New episode of The Real Food Show turns the Dietary Guidelines for Americans into an affordable meal families can make at home.

HHS announced that the American Hospital Association (AHA) have joined the Make Hospital Food Healthier Pledge.

About 200,000 low-income Arkansans could see major changes to their health coverage next year after the Trump administration recently informed state officials it will not renew a key Medicaid agreement with the federal government.

The decision by federal officials, citing authority granted under President Donald Trump’s signature tax-and-spending law, suggests the GOP-led state’s predicament could foretell other repercussions in how states are allowed to run the program under federal waivers.

Nearly every state has at least one waiver to run its Medicaid program differently than required by federal law, such as allowing the use of private managed-care plans or expanding eligibility for mental health or long-term care services. Some Medicaid waivers have stretched decades, renewed by presidential administrations of both parties, effectively making the demonstration programs they created permanent.

Arkansas is one of a dozen states with a waiver expiring Dec. 31 that face the additional restrictions the Trump administration has placed on new or renewed waivers.

Though it has yet to finalize its decision, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said Arkansas’ 13-year-old waiver does not comply with new “budget neutrality” rules that take effect in January, said Gavin Lesnick, a spokesperson for the Arkansas Department of Human Services. The rules tighten a policy forbidding Medicaid waivers from increasing federal spending on the program beyond what it would have increased without the waiver.

The state is now seeking a two-year extension after hearing from CMS that its request for a five-year renewal would not be granted. If its Medicaid expansion waiver is not renewed, Arkansas officials have said they will continue offering expanded eligibility through existing Medicaid law, a change that could leave enrollees with access to fewer doctors and other health providers.

Rather than place more people in its traditional Medicaid program serving largely children, pregnant women, and disabled people, Arkansas obtained a waiver to buy Affordable Care Act marketplace policies from private insurers for adults covered by the Medicaid expansion. This “private option” gave enrollees greater choice of doctors and other health providers, because some doctors are more willing to see patients with private coverage, which generally pays more than regular Medicaid.

The move helped cut the state’s uninsured rate by nearly half, but it also ended up costing more than if beneficiaries were covered under Medicaid’s traditional, fee-for-service program.

Critics characterize the new waiver rules as part of a Trump administration effort to dramatically shrink Medicaid, the government program for those who are low-income or disabled, which grew rapidly under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

“What we have here is a sneaky way to cut Medicaid expansion and the Medicaid program,” said Nicole Huberfeld, a professor of health law at Boston University.

Medicaid enrollees won’t know whom to blame if they lose coverage because the administration is using arcane regulatory processes to make the changes, Huberfeld said.

At issue are waivers granted by the government that allow states flexibility from existing Medicaid law in how they cover low-income residents, as long as the changes will not increase what Medicaid costs the federal government.

Pivoting from the long-standing practice of checking only retroactively whether states were keeping their budget promises, the Trump administration said in June that it would not renew or approve any waivers unless CMS first certified that they would not increase costs to the federal government.

In its new guidance, the agency said the new waiver rules are expected to reduce federal spending.

“Characterizing enforcement of a statutory budget neutrality requirement as a cut misrepresents both the law and this guidance,” CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster said in an email to KFF Health News. The federal waivers are intended “to test innovative approaches to delivering care, not provide an open-ended mechanism for increasing federal spending.”

Other states with waivers expiring at the end of December include Georgia, which has added about 18,000 low-income people to Medicaid under its waiver, and California, which has used its waiver to expand coverage of social services including food and housing.

California and Georgia Medicaid officials told KFF Health News that they are still working with CMS in hopes of renewing their waivers. The loss of federal waiver approval could cause states to curtail benefits or eligibility expansions.

In Arkansas, it would mean redesigning the state’s Medicaid expansion program.

Arkansas’ initial waiver was granted in 2013, when its Democratic governor at the time worked with a Republican-controlled legislature to adopt a pioneering style of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act.

It was one of the first Southern states to expand Medicaid, granting coverage to many low-income residents. Forty states and Washington, D.C., have also fully expanded Medicaid to cover more low-income adults under the law also known as Obamacare.

The state’s Medicaid expansion enrollees were already facing a confusing time. Starting in January, they will need to prove they work or meet an exemption to be eligible for coverage under Trump’s law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. And one of the state program’s two private health insurers — Centene — announced in July that it was pulling out at the end of the year.

