’s tax cuts and direct billions in new spending toward border security, immigration enforcement, and the military, while also cutting health care spending.

“It’s like playing multidimensional chess rather than focusing on one issue,” Kahn said.

Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota, said some Republican governors may have expressed concerns privately to their states’ GOP senators but are not speaking out publicly for fear of drawing Trump’s wrath.

“Why are they being cagey? Trump and not wanting to be ‘Liz Cheney’d,’” Jacobs said, referring to the Republican former Wyoming lawmaker whom Trump helped oust after she served as vice chair of an inquiry into his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Walking Political Tightropes

The political peril Republican lawmakers face in publicly challenging Trump remains explicit. On June 29, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) announced he would not run for reelection after he voiced concerns about the bill and the president threatened to back a primary challenger. Tillis was one of three GOP senators to vote against it on July 1, though it still narrowly passed.

In addition to the work requirement, the biggest Medicaid cuts in the bill stem from its restrictions on provider taxes — levies that states impose on hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care institutions to help increase their federal reimbursement. Much of the additional money is then returned to the health care providers in the form of higher payments for their Medicaid patients.

The practice, which has been adopted in every state but Alaska, has been criticized by some Beltway Republicans as “money laundering” — even though the taxes are approved by state lawmakers and the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and have been allowed under federal law for decades.

The Senate bill would limit the money states could raise — a move that would mean billions in funding cuts to states and their hospitals.

The states with Republican governors that expanded Medicaid are Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Utah.

One of the governors who expressed concerns about repealing the Obamacare Medicaid expansion in 2017 was Jim Justice of West Virginia, a Democrat at the time.

In a June 2017 letter to West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican, Justice wrote: “Since so many of our people count on Medicaid, any cut to Medicaid would destroy families in West Virginia.” He added that “the consequences would be beyond catastrophic.”

On July 1, Justice — elected to the Senate as a Republican last year — voted for Trump’s megabill, including its Medicaid cuts.

“The Senator believes this bill strikes a good balance between protecting the most vulnerable and those who rely on the program while rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse to ensure the program is run efficiently for those deserving,” William O’Grady, a Justice spokesperson, said in an email July 2.

KFF Health News correspondent Arielle Zionts contributed to this report.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

El “One Big Beautiful Bill” del presidente Donald Trump recorta el gasto federal en los mercados de Medicaid y la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo precio (ACA) en aproximadamente $1.000 millones a lo largo de una década, según la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (CBO), una entidad no partidista. Esto amenaza la salud física y financiera de decenas de millones de estadounidenses.

El proyecto de ley, aprobado por el Senado el martes 1 de julio, revertiría muchos de los avances en cobertura médica de las administraciones Biden y Obama, cuyas políticas facilitaron el acceso a la atención médica a millones de personas y redujeron la tasa de personas sin seguro en el país a mínimos históricos.

El plan del Senado para recortar drásticamente la financiación de Medicaid y los mercados de ACA podría hacer que unas 12 millones de personas más no tuvieran seguro para 2034, según estima la CBO.

Esto, a su vez, perjudicaría las finanzas de hospitales, residencias de adultos mayores y centros de salud comunitarios —que tendrían que absorber una mayor parte del costo del tratamiento de las personas sin cobertura— y podría obligarlos a reducir servicios y personal, hasta a cerrar instalaciones.

La legislación está en el escritorio de Trump a la espera de su firma, aunque primero el Senado y la Cámara de Representantes deben aprobar la misma versión. La Cámara de Representantes aprobó su propia versión en mayo y se espera que considere la versión del Senado hoy (2 de julio), según Tom Emmer, líder de la mayoría en la Cámara.

A continuación, se presentan cinco maneras en que los planes del Partido Republicano podrían afectar el acceso a la atención médica.

¿Necesita Medicaid? Entonces consigue un trabajo

Los recortes más profundos al gasto en atención médica provienen de la propuesta de un requisito de trabajo para Medicaid, que cortaría la cobertura a millones de afiliados que no cumplen con estos nuevos estándares.

En 40 estados y Washington, D.C., que han ampliado Medicaid bajo ACA, algunos beneficiarios de Medicaid tendrían que presentar regularmente documentación que demuestre que trabajan, hacen voluntariado o asisten a la escuela al menos 80 horas al mes, o que califican para una exención, como por ejemplos el cuidado de un niño pequeño.

El requisito del proyecto de ley no se aplicaría a las personas en los 10 estados, mayoritariamente republicanos, que no han ampliado Medicaid.

Investigadores de salud afirman que la política tendría poco impacto en el empleo. Según KFF, la mayoría de los beneficiarios de Medicaid en edad laboral que no reciben prestaciones por discapacidad ya trabajan o buscan trabajo, o no pueden hacerlo porque tienen una discapacidad, asisten a la escuela o cuidan a un familiar.

Los experimentos estatales con requisitos de trabajo se han visto plagados de problemas administrativos, como la pérdida de cobertura de los beneficiarios elegibles por problemas con el papeleo, y más gasto.

El requisito de trabajo de Georgia, que se implementó oficialmente en julio de 2023, ha costado más de $90 millones, de los cuales solo 26 millones se han destinado a prestaciones de salud, según el  Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, una organización de investigación no partidista.

“Los costos ocultos son astronómicos”, afirmó Chima Ndumele, profesor de la Escuela de Salud Pública de Yale.

Menos dinero significa menos atención en las comunidades rurales

Las medidas de ajuste que se aplicarían a los estados podrían traducirse en una disminución de los servicios de salud, profesionales médicos e incluso hospitales, especialmente en las comunidades rurales.

El plan del Partido Republicano reduciría una práctica conocida como impuestos a los proveedores, que casi todos los estados han utilizado durante décadas para aumentar los pagos de Medicaid a hospitales, residencias de adultos mayores y otros proveedores, así como a empresas privadas de atención médica administrada.

Los estados suelen utilizar el dinero federal generado a través de los impuestos para pagar a las instituciones más de lo que Medicaid pagaría de otra manera. (Medicaid generalmente paga las tarifas más bajas por la atención médica, en comparación con Medicare, el programa para personas mayores de 65 años y algunas personas con discapacidad, y los seguros privados).

Los hospitales y residencias de adultos mayores afirman que utilizan estos fondos adicionales de Medicaid para ampliar o añadir nuevos servicios y mejorar la atención para todos los pacientes.

Los hospitales rurales suelen operar con márgenes de ganancia reducidos y dependen de los pagos de impuestos de Medicaid para sostenerlos. Investigadores del Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research que examinaron el proyecto de ley de la Cámara concluyeron que este obligaría a más de 300 hospitales rurales, muchos de ellos en Kentucky, Louisiana, California y Oklahoma, a reducir sus servicios o cerrar.

Los senadores republicanos agregaron un fondo de $50 mil millones a su versión del proyecto de ley para amortiguar el impacto en los hospitales rurales.

Más dificultad para obtener, y mantener, la cobertura de ACA

Para quienes tienen cobertura del mercado de seguros de salud de ACA, el plan republicano dificultaría la inscripción y el conservar los planes.

Los asegurados del mercado de seguros estarían obligados a actualizar sus ingresos, estatus migratorio y otra información cada año, en lugar de reinscribirse automáticamente, algo que más de 10 millones de personas hicieron este año.

También tendrían menos tiempo para inscribirse; el proyecto de ley acorta el período anual de inscripción abierta en aproximadamente un mes.

Las personas que soliciten cobertura fuera de ese período —por ejemplo, porque pierden su trabajo u otro seguro, o necesitan agregar a un recién nacido o cónyuge a una póliza existente— tendrían que esperar a que se procesen todos sus documentos antes de recibir subsidios del gobierno para ayudar a pagar sus primas mensuales. Actualmente, reciben hasta 90 días de ayuda con las primas durante el proceso de solicitud, que puede tardar semanas.

Los legisladores republicanos y algunos centros de estudios de políticas conservadoras, incluido el Paragon Health Institute, afirman que los cambios son necesarios para reducir las inscripciones fraudulentas, mientras que los opositores afirman que son el último intento de desmantelar el Obamacare.

La legislación tampoco contempla una extensión de los subsidios mejorados implementados durante la pandemia de covid-19. Si el Congreso no actúa, estos subsidios expirarán a finales de año, lo que resultará en un aumento promedio del 75% en las primas el próximo año, según KFF.

¿Tienes Medicaid? Se pagará más por las consultas médicas

Muchos beneficiarios de Medicaid podrían tener que pagar más de su bolsillo por las citas.

El proyecto de ley exigiría a los estados que han ampliado Medicaid cobrar a los beneficiarios hasta $35 por algunos servicios si sus ingresos se encuentran entre el nivel federal de pobreza (este año, $15.650 por persona) y el 138% de esa cantidad ($21.597).

Los beneficiarios de Medicaid generalmente no pagan nada cuando buscan servicios médicos, ya que estudios han demostrado que cobrar incluso copagos pequeños lleva a las personas de bajos ingresos a renunciar a atención necesaria. En los últimos años, algunos estados han agregado cargos inferiores a $10 por algunos servicios.

Esta política no se aplicaría a las personas que buscan atención primaria, atención de salud mental o tratamiento de adicciones.

Recortes para inmigrantes con residencia legal

El plan republicano podría provocar que al menos cientos de miles de inmigrantes con residencia legal —incluyendo solicitantes de asilo, víctimas de tráfico humano y refugiados— pierdan su cobertura del mercado de seguros al eliminar los subsidios que hacen que las primas sean asequibles. La restricción no se aplicaría a los titulares de tarjetas de residencia permanente (Green Card o tarjeta verde).

Dado que los inmigrantes que perderían subsidios bajo este plan tienden a ser más jóvenes que la población general, su salida dejaría una población de afiliados de mayor edad, con mayor riesgo de enfermedad y costos más elevados, lo que incrementaría aún más las primas del mercado, según directores de los mercados de seguros de salud en California, Maryland y Massachusetts, y analistas de salud.

Quitar el acceso a la atención médica a los inmigrantes que viven legalmente en el país “causará un daño irreparable a las personas que hemos prometido proteger e impondrá costos innecesarios a los sistemas locales que ya están sobrecargados”, declaró John Slocum, director ejecutivo del Refugee Council USA, un grupo de defensa, en un comunicado.

Tanto la versión de la Cámara de Representantes como la del Senado del proyecto de ley reflejan el enfoque restrictivo de la administración Trump hacia la inmigración.

Sin embargo, debido a que contravenía las normas del Senado, la legislación no incluirá una propuesta que habría reducido los pagos federales de Medicaid a estados como California, que utilizan sus propios fondos para cubrir a inmigrantes sin papeles.

La corresponsal principal de KFF Health News en Washington, Julie Rovner, contribuyó con este artículo.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

DOJ-HHS False Claims Act Working Group

As summer ushers in peak mosquito season, health and vector control officials are bracing for the possibility of another year of historic rates of dengue. And with climate change, the lack of an effective vaccine, and federal research cuts, they worry the disease will become endemic to a larger swath of North America.

About 3,700 new dengue infections were reported last year in the contiguous United States, up from about 2,050 in 2023, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All of last year’s cases were acquired abroad, except for 105 cases contracted in California, Florida, or Texas. The CDC issued a health alert in March warning of the ongoing risk of dengue infection.

“I think dengue is here with us to stay,” said infectious disease specialist Michael Ben-Aderet, associate medical director of hospital epidemiology at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, about dengue becoming a new normal in the U.S. “These mosquitoes aren't going anywhere.”

Dengue is endemic — a label health officials assign when diseases appear consistently in a region — in many warmer parts of the world, including Latin America, India, and Southeast Asia. Dengue cases increased markedly last year in many of those places, especially in Central and South America.

The disease, which can spread when people are bitten by infected Aedes mosquitoes, was not common in the contiguous United States for much of the last century. Today, most locally acquired (meaning unrelated to travel) dengue cases in the U.S. happen in Puerto Rico, which saw a sharp increase in 2024, triggering a local public health emergency.

Most people who contract dengue don’t get sick. But in some people symptoms are severe: bleeding from the nose or mouth, intense stomach pain, vomiting, and swelling. Occasionally, dengue causes death.

California offers a case study in how dengue is spreading in the U.S. The Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes that transmit dengue weren’t known to be in the state 25 years ago. They are now found in 25 counties and more than 400 cities and unincorporated communities, mostly in Southern California and the Central Valley.

The spread of the mosquitoes is concerning because their presence increases the likelihood of disease transmission, said Steve Abshier, president of the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California.

From 2016 through 2022, there were an average of 136 new dengue cases a year in California, each case most likely brought to the state by someone who had traveled and been infected elsewhere. In 2023, there were about 250 new cases, including two acquired locally.

In 2024, California saw 725 new dengue cases, including 18 acquired locally, state data shows.

Climate change could contribute to growth in the Aedes mosquitoes’ population, Ben-Aderet said. These mosquitoes survive best in warm urban areas, often biting during the daytime. Locally acquired infections often occur when someone catches dengue during travel, then comes home and is bitten by an Aedes mosquito that bites and infects another person.

“They've just been spreading like wildfire throughout California,” Ben-Aderet said.

Dengue presents a challenge to the many primary care doctors who have never seen it. Ben-Aderet said doctors who suspect dengue should obtain a detailed travel history from their patients, but confirming the diagnosis is not always quick.

“There's no easy test for it,” he said. “The only test that we have for dengue is antibody tests.” He added that “most labs probably aren't doing it commercially, so it's usually like a send-out test from most labs. So you really have to suspect someone has dengue.”

Best practices for avoiding dengue include eliminating any standing pools of water on a property — even small pools — and using mosquito repellent, Abshier said. Limiting activity at dusk and dawn, when mosquitoes bite most often, can also help.

Efforts to combat dengue in California became even more complicated this year after wildfires ripped through Los Angeles. The fires occurred in a hot spot for mosquito-borne illnesses. San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District officials have worked for months to treat more than 1,400 unmaintained swimming pools left in the wake of fire, removing potential breeding grounds for mosquitoes.

San Gabriel vector control officials have used local and state resources to treat the pools, said district spokesperson Anais Medina Diaz. They have applied for reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which has not historically paid for vector control efforts following wildfires.

In California, vector control agencies are often primarily funded by local taxes and fees on property owners.

Some officials are pursuing the novel method of releasing sterilized Aedes mosquitoes to reduce the problem. That may prove effective, but deploying the method in a large number of areas would be costly and would require a massive effort at the state level, Abshier said. Meanwhile, the federal government is pulling back on interventions: Several outlets have reported that the National Institutes of Health will stop funding new climate change-related research, which could include work on dengue.

This year, reported rates of dengue in much of the Americas have declined significantly from 2024. But the trend in the United States likely won’t be clear until later in the year, after the summer mosquito season ends.

Health and vector control researchers aren't sure how bad it will get in California. Some say there may be limited outbreaks, while others predict dengue could get much worse. Sujan Shresta, a professor and infectious disease researcher at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, said other places, like Nepal, experienced relatively few cases of dengue in the recent past but now regularly see large outbreaks.

There is a vaccine for children, but it faces discontinuation from a lack of global demand. Two other dengue vaccines are unavailable in the United States. Shresta’s lab is hard at work on an effective, safe vaccine for dengue. She hopes to release results from animal testing in a year or so; if the results are positive, human trials could be possible in about two years.

“If there's no good vaccine, no good antivirals, this will be a dengue-endemic country,” she said.

Phillip Reese is a data reporting specialist and an associate professor of journalism at California State University-Sacramento.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Con el verano marcando el comienzo de la temporada alta de mosquitos, autoridades sanitarias y de control de vectores se preparan para la posibilidad de otro año con tasas históricas de dengue. Y con el cambio climático, la falta de una vacuna eficaz y los recortes federales en la investigación, les preocupa que la enfermedad se vuelva endémica en una franja más amplia de Norteamérica.

El año pasado se reportaron alrededor de 3.700 nuevas infecciones por dengue en Estados Unidos, frente a las 2.050 de 2023, según los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC). Todos los casos de 2024 se adquirieron en el extranjero, excepto 105 contraídos en California, Florida o Texas. Los CDC emitieron una alerta sanitaria en marzo advirtiendo sobre el riesgo continuo de infección por dengue.

"Creo que el dengue ha llegado para quedarse", declaró Michael Ben-Aderet, especialista en enfermedades infecciosas y director médico asociado de epidemiología hospitalaria del Cedars-Sinai de Los Ángeles, sobre la posibilidad de que el dengue se convierta en la nueva normalidad en el país. "Estos mosquitos no se irán a ninguna parte".

El dengue es endémico —una etiqueta que las autoridades de salud pública asignan cuando las enfermedades aparecen de forma constante en una región— en muchas zonas más cálidas del mundo, como Latinoamérica, India y el sudeste asiático. Los casos de dengue aumentaron notablemente el año pasado en muchos de esos lugares, especialmente en Centro y Sur América.

La enfermedad, que puede propagarse por la picadura de mosquitos Aedes que portan el virus, no fue común en Estados Unidos continental durante gran parte del siglo pasado. Actualmente, la mayoría de los casos de dengue adquiridos localmente (es decir, no relacionados con viajes) en el país se registran en Puerto Rico, donde se registró un fuerte aumento en 2024, lo que desencadenó una emergencia de salud pública local.

La mayoría de las personas que desarrollan dengue no se enferman. Sin embargo, en algunas, los síntomas son graves: sangrado por la nariz o la boca, dolor de estómago intenso, vómitos e hinchazón. En ocasiones, el dengue causa la muerte.

California ofrece un caso centinela sobre la propagación del dengue en el país. Hace 25 años, no se conocía la presencia de los mosquitos Aedes aegypti y Aedes albopictus, que transmiten el dengue, en el estado. Actualmente, se encuentran en 25 condados y más de 400 ciudades y comunidades no incorporadas, principalmente en el sur de California y en el Valle Central.

La propagación de los mosquitos es preocupante porque su presencia aumenta la probabilidad de transmisión de enfermedades, afirmó Steve Abshier, presidente de la Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California.

Entre 2016 y 2022, se registró un promedio de 136 nuevos casos de dengue al año en California, cada uno de los cuales probablemente traído al estado por alguien que viajó y se infectó en otro lugar. En 2023, se registraron alrededor de 250 casos nuevos, incluyendo dos adquiridos localmente.

En 2024, California registró 725 nuevos casos de dengue, incluyendo 18 adquiridos localmente, según datos estatales.

El cambio climático podría contribuir al aumento de la población de mosquitos Aedes, afirmó Ben-Aderet. Estos mosquitos sobreviven mejor en zonas urbanas cálidas, y suelen picar durante el día. Las infecciones de transmisión local suelen ocurrir cuando alguien contrae dengue durante un viaje, regresa a casa y lo pica un mosquito Aedes que, a su vez, pica e infecta a otra persona.

"Se han propagado rápidamente por toda California", explicó Ben-Aderet.

El dengue representa un desafío para muchos médicos de atención primaria que nunca lo han visto. Ben-Aderet dijo que los médicos que sospechan dengue deben obtener un historial de viaje detallado de sus pacientes, pero confirmar el diagnóstico no siempre es rápido.

"No existe una prueba sencilla para detectarlo", afirmó. "La única prueba que tenemos para el dengue son las pruebas de anticuerpos". Agregó que "la mayoría de los laboratorios probablemente no lo estén comercializando, por lo que suele ser una prueba que se debe analizar en otra instalación. Por lo tanto, es fundamental sospechar que alguien tiene dengue".