Sam Dubke, a spokesperson for Republican Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, told KFF Health News that the Sanders administration is trying to negotiate a temporary extension of its waiver “to ensure impacted Arkansans maintain access to quality, affordable healthcare during this transition period.”

“Looking ahead to the next legislative session, CMS has provided the state with an opportunity for bold, conservative healthcare reform, and the governor will work with her partners in the legislature to build a sustainable model that maintains the same high quality of care and saves taxpayer dollars,” Dubke said.

The Trump administration’s new restrictions on waivers, implemented under the same law that imposes work requirements as a condition of eligibility and reduces Medicaid spending by about $900 billion over a decade, could affect millions of enrollees and billions in spending. About a third of the almost $600 billion in federal spending on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program in 2024 supported programs created by waivers, according to CMS.

In a 2014 report, the Government Accountability Office found that the three-year spending limit the federal government approved for Arkansas’ Medicaid waiver was nearly $800 million more than what the state would have spent through its traditional Medicaid program.

Arkansas is one of several states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA using a waiver, with others including Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Iowa.

States will have to clear several more bureaucratic hurdles to retain waivers under the new CMS guidance, said Alice Lam, a managing director with consulting and legal firm Manatt. That could lead to fewer benefits or reduce the number of people eligible for Medicaid, she said.

Robert Nelb, director of policy at America’s Essential Hospitals, which represents safety net hospitals, said he and most experts believed when it passed that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was merely codifying CMS policy on budget neutrality.

But the Trump administration has interpreted the law to restrict states’ use of waivers, he said.

Nelb said many long-standing waivers that have been renewed multiple times are now at risk and that the loss of state waivers could threaten money hospitals rely on to cover uninsured patients and improve care in their communities.

“There is a real concern that this will put added burdens on states up front and slow down new innovations in Medicaid,” Nelb said.

In 2025, the Trump administration told states it would no longer renew Medicaid waivers to help enrollees with job training or to allow continuous eligibility for adults and children for specific time periods without verifying their income eligibility.

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

“No more operations,” he said.

It was mid-January 2026, and my then-73-year-old husband, Mike Salmon, had just started bouncing back from a three-month ordeal of three operations related to aortic aneurysms, sepsis, and a terrifying descent into delirium tied to a stay in the intensive care unit. Now, after another potentially fatal aortic aneurysm and ambulance ride, the doctors clustered around his hospital bed said the fix involved two more major, risky operations.

If Mike did nothing, the aneurysm or sepsis would likely kill him, they predicted. How soon? “Weeks,” one doctor said. “I’m astonished I’ve made it this far,” Mike said. So, abruptly, we were shunted onto hospice care — the dead-end spur of the American medical system.

Hospice agencies manage care for patients expected to die within six months. They don’t provide curative procedures or drugs. Instead, they aim to help families make terminally ill patients comfortable, typically at home, as an illness reaches its inevitable conclusion. Families provide most of the day-to-day care, and 85% have suggested they are very satisfied with their hospice’s services, which include supplies of drugs and medical equipment, and visits from nurses, therapists, and aides.

More than 1.9 million Americans were enrolled in hospice in the last fiscal year. Over 80% of those patients stayed on hospice until they died — within four weeks, on average. But each year, about 6% of patients are kicked out because a hospice doctor decides they have stabilized or improved enough that they are no longer likely to die in the next six months.

In May, Mike joined that select group. His experience in and out of the hospice system revealed surprising lessons about how families can manage care. And getting removed from hospice revealed a little-known process that can represent a welcome respite for families like ours — but can be devastating for patients with serious chronic illnesses.

Here’s what we learned in our four months on and off hospice.

Check before you choose.

“Choose one.” A hospital nurse handed me a list of local hospice agencies. The sooner we signed up, the sooner Mike could go home. Stunned by the suddenness of Mike’s health emergency, I just pointed to the name at the top of the alphabetical list, assuming they were pretty much the same.

Big mistake. Medicare sets basic standards for the hospice agencies it reimburses, but some agencies are understaffed or poorly run. Amy Tucci, president of the Hospice Foundation of America, noted that some agencies provide extra therapy, aide support, and other services.

The problems with the organization I had chosen started immediately. Staffers were often late. They entered inaccurate medical information on Mike’s paperwork and didn’t make corrections when alerted. Medicare allows you to quit or change agencies, so I asked neighbors for recommendations.