Las mejores prácticas para evitar el dengue incluyen eliminar cualquier agua estancada en una propiedad, aunque sea poca, y usar repelente de mosquitos, dijo Abshier. Limitar la actividad al atardecer y al amanecer, cuando los mosquitos pican con mayor frecuencia, también puede ayudar.

Los esfuerzos para combatir el dengue en California se complicaron aún más este año después de que los incendios forestales arrasaran Los Ángeles.

Los incendios ocurrieron en una zona de alta incidencia de enfermedades transmitidas por mosquitos. Funcionarios del San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District han trabajado durante meses para tratar más de 1.400 piscinas sin mantenimiento que quedaron tras el incendio, eliminando así posibles criaderos de mosquitos.

Estos oficiales han utilizado recursos locales y estatales para tratar las piscinas, dijo Anais Medina Díaz, vocera del distrito. Han solicitado un reembolso a la Agencia Federal para el Manejo de Emergencias (FEMA), que históricamente no ha financiado las iniciativas de control de vectores luego de incendios forestales.

En California, las agencias de control de vectores suelen financiarse principalmente con impuestos y tasas locales que pagan los propietarios.

Algunos funcionarios están implementando el novedoso método de liberar mosquitos Aedes esterilizados para reducir el problema. Eso puede resultar eficaz, pero implementar el método en un gran número de áreas sería costoso y requeriría un esfuerzo masivo a nivel estatal, dijo Abshier.

Mientras tanto, el gobierno federal está reduciendo sus intervenciones: varios medios han informado que los Institutos Nacionales de Salud dejarán de financiar nuevas investigaciones relacionadas con el cambio climático, que podrían incluir trabajos sobre el dengue.

Este año, las tasas de dengue reportadas en gran parte del continente americano han disminuido significativamente desde 2024. Sin embargo, es probable que la tendencia en Estados Unidos no se esclarezca hasta finales de año, después que termine la temporada de mosquitos de verano.

Los investigadores de salud y control de vectores no están seguros de la gravedad de la situación en California.

Algunos afirman que podría haber brotes limitados, mientras que otros predicen que el dengue podría empeorar mucho. Sujan Shresta, profesor e investigador de enfermedades infecciosas en el Instituto de Inmunología de La Jolla, señaló que otros lugares, como Nepal, experimentaron relativamente pocos casos de dengue en el pasado reciente, pero ahora se registran brotes grandes con regularidad.

Existe una vacuna para niños, pero está siendo discontinuada debido a la falta de demanda mundial. Otras dos vacunas no están disponibles en Estados Unidos. El laboratorio de Shresta trabaja arduamente en una vacuna eficaz y segura contra el dengue. Espera publicar los resultados de las pruebas en animales en aproximadamente un año; si son positivos, los ensayos en humanos podrían ser posibles en unos dos años.

"Si no hay una buena vacuna ni buenos antivirales, este será un país endémico para dengue", afirmó.

Phillip Reese es especialista en reportaje de datos y profesor asociado de Periodismo en la Universidad Estatal de California-Sacramento.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful” budget reconciliation bill would make some of the most sweeping changes in health policy in years, largely affecting Medicaid and Affordable Care Act plans — with reverberations felt throughout the health care system.

With only a few exceptions, the budget reconciliation process — which allows the political party in control to pass a bill with only 51 votes in the Senate, rather than the usual 60 — is how nearly every major piece of health legislation has passed Congress since the 1980s.

But using reconciliation to constrict rather than expand health coverage, as the GOP is attempting now? That is unusual.

One of the best-known programs born via reconciliation is the “COBRA” health insurance continuation, which allows people who leave jobs with employer-provided insurance to keep it for a time, as long as they pay the full premium.

That is one of dozens of health provisions tucked into COBRA, or the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. Also included was the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires hospitals that take Medicare to treat or transfer patients with medical emergencies, regardless of their insurance status — a law that’s become a focus of abortion opponents as they seek to limit access to the procedure.

A key reason so much health policy has passed this way has to do with how Congress manages the federal budget. Federal government spending falls into two categories: mandatory, or spending required by existing law, and discretionary, which traditionally is allocated and renewed each year as part of the appropriations process.

Lawmakers use the reconciliation process to make changes to mandatory spending programs — Medicare and Medicaid are among the largest — as well as tax policy. (For complicated political reasons, reconciliation bills cannot touch Social Security, the last prong in the entitlement program trifecta.)

Reconciliation comes into play only if it is needed to reconcile taxes or mandatory spending to comply with the terms Congress sets for itself each year, through the annual budget resolution. This year the GOP’s focus is finding the cash to renew Trump’s expiring tax cuts, which largely benefit wealthier Americans, and boost military and border security spending.

In years when Congress orders a reconciliation bill, health policy almost always plays a major part. Usually, reconciliation instructions call for reductions in payments to health providers under Medicare — which costs the most of the federal health programs.

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, Democrats in Congress quietly used reconciliation to expand eligibility for the Medicaid program, often by cutting more than the budget called for from Medicare. For every $5 cut from Medicare, about $1 would be redirected to provide Medicaid to more low-income people.

But budget reconciliation has also become a convenient way to make policy changes to the nation’s major health programs, as it is usually considered a “must-pass” bill likely to be signed by the president and not subject to filibuster in the Senate.

As a result, all manner of now-familiar health programs were created by budget reconciliation bills, many of which provided health coverage to more Americans.

The 1989 reconciliation bill created a new system for paying doctors who treat Medicare patients, as well as a new federal agency to study the cost, quality, and effectiveness of health care, today known as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Children’s health has been a popular add-on over the years, including the gradual expansion of Medicaid coverage to more children based on family income. The 1993 reconciliation bill created the Vaccines for Children program, which ensures the availability and affordability of vaccines nationwide for uninsured and underinsured kids. The 1997 reconciliation bill created the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which today provides insurance to more than 7 million children.

In fact, the list of major health bills of the past 50 years not passed using budget reconciliation is short. For instance, the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, which added a prescription drug benefit to the program for the first time, attracted just enough bipartisan support to pass on its own.

The biggest health care law of recent decades — the Affordable Care Act — didn’t start out as a reconciliation bill, but it ended up using the process to clear its final hurdles.

After initial passage of the bill in December 2009, a special election cost Democrats their 60th seat in the Senate — and with it, the supermajority they needed to pass the bill without Republican votes. In the end, the two chambers used a separate reconciliation measure, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, to negotiate a compromise that included the ACA.

HealthBent, a regular feature of KFF Health News, offers insight into and analysis of policies and politics from KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner, who has covered health care for more than 30 years.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Trump administration has declared that it will aggressively combat chronic disease in America.

Yet in its feverish purge of federal health programs, it has proposed eliminating the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and its annual funding of $1.4 billion.

That’s one of many disconnects between what the administration says about health — notably, in the “MAHA Report” that President Donald Trump recently presented at the White House — and what it’s actually doing, scientists and public health advocates say.

Among other contradictions:

• The report says more research is needed on health-related topics such as chronic diseases and the cumulative effects of chemicals in the environment. But the Trump administration’s mass cancellation of federal research grants to scientists at universities, including Harvard, has derailed studies on those subjects.
• The report denounces industry-funded research on chemicals and health as widespread and unreliable. But the administration is seeking to cut government funding that could serve as a counterweight.
• The report calls for “fearless gold-standard science.” But the administration has sowed widespread fear in the scientific world that it is out to stifle or skew research that challenges its desired conclusions.

“There are many inconsistencies between rhetoric and action,” said Alonzo Plough, chief science officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a philanthropy focused on health.

The report, a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, was issued by a commission that includes Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other top administration officials.

News organizations found that it footnoted nonexistent sources and contained signs that it was produced with help from artificial intelligence. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the problems as “formatting issues,” and the administration revised the report.

Trump ordered the report to assess causes of a “childhood chronic disease crisis.” His commission is now working on a plan of action.

Spokespeople for the White House and Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to questions for this article.

Studies Derailed

The MAHA report says environmental chemicals may pose risks to children’s health. Citing the National Institutes of Health, it said there’s a “need for continued studies from the public and private sectors, especially the NIH, to better understand the cumulative load of multiple exposures and how it may impact children’s health.”

Meanwhile, the administration has cut funding for related studies.

For example, in 2020 the Environmental Protection Agency asked scientists to propose ways of researching children’s exposure to chemicals from soil and dust. It said that, for kids ages 6 months to 6 years, ingesting particulates — by putting their hands on the ground or floor then in their mouths — could be a significant means of exposure to contaminants such as herbicides, pesticides, and a group of chemicals known as PFAS.

One of the grants — for almost $1.4 million over several years — went to a team of scientists at Johns Hopkins University and the University of California-San Francisco. Researchers gained permission to collect samples from people’s homes, including dust and diapers.

But, beyond a small test run, they didn’t get to analyze the urine and stool samples because the grant was terminated this spring, said study leader Keeve Nachman, a professor of environmental health and engineering at Hopkins.

“The objectives of the award are no longer consistent with EPA funding priorities,” the agency said in a May 10 termination notice.

Another EPA solicitation from 2020 addressed many of the issues the MAHA report highlighted: cumulative exposures to chemicals and developmental problems such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, obesity, anxiety, and depression. One of the resulting grants funded the Center for Early Life Exposures and Neurotoxicity at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. That grant was ended weeks early in May, said the center’s director, Stephanie Engel, a UNC professor of epidemiology.

In a statement, EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch said the agency “is continuing to invest in research and labs to advance the mission of protecting human health and the environment.” Due to an agency reorganization, “the way these grants are administered will be different going forward,” said Hirsch, who did not otherwise answer questions about specific grants.