That was a good start, but Kristina Newport, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, said I should also have checked the quality ratings on Medicare’s Care Compare site and the National Hospice Locator. Those sites would have alerted me to our first agency’s low ratings. Ideally, Newport said, patients or caregivers should call their area’s top-rated agencies to find those that provide the services you need, such as staff members who speak the patient’s native language, provide spiritual care that aligns with the patient’s beliefs, or are stationed nearby to arrive quickly in an emergency.

The local, long-established nonprofit that neighbors recommended handled the transfer seamlessly. Its staff was punctual, accurate, and kind. The chef’s kiss after we switched: A nurse from the original company we chose called to say she hoped I hadn’t initiated the change because of “concerns about our care of your mother.”

Some people get better on hospice.

Research hasn’t yet fully explored why, but some people actually see their health improve under hospice care. Studies have found, for example, that hospice patients with congestive heart failure or lung cancer live about a month longer, on average, than similar patients in the standard medical system.

Terry Bertholet, who teaches courses on elder law and hospice care at the University of Connecticut, said many patients benefit from hospice’s careful pain management and from leaving hospitals, where they risk infection and overtreatment. Returning home allowed Mike to get up and walk without waiting hours for an overworked nurse to unplug a bunch of monitors, and to enjoy real food. Also, the hospice nurse gave him medicine to help him sleep through the night. He soon started regaining weight and strength.

You can flunk out of hospice for not dying quickly enough.

Medicare and many other insurers pay for hospice services only for patients whom physicians certify are likely to die within six months of the most recent assessment (not the date of enrollment), so hospice staffers regularly reassess patients. Medicare audits agencies to check for fraud and demands repayment of funds provided for care of patients its auditors deem have not proved to be terminal. Hospices, good and bad, worry about their bottom lines and Medicare’s fraud audits. They may feel pressure to discharge patients who threaten the organization’s finances, even though such discharges can remove important care. “Medicare is worried about fraud and abuse, not about people not getting enough care,” Bertholet said.

Especially for diagnoses with uncertain prognoses — such as dementia — if a patient improves or even stabilizes, hospice physicians might discharge the patient because they can no longer certify a likelihood of death within six months.

For some lucky reason, Mike’s aneurysm and sepsis held off. By early May, his wounds had healed, and his strength had improved enough that he returned to gardening, playing bridge, and whipping up his signature lattice-topped blueberry-cinnamon pies. While we appreciated the convenience of the nurse’s visits and the drug and medical supply delivery, we realized Mike no longer needed care, so we agreed with our agency’s decision to discharge him.

For patients suffering from more debilitating diseases, discharges can be a “nightmare,” said Krista Harrison, a hospice researcher at the University of California-San Francisco. Discharges often happen quickly. Medicare requires that patients be given a minimum of two days’ notice.

When Harrison’s father-in-law, suffering from a neurodegenerative disease similar to Parkinson’s, was discharged because his health seemed to plateau, the family scrambled to replace and pay for hospice-provided equipment such as a hospital bed and oxygen supply, and they had to quickly find and hire aides to replace the hospice aides. “Just getting his prescriptions reestablished and filled was a big deal,” she said. Her father-in-law died six weeks after discharge, she said.

Do your homework to ensure appropriate care.

Arming yourself with information about your risks and rights can help you get the hospice care you need when you need it.

• Know your diagnosis. Discharges are unlikely for most cancer patients. But patients with dementia, heart disease, and Parkinson’s often plateau. So they are disproportionately likely to be discharged, UCSF’s Harrison said.
• Choose a highly rated hospice. Research shows for-profit hospice agencies are more likely to discharge patients than nonprofits. Medicare’s Care Compare site will alert you to which is which.
• Keep your own records. Caregivers who can document, say, a patient’s growing need for eating assistance can help hospice staff approve continuing care, or build a stronger appeal, UCSF’s Harrison said.
• Keep your family doctor more informed. Doctors “don’t have the financial interest” the hospice faces and could help you dispute a discharge, Bertholet advised.
• Appeal quickly. Hospice agencies must provide information on appealing a discharge. But you must file the appeal (online or by phone) by noon on the day before the termination date, which may mean you have only a few hours if you’ve been given the minimum two days’ notice, said Wey-Wey Kwok, a senior attorney for the Center for Medicare Advocacy.
• Reenroll. Patients can try reenrolling in hospice at any time. Another hospice agency may take you immediately. Or you can wait until the patient’s health declines and try reenrolling with your original hospice agency, the Hospice Foundation’s Tucci advised.