In its battle with Harvard, the Trump administration has stopped paying for research the NIH had commissioned on topics such as how autism might be related to paternal exposure to air pollution.

The loss of millions of dollars of NIH funding has also undermined data-gathering for long-term research on chronic diseases, Harvard researchers said. A series of projects with names like Nurses’ Health Study II and Nurses’ Health Study 3 have been tracking thousands of people for decades and aimed to keep tracking them as long as possible as well as enrolling new participants, even across generations.

The work has included periodically surveying participants — mainly nurses and other health professionals who enrolled to support science — and collecting biological samples such as blood, urine, stool, or toenail clippings.

Researchers studying health problems such as autism, ADHD, or cancer could tap the data and samples to trace potential contributing factors, said Francine Laden, an environmental epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The information could retrospectively reveal exposures before people were born — when they were still in utero — and exposures their parents experienced before they were conceived.

Harvard expected that some of the grants wouldn’t be renewed, but the Trump administration brought ongoing funding to an abrupt end, said Walter Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Chan school.

As a result, researchers are scrambling to find money to keep following more than 200,000 people who enrolled in studies beginning in the 1980s — including children of participants who are now adults themselves — and to preserve about 2 million samples, Willett said.

“So now our ability to do exactly what the administration wants to do is jeopardized,” said Jorge Chavarro, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Chan school. “And there’s not an equivalent resource. It’s not like you can magically recreate these resources without having to wait 20 or 30 years to be able to answer the questions” that the Trump administration “wants answered now.”

Over the past few months, the administration has fired or pushed out almost 5,000 NIH employees, blocked almost $3 billion in grant funding from being awarded, and terminated almost 2,500 grants totaling almost $5 billion, said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, at a June 10 hearing on the NIH budget.

In addition, research institutions have been waiting months to receive money under grants they’ve already been awarded, Murray said.

In canceling hundreds of grants with race, gender, or sexuality dimensions, the administration engaged in blatant discrimination, a federal judge ruled on June 16.

Cutting Funding

After issuing the MAHA report, the administration published budget proposals to cut funding for the NIH by $17.0 billion, or 38%, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by $550 million, or 12%, and the EPA by $5 billion, or 54%.

“This budget reflects the President’s vision of making Americans the healthiest in the world while achieving his goal of transforming the bureaucracy,” the HHS “Budget in Brief” document says. Elements of Trump’s proposed budget for the 2026 fiscal year clash with priorities laid out in the MAHA report.

Kennedy has cited diabetes as part of a crisis in children’s health. The $1.4 billion unit the White House has proposed to eliminate at the CDC — the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion — has housed a program to track diabetes in children, adolescents, and young adults.

“To say that you want to focus on chronic diseases” and then “to, for all practical purposes, eliminate the entity at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which does chronic diseases,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, “obviously doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

In a May letter, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought listed the chronic disease center as “duplicative, DEI, or simply unnecessary,” using an abbreviation for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

Within the NIH, the White House has proposed cutting $320 million from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a reduction of 35%. That unit funds or conducts a wide array of research on issues such as chronic disease.

Trump’s budget proposes spending $500 million “to tackle priority activities to Make America Healthy Again,” including $260 million for his new Administration for a Healthy America to address the “chronic illness epidemic.”

Ceding Ground to Industry

The MAHA report argues that corporate influence has compromised government agencies and public health through “corporate capture.”

It alleges that most research on chronic childhood diseases is funded by the food, pharmaceutical, and chemical industries, as well as special interest organizations and professional associations. It says, for example, that a “significant portion of environmental toxicology and epidemiology studies are conducted by private corporations,” including pesticide manufacturers, and it cites “potential biases in industry-funded research.”

It’s “self-evident that cutbacks in federal funding leave the field open to the very corporate funding RFK has decried,” said Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a watchdog group focused on food and health.

Lurie shared the report’s concern about industry-funded research but said ceding ground to industry won’t help. “Industry will tend to fund those studies that look to them like they will yield results beneficial to industry,” he said.

In search of new funding sources, Harvard’s school of public health “is now ramping up targeted outreach to potential corporate partners, with careful review to ensure the science meets the highest standards of research integrity,” Andrea Baccarelli, dean of the school’s faculty, wrote in a June 11 letter to students, faculty, and others.

“It’s just simple math that if you devastate governmental funding by tens of billions of dollars, then the percentage of industry funding dollars will go up,” said Plough, who is also a clinical professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health.

“So therefore, what they claim to fear more,” he said, will “become even more influential.”

The MAHA report says “the U.S. government is committed to fostering radical transparency and gold-standard science.”

But many scientists and other scholars see the Trump administration waging a war on science that conflicts with its agenda.

In March, members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine accused the administration of “destroying” scientific independence, “engaging in censorship,” and “pressuring researchers to alter or abandon their work on ideological grounds.”

In May, NIH employees wrote that the administration was politicizing research — for example, by halting or censoring work on health disparities, health impacts of climate change, gender identity, and immunizations.

Recent comments by Kennedy pose another threat to transparency, researchers and health advocates say.

Kennedy said on a podcast that he would probably create in-house government journals and stop NIH scientists from publishing their research in The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Journal of the American Medical Association, and others.

Creating new government outlets for research would be a plus, said Dariush Mozaffarian, director of the Food is Medicine Institute at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.

But confining government scientists to government journals, he said, “would be a disaster” and “would basically amount to censorship.”

“That’s just not a good idea for science,” Mozaffarian said.

We’d like to speak with current and former personnel from the Department of Health and Human Services or its component agencies who believe the public should understand the impact of what’s happening within the federal health bureaucracy. Please message KFF Health News on Signal at (415) 519-8778 or get in touch here.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The tax and spending legislation the House voted to send to President Donald Trump’s desk on Thursday, enacting much of his domestic agenda, cuts federal health spending by about $1 trillion over a decade in ways that will jeopardize the physical and financial health of tens of millions of Americans.

The bill, passed in both the House and the Senate without a single Democratic vote, is expected to reverse many of the health coverage gains of the Biden and Obama administrations. Their policies made it easier for millions of people to access health care and reduced the U.S. uninsured rate to record lows, though Republicans say the trade-off was far higher costs borne by taxpayers and increased fraud.

Under the legislation Trump’s expected to sign on Friday, Independence Day, reductions in federal support for Medicaid and Affordable Care Act marketplaces will cause nearly 12 million more people to be without insurance by 2034, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. That in turn is expected to undermine the finances of hospitals, nursing homes, and community health centers — which will have to absorb more of the cost of treating uninsured people. Some may reduce services and employees or close altogether.

Here are five ways the GOP’s plans may affect health care access.

Need Medicaid? Then Get a Job

The deepest cuts to health care spending come from a proposed Medicaid work requirement, which is expected to end coverage for millions of enrollees who do not meet new employment or reporting standards.

In 40 states and Washington, D.C., all of which have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, some Medicaid enrollees will have to regularly file paperwork proving that they are working, volunteering, or attending school at least 80 hours a month, or that they qualify for an exemption, such as caring for a young child. The new requirement will start as early as January 2027.

The bill’s requirement doesn’t apply to people in the 10 largely GOP-led states that have not expanded Medicaid to nondisabled adults.

Health researchers say the policy will have little impact on employment. Most working-age Medicaid enrollees who don’t receive disability benefits already work or are looking for work, or are unable to do so because they have a disability, attend school, or care for a family member, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

State experiments with work requirements have been plagued with administrative issues, such as eligible enrollees’ losing coverage over paperwork problems, and budget overruns. Georgia’s work requirement, which officially launched in July 2023, has cost more than $90 million, with only $26 million of that spent on health benefits, according to the Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization.

“The hidden costs are astronomical,” said Chima Ndumele, a professor at the Yale School of Public Health.

Less Cash Means Less Care in Rural Communities

Belt-tightening that targets states could translate into fewer health services, medical professionals, and even hospitals, especially in rural communities.

The GOP’s plan curtails a practice, known as provider taxes, that nearly every state has used for decades to increase Medicaid payments to hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers and to private managed-care companies.

States often use the federal money generated through the taxes to pay the institutions more than Medicaid would otherwise pay. Medicaid generally pays lower fees for care than Medicare, the program for people over 65 and some with disabilities, and private insurance. But thanks to provider taxes, some hospitals are paid more under Medicaid than Medicare, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a health research nonprofit.

Hospitals and nursing homes say they use these extra Medicaid dollars to expand or add new services and improve care for all patients.

Rural hospitals typically operate on thin profit margins and rely on payments from Medicaid taxes to sustain them. Researchers from the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research who examined the original House version of the bill concluded it would push more than 300 rural hospitals — many of them in Kentucky, Louisiana, California, and Oklahoma — toward service reductions or closure.

Republicans in the Senate tacked a $50 billion fund onto the legislation to cushion the blow to rural hospitals. The money will be distributed starting in 2027 and continue for five years.

Harder To Get, and Keep, ACA Coverage

For those with Obamacare plans, the new legislation will make it harder to enroll and to retain their coverage.

ACA marketplace policyholders will be required to update their income, immigration status, and other information each year, rather than be allowed to automatically reenroll — something more than 10 million people did this year. They’ll also have less time to enroll; the bill shortens the annual open enrollment period by about a month.

People applying for coverage outside that period — for instance because they lose a job or other insurance or need to add a newborn or spouse to an existing policy — will have to wait for all their documents to be processed before receiving government subsidies to help pay their monthly premiums. Today, they get up to 90 days of premium help during the application process, which can take weeks.

Republican lawmakers and some conservative policy think tanks, including the Paragon Health Institute, say the changes are needed to reduce fraudulent enrollments, while opponents say they represent Trump’s best effort to undo Obamacare.

The legislation also does not call for an extension of more generous premium subsidies put in place during the covid pandemic. If Congress doesn’t act, those enhanced subsidies will expire at year’s end, resulting in premiums rising by an average of 75% next year, according to KFF.

On Medicaid? Pay More To See Doctors

Many Medicaid enrollees can expect to pay more out-of-pocket for appointments.

Trump’s legislation requires states that have expanded Medicaid to charge enrollees up to $35 for some services if their incomes are between the federal poverty level (this year, $15,650 for an individual) and 138% of that amount ($21,597).

Medicaid enrollees often don’t pay anything when seeking medical services because studies have shown charging even small copayments prompts low-income people to forgo needed care. In recent years, some states have added charges under $10 for certain services.

The policy won’t apply to people seeking primary care, mental health care, or substance abuse treatment. The bill allows states to enact even higher cost sharing for enrollees who seek emergency room care for nonemergencies. But if Medicaid patients fail to pay, hospitals and other providers could be left to foot the bill.

Cuts for Lawfully Present Immigrants

The GOP plan could cause at least hundreds of thousands of immigrants who are lawfully present — including asylum-seekers, victims of trafficking, and refugees — to lose their ACA marketplace coverage by cutting off the subsidies that make premiums affordable. The restriction won’t apply to green-card holders.

Because the immigrants who will lose subsidies under the legislation tend to be younger than the overall U.S. population, their exit would leave an older, sicker, and costlier population of marketplace enrollees, further pushing up marketplace premiums, according to marketplace directors in California, Maryland, and Massachusetts and health analysts.

Taking health care access away from immigrants living in the country legally “will do irreparable harm to individuals we have promised to protect and impose unnecessary costs on local systems already under strain,” John Slocum, executive director of Refugee Council USA, an advocacy group, said in a statement.

The bill reflects the Trump administration’s restrictive approach to immigration. But because it ran afoul of Senate rules, the legislation doesn’t include a proposal that would have reduced federal Medicaid payments to states such as California that use their own money to cover immigrants without legal status.

KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner contributed reporting.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Durante meses, María, de 55 años, cuidadora de adultos mayores en el condado de Orange, se ha esforzado por no sonreír.

Le preocupa que si abre demasiado la boca, la gente vea sus dientes astillados y cubiertos de placa. Inmigrante sin papeles, María no tiene seguro médico ni dental. Cuando le empiezan a doler los dientes, toma analgésicos. El verano pasado, un dentista le dijo que arreglarle la dentadura le costaría $2.400. Es más de lo que puede permitirse.

“Es carísimo”, dijo María, quien generalmente trabaja 12 horas al día subiendo y bajando de la cama a clientes y ayudándolos con la higiene, a tomar los medicamentos y con las tareas del hogar. “Necesito dinero para mis hijos, para el alquiler, para el transporte, para la comida. A veces, no me queda nada para mí”.

Una organización de defensa de los trabajadores inmigrantes puso en contactó a KFF Health News con María. Por temor a la deportación, pidió que solo se usara su nombre de pila en este artículo.

María se encuentra entre los 2.6 millones de inmigrantes que viven en California sin estatus legal, según estimaciones del gobierno federal.

El estado había buscado gradualmente incorporar a estos inmigrantes a su programa de Medicaid, conocido como Medi-Cal.

Pero ahora, ante el congelamiento de las inscripciones estatales, los residentes californianos de bajos ingresos que se encuentran en el país sin papeles, junto con los proveedores y trabajadores comunitarios que los ayudan, evalúan con inquietud los beneficios de avanzar con las solicitudes de Medi-Cal frente a los riesgos de ser descubiertos y deportados por el gobierno federal.

La Legislatura de California, que busca cerrar un déficit presupuestario proyectado de $12 mil millones, aprobó una propuesta del gobernador demócrata Gavin Newsom para finalizar la inscripción en Medi-Cal en enero de 2026 para los mayores de 19 años sin estatus legal. Los legisladores están en proceso de definir los detalles finales del acuerdo presupuestario antes de que entre en marcha el nuevo año fiscal.

Mientras tanto, las redadas federales de inmigración, que parecen haber afectado al menos a una clínica de salud en el estado, ya están provocando que algunas personas teman buscar atención médica, según defensores de los inmigrantes y proveedores de salud.

Y se espera que la reciente noticia de que funcionarios de la administración Trump están compartiendo datos de los beneficiarios de Medicaid, incluyendo su estatus migratorio, con las autoridades de inmigración erosione aún más la confianza en el programa.

Andrew Nixon, vocero del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de Estados Unidos (HHS), afirmó que la agencia, que supervisa los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS), tenía la autoridad legal para compartir los datos y abordar la “negligencia sistémica sin precedentes bajo la administración Biden-Harris, que permitió que inmigrantes indocumentados explotaran Medicaid mientras millones de estadounidenses luchaban por acceder a la atención médica, particularmente en estados como California”.

Para complicar aún más la situación, la administración Trump ha amenazado con retener los fondos de estados que ofrecen cobertura médica a personas sin estatus legal.

Actualmente, alrededor de 1.6 millones de personas que residen en el país sin documentos están inscritas en Medi-Cal.

En 2016, California comenzó a ampliar Medi-Cal a personas de bajos ingresos sin estatus legal, comenzando con los niños, y luego lo expandió gradualmente a jóvenes, adultos mayores y, en enero de este año, a personas de entre 26 y 49 años. El Departamento de Servicios de Atención Médica del estado, que supervisa Medi-Cal, se asoció con clínicas de salud comunitarias para ayudar a inscribir a las personas elegibles.

Es demasiado pronto para determinar el impacto que las últimas acciones estatales y federales estén teniendo en las cifras de inscripción, ya que los datos solo están disponibles hasta marzo. Sin embargo, muchos proveedores y defensores afirmaron que prevén un efecto negativo en la inscripción de inmigrantes, por miedo.

Seciah Aquino es directora ejecutiva de la Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, que apoya a los promotores de salud comunitarios, quienes ayudan a difundir la expansión de Medi-Cal a los adultos sin papeles. Poco más de la mitad de los beneficiarios del seguro médico público en California son latinos, en comparación con solo el 30% de los beneficiarios de Medicaid en todo el país.

Aquino afirmó que su coalición les pedirá a los promotores que informen sobre los riesgos de compartir datos para que los miembros de la comunidad puedan tomar decisiones informadas. “Se toman muy en serio que el consejo que le dieron a un miembro de la comunidad ahora pueda perjudicarlos”, expresó.

Newsom condenó el intercambio de datos, calificándolo de “legalmente dudoso”, mientras que los senadores nacionales Adam Schiff y Alex Padilla, ambos demócratas, han exigido que el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) destruya cualquier dato compartido.

El Departamento de Servicios de Atención Médica de California anunció el 13 de junio que estaba solicitando más información al gobierno federal. La agencia dijo que enviaba informes mensuales a los CMS con información demográfica y de elegibilidad, incluyendo nombre y dirección, según lo exige la ley.

De acuerdo a lo informado, también se compartieron con el DHS datos de los afiliados a Medicaid de Illinois, el estado de Washington y Washington, D.C.

Jamie Munks, vocera del Departamento de Atención Médica y Servicios de Familia de Illinois, la agencia estatal de Medicaid, afirmó que el departamento estaba “profundamente preocupado” por la noticia, y que los datos se transmitían regularmente a los CMS con el entendimiento de que estaban protegidos.

En Sacramento, los legisladores demócratas se encontraron en la incómoda situación de tener que reducir los beneficios de salud para residentes de bajos ingresos con un estatus migratorio insatisfactorio, incluyendo personas sin estatus legal, personas con residencia permanente (green card o tarjeta verde) por menos de cinco años, y algunas otras que están en proceso de solicitar un estatus legal o tienen estatus que los protege de la deportación.

Además de apoyar el congelamiento de la inscripción a Medi-Cal para inmigrantes mayores de 19 años que residen en el país sin documentos, los legisladores acordaron cobrar primas mensuales a todos los residentes con un estatus migratorio insatisfactorio de entre 19 y 59 años. Newsom propuso una prima mensual de $100 a partir de enero de 2027; los legisladores estatales contraofertaron una de $30 a partir de julio de 2027.

“Lo que escucho en los sitios es que la gente me dice que les va a resultar muy difícil realizar estos pagos de primas, ya sean de $100 o $30”, dijo Carlos Alarcón, analista de políticas de salud y beneficios públicos del California Immigrant Policy Center, un grupo de defensa. “La realidad es que la mayoría de la gente ya tiene presupuestos limitados”.

La Legislatura rechazó una propuesta del gobernador para prohibir que los inmigrantes con un estatus migratorio insatisfactorio reciban atención de largo plazo en residencias de adultos mayores y atención domiciliaria a través de Medi-Cal, pero aceptó la eliminación de los beneficios dentales a partir de julio de 2026.

Los proveedores de atención médica afirmaron que, sin cobertura de Medi-Cal, muchos inmigrantes se verán obligados a buscar atención de emergencia, que es más costosa para los contribuyentes que la atención preventiva y de nivel primario.

Sepideh Taghvaei, directora dental de Dientes Community Dental Care del condado de Santa Cruz, presenció este fenómeno en 2009, cuando el estado recortó los beneficios dentales de Medi-Cal para adultos. Los pacientes llegaban con la cara hinchada y un dolor insoportable, con afecciones tan avanzadas que requerían tratamiento hospitalario. “No es rentable”, afirmó.

El senador estatal Roger Niello, republicano y vicepresidente del comité de presupuesto del Senado, afirmó que cree que California no debería financiar Medi-Cal para personas sin estatus legal, especialmente considerando los desafíos fiscales del estado. También expresó su preocupación por la posibilidad de que la cobertura para quienes residen en el país sin papeles anime a otros a mudarse a California.

“Si mantenemos ese gasto para los no ciudadanos, tendremos que recortar en otras áreas, y eso sin duda afectará a los ciudadanos”, aseguró.