That last option is our plan. For now, Mike and I are enjoying these unexpected bonus days. But whenever fate catches up with him, Mike said, he’s comforted to know he’ll get good care from the hospice’s staff. “They’ll try to improve the quality of what time I have left,” he said.

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

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.

President Donald Trump, apparently unhappy with the slow pace of efforts to change the federal government’s childhood vaccine schedule, issued a new executive order this week that would, if implemented, upend how children are protected from communicable diseases. But there are many obstacles to carrying out the president’s initiative, both legal and political.

Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unveiled proposed new rules for food additives this week, but the rules don’t go as far as many health advocates had hoped.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Maya Goldman of Axios News, and Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law.

Panelists Anna Edney Bloomberg News @annaedney @annaedney.bsky.social Read Anna's stories. Maya Goldman Axios @mayagoldman_ @maya-goldman.bsky.social Read Maya's stories. Sandhya Raman Bloomberg Law @SandhyaWrites @sandhyawrites.bsky.social Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Trump unveiled a new executive order demanding restrictions on childhood vaccine recommendations, among other changes. The main impact of his order so far is confusion, leaving parents with little information on the science that may be informing his policy pronouncements. Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — also the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in the state — is investigating the American Academy of Pediatrics over its vaccine positions.
• The Senate confirmed Trump’s nominee to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Erica Schwartz. And during a meeting with CDC workers, Kennedy expressed distrust of career scientists — another blow to staff morale.
• The Trump administration finalized a rule that would strip federal Medicaid funding for states that provide certain care to transgender minors, putting added financial pressure on states. And several GOP-controlled states are passing on the federal government’s self-attestation grace period for Medicaid work requirements, forcing enrollees to start immediately proving with documentation that they qualify for an exemption to the requirements.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Paula Andalo, who wrote the latest “Bill of the Month,” about a medical tourist who searched for a better price for elective surgery abroad before finding it out-of-state. If you have a bill that’s outrageous, inscrutable, or just plain infuriating, you can share it with us here.

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

Julie Rovner: Health Affairs’ “Remembering Bob Blendon, an Essential Professor, Teacher, and Mentor,” by Mollyann Brodie.

Anna Edney: CBS News’ “Farm Linked to Cyclosporiasis Outbreak Hadn’t Been Inspected in 7 Years as FDA Lags on Foreign Inspection Targets,” by Julia Ingram.

Sandhya Raman: NOTUS’ “An Antidote to the Anti-Vaccine Movement Lives in Rural West Virginia,” by Margaret Manto.

Maya Goldman: The New York Times’ “To Improve Student Mental Health, University of Michigan Eases Grading,” by Mark Arsenault.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• MedPage Today’s “I Thought the CDC Shooting Was Rock Bottom. We’re Still Sinking,” by Anonymous.
• The Wall Street Journal’s “Trump Turns Up the Heat on RFK Jr. To Cut Back Childhood Vaccines,” by Liz Essley White.
• Politico’s “The Trump Admin Offered Sick Medicaid Patients a 1-Year Lifeline. These Red States Are Rejecting It,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Robert King.

Credits Francis Ying Audio producer Emmarie Huetteman Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

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

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

HHS announced $102 million in New Access Points awards to significantly expand the reach of the Health Center Program.

HHS released a report Wolves in White Coats: How Doctors and Hospitals Pushed and Profited from the Fraud of “Gender Medicine”.

MACY, Neb. — Erica Carter is passionate about her job, and she has seven acres of flowers and vegetables to show for it.

Carter’s specialty is reeling in grants to support students in the Omaha Nation school district, where she is a finance manager. One paid for the garden that sits next to the district’s campus. Another allowed the school system, in one of Nebraska’s lowest-income counties, to pay students to maintain it.

“They’re out in the sun. They’re watering plants,” she said. “It’s the first time they get a paycheck in their life.”

Carter, 41, is paralyzed from the chest down, an injury she’s lived with since a fall in her early 20s. It didn’t slow her down as she built her accounting career and got a master’s degree in human resource management.

But in November 2023, Carter — who lives in Sioux City, Iowa — got a letter from Iowa’s Department of Health and Human Services. It said that her income was too high for her to stay on Medicaid and that she might lose her benefits in two weeks if she didn’t take action.