Los californianos también están cambiando de opinión. En una encuesta realizada en mayo por el Public Policy Institute of California, el 58% de los adultos se opuso al beneficio.

Para María, los cambios en las políticas de salud la han dejado paralizada. Desde que llegó aquí hace cinco años, su prioridad ha sido ganar dinero para mantener a sus tres hijos, a quienes dejó con sus padres en su país de origen, contó.

La mujer no se enteró de que podría ser elegible para Medi-Cal hasta principios de este año y no había tenido tiempo de completar el papeleo. Después que una amiga le dijera que el estado podría congelar la inscripción en enero, comenzó a apresurarse para completar el proceso de inscripción.

Pero entonces se enteró de que los datos de Medi-Cal se habían compartido con las autoridades de inmigración. “Decepcionada y asustada”, así describió su reacción.

De repente, inscribirse en Medi-Cal ya no le parece buena idea, dijo.

Phil Galewitz y Bram Sable-Smith contribuyeron con este artículo.

Esta historia fue producida por KFF Health News, que publica California Healthline, un servicio editorialmente independiente de la California Health Care Foundation.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

For Brianna Henderson, birth control isn’t just about preventing pregnancy.

The Texas mother of two was diagnosed with a rare and potentially fatal heart condition after having her second child. In addition to avoiding another pregnancy that could be life-threatening, Henderson has to make sure the contraception she uses doesn’t jeopardize her health.

For more than a decade, a small team of people at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention worked to do just that, issuing national guidelines for clinicians on how to prescribe contraception safely for millions of women with underlying medical conditions — including heart disease, lupus, sickle cell disease, and obesity. But the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, fired those workers as part of the Trump administration’s rapid downsizing of the federal workforce.

It also decimated the CDC’s larger Division of Reproductive Health, where the team was housed — a move that clinicians, advocacy groups, and fired workers say will endanger the health of women and their babies.

Clinicians said in interviews that counseling patients about birth control and prescribing it is relatively straightforward. But for women with conditions that put them at higher risk of serious health complications, special care is needed.

“We really were the only source of safety monitoring in this country,” said one fired CDC staffer who worked on the guidelines, known as the U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, or MEC. “There’s no one who can actually do this work.” KFF Health News agreed not to name this worker and others who were not authorized to speak to the press and feared retaliation.

The stakes are high for people like Henderson. About six weeks after having her second baby, she said, her heart “was racing.”

“I feel like I’m underwater,” Henderson said. “I felt like I couldn’t breathe.” She eventually went to the hospital, where she was told she was “in full-blown heart failure,” she said.

Henderson was diagnosed with peripartum cardiomyopathy, an uncommon type of heart failure that can happen toward the end of pregnancy or shortly after giving birth. Risk factors for the condition include being at least 30 years old, being of African descent, high blood pressure, and obesity.

The CDC contraception guidelines say that combined hormonal contraception, which contains both estrogen and progestin to prevent pregnancy, can pose an “unacceptable health risk” for most women with peripartum cardiomyopathy, also known as PPCM. For some women with the diagnosis, a birth control injection commonly known by the brand name Depo-Provera also carries risks that outweigh its benefits, the guidelines show. Progestin-only pills or a birth control implant, inserted into an arm, are the safest.

Henderson said her cardiologist had to greenlight which contraception she could use. She uses a progestin-only birth control implant that’s more than 99% effective at preventing pregnancy.

“I didn’t know that certain things can cause blood clots,” Henderson said, “or make your heart failure worse.” Heart failure is a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity in the U.S., with PPCM accounting for up to 70% of heart failure cases during pregnancy.

Sweeping HHS layoffs in late March and early April gutted the CDC’s reproductive health division, upending several programs designed to protect women and infants, three fired workers said.

About two-thirds of the division’s roughly 165 employees and contractors were cut, through firings, retirements, or reassignments to other parts of the agency, one worker said.

Among those fired were CDC staffers who carried out the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, a survey established nearly 40 years ago to improve maternal and infant health outcomes by asking detailed questions of women who recently gave birth. The survey was used “to help inform and help reduce the contributing factors that cause maternal mortality and morbidity,” a fired worker said, by allowing government workers to examine the medical care people received before and during pregnancy, if any, and other risk factors that may lead to poor maternal and child health.

The firings also removed CDC workers who collected and analyzed data on in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments.

“They left nothing behind,” one worker said.

U.S. contraception guidelines were first published in 2010, after the CDC adapted guidance developed by the World Health Organization. The latest version was published last August. It includes information about the safety of different types of contraception for more than 60 medical conditions. Clinicians said it is the premier source of evidence about the safety of birth control.

“It gave us so much information which was not available to clinicians at their fingertips,” said Michael Policar, a physician and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine.

“If you’ve got a person with, let’s say, long-standing Type 2 diabetes, someone who has a connective-tissue disease like lupus, someone who’s got hypertension or maybe has been treated for a precursor to breast cancer — something like that? In those circumstances,” Policar said, “before the MEC it was really hard to know how to manage those people.”

The CDC updates the guidelines comprehensively roughly every five years. On a weekly basis, however, government workers would monitor evidence about patients’ use of contraception and the safety of various methods, something they were doing when HHS abruptly fired them this spring, two fired workers said. That work isn’t happening now, one of them said.

Sometimes the agency would issue interim changes outside the larger updates if new evidence warranted it. Now, if something new or urgent comes up, “there’s not going to be any way to update the guidelines,” one fired worker said.

In 2020, for example, the CDC revised its contraception recommendations for women at high risk of HIV infection, after new evidence showed that various methods were safer than previously thought.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard declined to say why CDC personnel working on the contraception guidelines and other reproductive health issues were fired, or answer other questions raised by KFF Health News’ reporting.

Most women of reproductive age in the U.S. use contraception. CDC data from 2019, the most recent available, shows that more than 47 million women ages 15 to 49 relied on birth control. About 1 in 10 used long-acting methods such as intrauterine devices and implants; 1 in 7 used oral contraception.

The latest guidelines included updated safety recommendations for women who have sickle cell disease, lupus, or PPCM, and those who are breastfeeding, among others. Clinicians are now being told that combined hormonal contraception poses an unacceptable health risk for women with sickle cell disease, because it might increase the risk of blood clots.

“It can really come down to life or death,” said Teonna Woolford, CEO of the Sickle Cell Reproductive Health Education Directive, a nonprofit that advocates for improved reproductive health care for people with the disease.

“We really saw the CDC guidelines as a win, as a victory — they’re actually going to pay attention,” she said.

The 2024 guidelines also for the first time included birth control recommendations for women with chronic kidney disease. Research has shown that such women are at higher risk of serious pregnancy complications, including preeclampsia and preterm delivery. Their medical condition also increases their risk of blood clots, which is why it’s important for them not to use combined hormonal contraception, fired CDC workers and clinicians said.

The CDC information “is the final say in safety,” said Patty Cason, a family nurse practitioner and president of Envision Sexual and Reproductive Health. Having only static information about the safety of various types of birth control is “very scary,” she said, because new evidence could come out and entirely new methods of contraception are being developed.

Henderson said it took her heart two years to recover. She created the nonprofit organization Let’s Talk PPCM to educate women about the type of heart failure she was diagnosed with, including what forms of birth control are safe.

“We don’t want blood clots, worsening heart failures,” Henderson said. “They already feel like they can’t trust their doctors, and we don’t need extra.”

We’d like to speak with current and former personnel from the Department of Health and Human Services or its component agencies who believe the public should understand the impact of what’s happening within the federal health bureaucracy. Please message KFF Health News on Signal at (415) 519-8778 or get in touch here.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

For months, Maria, 55, a caregiver to older adults in California’s Orange County, has been trying not to smile.

If she opens her mouth too wide, she worries, people will see her chipped, plaque-covered front teeth. An immigrant without legal status, Maria doesn’t have health or dental insurance. When her teeth start to throb, she swallows pain pills. Last summer, a dentist said it would cost $2,400 to fix her teeth. That’s more than she can afford.

“It’s so expensive,” said Maria, who often works 12-hour days lifting clients in and out of bed and helping them with hygiene, medication management, and housework. “I need money for my kids, for my rent, for transport, for food. Sometimes, there’s nothing left for me.”

KFF Health News connected with Maria through an advocacy organization for immigrant workers. Fearing deportation, she asked that only her first name be used.

Maria is among what the federal government estimates are 2.6 million immigrants living in California without legal status. The state had gradually sought to bring these immigrants into its Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. But now, facing a state enrollment freeze, low-income California residents in the U.S. without legal permission — along with the providers and community workers that help them — are anxiously weighing the benefits of pushing forward with Medi-Cal applications against the risks of discovery and deportation by the federal government.

Seeking to close a projected $12 billion budget deficit, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed a balanced state budget on June 27 that will end new Medi-Cal enrollment in January 2026 for those over 19 without legal status.

Meanwhile, federal immigration raids — which appear to have targeted at least one health clinic in the state — are already making some people afraid to seek medical care, say immigrant advocates and health providers. And the recent news that Trump administration officials are sharing Medicaid enrollee data, including immigration status, with deportation authorities is expected to further erode trust in the program.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said the agency, which oversees the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, had the legal authority to share the data to address “unprecedented systemic neglect under the Biden-Harris administration that allowed illegal immigrants to exploit Medicaid while millions of Americans struggle to access care, particularly in states like California.”

Further complicating matters, the Trump administration has threatened to withhold funds from states that provide health coverage to people without legal status. Currently, about 1.6 million people in the country without authorization are enrolled in Medi-Cal.

In 2016, California began opening Medi-Cal to low-income people lacking legal status, starting with children, then gradually expanded it to young people, older adults, and — in January 2024 — those ages 26 to 49. The state Department of Health Care Services, which oversees Medi-Cal, partnered with community health clinics to help get eligible people enrolled.

It’s too early to tell what impact the latest state and federal developments are having on enrollment numbers, since data is available only through March. But many health care providers and advocates said they expect a chilling effect on immigrant enrollment.

Seciah Aquino is executive director of the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, which supports community health workers — also called promotores — who help spread awareness about Medi-Cal’s expansion to adults lacking legal status. Just over half of public health insurance recipients in California are Latino, compared with just 30% of Medicaid enrollees nationwide.

Aquino said her coalition will tell promotores to disclose data-sharing risks so community members can make informed decisions. 

“They take it very personally that advice that they provided to a fellow community member could now hurt them,” Aquino said.

Newsom condemned the data sharing, calling the move “legally dubious,” while U.S. Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, both Democrats, have demanded that the Department of Homeland Security destroy any data shared.  

California’s Department of Health Care Services announced June 13 that it is seeking more information from the federal government. The agency said it submitted monthly reports to CMS with demographic and eligibility information, including name and address, as required by law.

Medicaid enrollee data from Illinois, Washington state, and Washington, D.C., was also reportedly shared with DHS. Jamie Munks, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, the state’s Medicaid agency, said the department was “deeply concerned” by the news and that the data was regularly passed along to CMS with the understanding that it was protected.

In Sacramento, Democratic lawmakers found themselves in the uncomfortable position of rolling back health benefits for low-income residents with unsatisfactory immigration status, including people without legal status, people who’ve held green cards for under five years, and some others who are in the process of applying for legal status or have statuses meant to protect them from deportation. In addition to the Medi-Cal enrollment freeze for immigrants 19 and older in the country without authorization, all enrolled residents with unsatisfactory immigration status from 19 to 59 years old will be charged $30 monthly premiums starting in July 2027.

“What I’m hearing on the ground is folks are telling me they’re going to have a really hard time making these premium payments,” said Carlos Alarcon, health and public benefits policy analyst with the California Immigrant Policy Center, an advocacy group. “The reality is most people already have limited budgets.”

The legislature rejected a proposal from the governor to bar immigrants with unsatisfactory immigration status from receiving long-term nursing home and in-home care through Medi-Cal but went along with eliminating dental benefits starting in July 2026.

Health care providers said that without Medi-Cal coverage, many immigrants will be forced to seek emergency care, which is more expensive for taxpayers than preventive and primary-level care. Sepideh Taghvaei, chief dental officer at Santa Cruz County’s Dientes Community Dental Care, saw this play out in 2009 when the state cut adult Medi-Cal dental benefits. Patients came in with swollen faces and excruciating pain, with conditions so advanced that they required hospital treatment. “It’s not cost-effective,” she said.

State Sen. Roger Niello, a Republican who serves as vice chair of the Senate budget committee, said he believes California shouldn’t be funding Medi-Cal for people who lack legal status, particularly given the state’s fiscal challenges. He also said he worries that coverage of people in the country without authorization could encourage others to move to California.

“If we maintain that expense to the noncitizen,” he said, “we’re going to have to cut someplace else, and that’s undoubtedly going to affect citizens.”

Californians, too, are going through a change of heart. In a May poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, 58% of adults opposed the benefit.

For Maria, shifting health care policies have left her feeling paralyzed. Since she arrived here five years ago, the caregiver’s focus has been on earning money to support her three children, whom she left with her parents in her home country, she said.

Maria didn’t learn she might be eligible for Medi-Cal until earlier this year and hadn’t yet found time to complete the paperwork. After a friend told her that the state could freeze enrollment in January, she began rushing to finish the sign-up process. But then she learned that Medi-Cal data had been shared with immigration authorities.

“Disappointed and scared” was how she described her reaction.

Suddenly, she said, enrolling in Medi-Cal doesn’t seem like a good idea.

Phil Galewitz and Bram Sable-Smith contributed to this report.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Trump administration has launched investigations into health care organizations in an effort to allow providers to refuse care for transgender patients on religious or moral grounds.

One of the most recent actions by the Department of Health and Human Services, launched in mid-June, targets the University of Michigan Health system over a former employee’s claims that she was fired for requesting a religious exemption from providing gender-affirming care.

An administration release announcing the probe says the Michigan case is the third investigation in “a larger effort to strengthen enforcement of laws protecting conscience and religious exercise” for medical providers, citing federal laws known as the Church Amendments.

The probes are the first time HHS has explicitly claimed the amendments “allow providers to refuse gender-affirming care or to misgender patients,” said Elizabeth Sepper, a professor at the University of Texas who studies conscience laws. Those laws, Sepper said, primarily allow objections to performing abortions or sterilizations but “don’t apply to gender-affirming care, by their very own text.”

But religious freedom groups that supported the health worker in the Michigan case, Valerie Kloosterman, say the investigation is a welcome recognition of existing protections for medical professionals to refuse to provide some types of care that conflict with their beliefs.

“We are pleased to learn that the Department of Health and Human Services is taking its responsibility seriously to enforce the federal statutes protecting religious health care providers,” said Kloosterman’s attorney Kayla Toney, of the First Liberty Institute, which advocates for religious liberty plaintiffs.

The two other cases HHS announced in recent months involve ultrasound technicians who didn’t want to be involved in “abortion procedures contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions,” and a nurse who asked for a religious exemption to “avoid administering puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children,” according to HHS. The department did not disclose the locations for those investigations.

Sepper said opening investigations into gender-affirming care cases is a new tactic for HHS after federal courts blocked a 2019 effort by the previous Trump administration to broaden conscience rules.

And it sends a message that this administration will “investigate or otherwise harass providers of gender-affirming care, even when that provision is legal in the states where they operate,” said Sam Bagenstos, a general counsel at HHS during the Biden administration and a professor at the University of Michigan.

HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon declined to comment, citing the ongoing investigation.

HHS launched its investigation years after Kloosterman filed a lawsuit against her former employer. She started working for Metropolitan Hospital in Caledonia, Michigan, as a physician assistant in 2004. When the hospital merged to become part of University of Michigan Health-West in 2021, Kloosterman took part in a “mandatory diversity training,” according to a federal lawsuit filed in 2022.

In that training and follow-up discussions, the health system “attempted to compel Ms. Kloosterman to pledge, against her sincerely held religious convictions and her medical conscience, that she would speak biology-obscuring pronouns and make referrals for ‘gender transition’ drugs and procedures,” according to the lawsuit by Kloosterman’s attorneys.

These were, at this point, purely hypotheticals: “No patient ever asked her for a referral for such drugs or procedures, and she never used pronouns contrary to a patient’s wishes,” the suit claimed.

But when Kloosterman requested a religious accommodation, she was “summoned” to a meeting with administrators, who “called her ‘evil’ and a ‘liar,’ mockingly told her that she could not take the Bible or her religious beliefs to work with her, and blamed her for gender dysphoria-related suicides,” according to the lawsuit, which alleges she was fired in August 2021, shortly after the meeting.

The health system denied all allegations, and in April 2024, U.S. District Judge Jane Beckering dismissed Kloosterman’s case to proceed into arbitration. Kloosterman’s lawyers filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Appellate judges heard oral arguments in the case in February but have not issued a decision.

HHS initiated its investigation under the Church Amendments because it’s “committed to enforcing Federal conscience laws in health care,” said Paula M. Stannard, director of the department’s Office for Civil Rights, in a statement announcing the investigation. “Health care workers should be able to practice both their professions and their faith.”

But the investigation “represents a real expansion beyond what the Trump administration did in the first term, and also in terms of the text of the law,” Sepper said.

The Church Amendments date to the 1970s and allow health care institutions and providers to refuse to participate in abortion or sterilization procedures.

“Some of these also apply to end-of-life care and to physician aid in dying. So they have relatively narrow scope,” Sepper said. “They focus on a set of procedures. They don’t allow health care providers or institutions to refuse to provide all kinds of care based on their religious or moral objections.”

There is one broader provision in these laws that “is about the conscience-based decision to perform, or not to perform, a lawful medical procedure,” said Bagenstos, the former HHS general counsel during the Biden administration. But that applies only to recipients of a “grant or contract for biomedical or behavioral research,” he said. So this case is “an extreme stretch of the conscience protections, and probably more than a stretch.”

But Ismail Royer, director of Islam and religious freedom at the Religious Freedom Institute, which filed an amicus brief supporting Kloosterman’s lawsuit, said the Church Amendments are just a few of the laws HHS enforces, along with broad civil rights protections and laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion.

“This is not a case where someone is refusing to treat someone who is LGBT,” Royer said. “This is a case of someone who does not believe that they should be forced to use pronouns that would constitute a lie.”

Other providers are available if a patient’s “feelings are hurt,” he said. “But hurt feelings do not constitute the basis for the government violating our constitutional rights.”

The stakes for a health system are very different in an HHS investigation than in civil suits, Sepper said. The government agency, which oversees the vast majority of health care spending, could decide to strip Medicare and Medicaid funding from the health system. HHS has previously been hesitant to remove funding, Sepper said.

But it would be highly unusual — and possibly illegal — for HHS to actually withhold funding from the health system over a case like this, Bagenstos said.

By taking up these investigations so publicly, Sepper said, HHS is putting health systems “in a very difficult situation.” Antidiscrimination laws require them to treat transgender patients equally, she said. But now the administration is prioritizing “employees that might want to make it more difficult for transgender patients to receive care.”

These investigations are “meant to offer red meat to the anti-LGBT rights movement, to tell them that HHS is squarely on their side,” Sepper said.

This article is from a partnership with Michigan Public and NPR.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism sent a letter to Harvard University notifying them that they have violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

HHS Office for Civil Rights announced Harvard University violated Title VI by showing deliberate indifference towards harassment of Jewish and Israeli students.

CLARKESVILLE, Ga. — Last September, Alton Fry went to the doctor concerned he had high blood pressure. The trip would result in a prostate cancer diagnosis.

So began the stress of trying to pay for tens of thousands of dollars in treatment — without health insurance.

“I’ve never been sick in my life, so I’ve never needed insurance before,” said Fry, a 54-year-old self-employed masonry contractor who restores old buildings in the rural Appalachian community he’s called home nearly all his life.

Making sure he had insurance was the last thing on his mind, until recently, Fry said. He had been rebuilding his life after a prison stay, maintaining his sobriety, restarting his business, and remarrying his wife. “Things got busy,” he said.

Now, with a household income of about $48,000, Fry and his wife earn too much to qualify for Georgia’s limited Medicaid expansion. And he said he found that the health plans sold on the state’s Affordable Care Act exchange were too expensive or the coverage too limited.

In late April, a friend launched a crowdfunding campaign to help Fry cover some of the costs. To save money, Fry said, he’s taking a less aggressive treatment route than his doctor recommended.

“There is no help for middle-class America,” he said.

More than 26 million Americans lacked health insurance in the first six months of 2024, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The uninsured are mostly low-income adults under age 65, and people of color, and most live in the South and West. The uninsured rate in the 10 states that, like Georgia, have not expanded Medicaid to nearly all low-income adults was 14.1% in 2023, compared with 7.6% in expansion states, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Health policy researchers expect the number of uninsured to swell as the second Trump administration and a GOP-controlled Congress try to enact policies that explicitly roll back health coverage for the first time since the advent of the modern U.S. health system in the early 20th century.

Under the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — budget legislation that would achieve some of President Donald Trump’s priorities, like extending tax cuts mainly benefiting the wealthy — some 10.9 million Americans would lose health insurance by 2034, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office based on a House version of the budget bill.

A Senate version of the bill could result in more people losing Medicaid coverage, with reductions in federal spending and rules that would make it harder for people to qualify. But that bill suffered a major blow June 26 when the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan official who enforces the chamber’s rules, rejected several health provisions — including the proposal to gradually reduce provider taxes, a mechanism that nearly every state uses to increase its federal Medicaid funding.

The number could rise to 16 million if proposed rule changes to the ACA take effect and tax credits that help people pay for ACA plans expire at the end of the year, according to the CBO. In KFF poll results released in June, nearly two-thirds of people surveyed viewed the bill unfavorably and more than half said they were worried federal funding cuts would hurt their family’s ability to obtain and afford health care.

Like Fry, more people would be forced to pay for health expenses out-of-pocket, leading to delays in care, lost access to needed doctors and medications, and poorer physical and financial health.

“The effects could be catastrophic,” said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

The House-passed bill would represent the largest reduction in federal support for Medicaid and health coverage in history, she said. If the Senate approves it, it would be the first time Congress moved to eliminate coverage for millions of people.

“This would take us back,” Tolbert said.

A Patchwork System

The United States is the only wealthy country where a substantial number of citizens lack health insurance, due to nearly a century of pushback against universal coverage from doctors, insurance companies, and elected officials.

“The complexity is everywhere throughout the system,” said Sherry Glied, dean of New York University’s Wagner School of Public Service, who worked in the George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations. “The big bug is that people fall between the cracks.”

This year, KFF Health News is speaking to Americans about the challenges they face in finding health insurance and the effects on their ability to get care; to providers who serve the uninsured; and to policy experts about why, even when the nation hit its lowest recorded uninsured rate in 2023, nearly a tenth of the U.S. population still lacked health coverage.

So far, the reporting has found that despite decades of policies designed to increase access to care, the very structure of the nation’s health insurance system creates the opposite effect.

Government-backed universal coverage has eluded U.S. policymakers for decades.

After lobbying from physician groups, President Franklin D. Roosevelt abandoned plans to include universal health coverage in the Social Security Act of 1935. Then, because of a wage and salary cap used to control inflation during World War II, more employers offered health insurance to lure workers. In 1954, health coverage was formally exempted from income tax requirements, which led more employers to offer the benefit as part of compensation packages.

Insurance coverage offered by employers came to form the foundation of the U.S. health system. But eventually, problems with linking health insurance to employment emerged.

“We realized, well, wait, not everybody is working,” said Heidi Allen, an associate professor at the Columbia School of Social Work who studies the impact of social policies on access to care. “Children aren’t working. People who are elderly are not working. People with disabilities are not working.”

Yet subsequent efforts to expand coverage to all Americans were met with backlash from unions who wanted health insurance as a bargaining chip, providers who didn’t want government oversight, and those who had coverage through their employers.

That led policymakers to add programs piecemeal to make health insurance accessible to more Americans.

There’s Medicare for older adults and Medicaid for people with low incomes and disabilities, both created in 1965; the Children’s Health Insurance Program, created in 1997; the ACA’s exchange plans and Medicaid expansion for people who can’t access job-based coverage, created in 2010.

As a result, the U.S. has a patchwork of health insurance programs with numerous interest groups vying for dollars, rather than a cohesive system, health policy researchers say.

Falling Through the Cracks

The lack of a cohesive system means that, even though Americans are eligible for health insurance, they struggle to access it, said Mark Shepard, an associate professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. No central entity exists in the U.S. to ensure that all people have a plan, he said.

Over half of the uninsured might qualify for Medicaid or subsidies that can help cover the costs of an ACA plan, according to KFF. But many people aren’t aware of their options or can’t navigate overlapping programs — and even subsidized coverage can be unaffordable.

Those who have fallen through the cracks said it feels like the system has failed them.

Yorjeny Almonte of Allentown, Pennsylvania, earns about $2,600 a month as an inspector in a cabinet warehouse. When she started her job in December 2023, she didn’t want to spend nearly 10% of her income on health insurance.

But, last year, her uninsured mom chose to fly to the Dominican Republic to get care for a health concern. So Almonte, 23, who also needed to see a doctor, investigated her employer’s health offerings. By then she had missed the deadline to sign up.

“Now I have to wait another year,” she said.

In January, Camden, Alabama, resident Kiana George, who’s uninsured, landed in an intensive care unit months after she stopped seeing a nurse practitioner and taking blood pressure medications — an ordeal that saddled her with nearly $7,000 in medical bills.

George, 30, was kicked off Medicaid in 2023 after she got hired by an after-school program. It pays $800 a month, an income too high to qualify her for Medicaid in Alabama, which hasn’t expanded to cover most low-income adults. She also doesn’t make enough for a free or reduced-cost ACA plan.

George, who has a 9-year-old daughter, said she “has no idea” how she can repay the debt from the emergency room visit. And because she fears more bills, she has given up on treatment for ovarian cysts.

“It hurts, but I’m just gonna take my chances,” she said.

Widening the Gaps

Health insurance is fundamentally a financial product, intended to protect the policyholder’s pocketbook from accidents or illnesses.

Researchers have known for decades that a lack of insurance coverage leads to poor access to health care, said Tom Buchmueller, a health economist at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business.

“It’s only more recently we’ve had really good, strong evidence that shows that health insurance really does improve health outcomes,” Buchmueller said.

Research released this spring by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that expanding Medicaid reduced low-income adults’ chances of dying by 2.5%. In 2019, a separate study published by that nonpartisan think tank provided experimental evidence that health insurance coverage reduced mortality among middle-aged adults.

In late May, the House narrowly advanced the budget legislation that independent government analysts said would result in millions of Americans losing health insurance coverage and reduce federal spending on programs like Medicaid by billions of dollars.

A key provision would require some Medicaid enrollees to work, volunteer, or complete other qualifying activities for 80 hours a month, starting at the end of 2026. Most Medicaid enrollees already work or have some reason they can’t, such as a disability, according to KFF.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has defended the requirement as “moral.”

“If you are able to work and you refuse to do so, you are defrauding the system. You’re cheating the system,” he told CBS News in the wake of the bill’s passage.

A Senate version of the bill also includes work requirements and more frequent eligibility checks for Medicaid recipients.

Fiscal conservatives argue a solution is needed to curb health care’s rising costs.

The U.S. spends about twice as much per capita on health care as other wealthy nations, and that spending would grow under the GOP’s budget bill, said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, a think tank that supports less government spending on health care.

But the bill doesn’t address the root causes of administrative complexity or unaffordable care, Cannon said. To do that would entail, for instance, doing away with the tax break for employer-sponsored care, which he said fuels excessive spending, raises prices, and ties health insurance to employment. He said the bill should cut federal funding for Medicaid, not just limit its growth.

The bill would throw more people into a high-cost health care landscape with little protection, said Aaron Carroll, president and CEO of AcademyHealth, a nonpartisan health policy research nonprofit.

“There’s a ton of evidence that shows that if you make people pay more for health care, they get less health care,” he said. “There’s lots of evidence that shows that disproportionately affects poor, sicker people.”

Labon McKenzie, 45, lives in Georgia, the only state that requires some Medicaid enrollees to work or complete other qualifying activities to obtain coverage.

He hasn’t been able to work since he broke multiple bones after he fell through a skylight while on the job three years ago. He got fired from a county road and bridge crew after the accident and hasn’t been approved for Social Security or disability benefits.

“I can’t stand up too long,” he said. “I can’t sit down too long.”

In February, McKenzie started seeing double, but canceled an appointment with an ophthalmologist because he couldn’t come up with the $300 the doctor wanted in advance. His cousin gave him an eye patch to tide him over, and, in desperation, he took expired eye drops his daughter gave him. “I had to try something,” he said.

McKenzie, who lives in rural Fort Gaines, wants to work again. But without benefits, he can’t get the care he needs to become well enough.

“I just want my body fixed,” he said.

Have you recently lost your health insurance coverage? Have you been uninsured for a while? Click here to contact KFF Health News and share your story.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).