States are scrambling to get ready for a new federal requirement to double-check that many people on Medicaid qualify for the benefit, by showing they are working, volunteering, or studying at least 80 hours per month. Politicians’ focus on requiring work has angered many people with disabilities who have Medicaid and say current policies that apply to them have the opposite effect — making them choose between working or receiving benefits.

‘I Have No Options’

When Carter got the letter, she was making $110,000 a year, well above Iowa’s 2023 income limit for working people with disabilities: $36,450 for a household of one.

“I had no time at all to prepare,” she said. “I had a decision to make.”

At the time, Carter got her health coverage through Iowa’s Medicaid for Employed People With Disabilities, a buy-in program that allows working disabled Iowans to pay part of their income to the state to maintain access to Medicaid benefits. Forty-seven states offer Medicaid buy-in programs, but most restrict eligibility through limits on income and assets.

For years, disability rights advocates have pushed state legislatures to change the limits, arguing they prevent people like Carter from accepting raises or building savings, for fear of losing crucial medical benefits. Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have eliminated such limits over the past five years.

To keep her Medicaid coverage, Carter would’ve had to find a job paying her far less than she was making. Or she could drop her Medicaid coverage and enroll in the school district’s health plan. But that plan didn’t cover many of the disability-related expenses that Medicaid did.

Carter decided to keep her job and leave the Medicaid buy-in program. In the end, the decision felt like a no-brainer, she said.

“I like getting up and going to work every day, and I really like what I do,” she said. “Why would I throw that away?”

Carter says she has helped write grants for projects such as a student-run garden and a new playground for the Omaha Nation public school district in Nebraska. She chose to give up her Medicaid coverage rather than quit her job as a district finance manager when her income surpassed the cap allowed for beneficiaries in an Iowa program for workers with disabilities. (Natalie Krebs/Iowa Public Radio)

But it’s been hard on her finances. Carter said she now spends about $35,000 a year out-of-pocket for expenses her old plan covered, such as the nurse who visits her three times a week, modifications to her car, and wheelchair repairs.

“I had the motors go out on my wheelchair,” she said. “So that was like $4,000 to fix.”

Over the next year, Carter picked up extra jobs and cashed in some of her retirement savings.

“I want to pay my own way. I don’t mind paying taxes,” she said. She doesn’t want to hide her income, either. “I just want an option,” she said. “I have no options right now.”

A Program Intended To Encourage Work

Congress approved the option for states to create Medicaid buy-in programs in the 1990s, intending to incentivize more people with disabilities to work. Iowa was one of the first states to adopt the program.

According to state data, 11,640 Iowans were participating in the buy-in program as of late January, or 1.7% of all Medicaid recipients in Iowa.

The income caps have inched up since Carter got her letter. Iowa’s limit, set at 250% of the federal poverty level, is $39,900 for a household of one this year.

The rules also restrict recipients from accumulating too much in assets. The current cap is $12,000 for an individual or $24,000 for a married couple, excluding some assets, such as a primary home or vehicle.

Carlyn Crowe, the public policy manager at the Iowa Developmental Disabilities Council, said the limits can prevent disabled Iowans from reaching their goals. “Work full-time and be able to buy a house, live in the community, buy a car,” she said. “Those limits placed on what they can earn and save are keeping them from doing that.”

Crowe’s organization, which has counterparts in every state, is federally funded and advocates for people with disabilities. In Iowa, such advocates have asked legislators to drop the hard limits on income and assets. Instead, they suggest that disabled Iowans pay 6% of their income to buy into the Medicaid program, an approach modeled after a 2024 Tennessee law that created a Medicaid buy-in program with no income and asset limits. (Tennessee is waiting on federal approval before starting its program.)

In recent years, these efforts have built bipartisan support and gained traction. An Iowa House committee unanimously advanced a bill in 2025 to remove the income and asset caps, but the bill died after failing to move forward during this spring’s legislative session.

State legislatures now face federal reductions in Medicaid spending estimated at more than $900 billion over 10 years, as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Alice Burns, an associate director of KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, said the specific worry is that buy-in programs, though they’re a small part of the larger Medicaid system, could increase overall Medicaid spending if eligibility changes.

“The premiums charged in buy-in programs are nowhere near close to the expected costs of covering people,” Burns said. (KFF is a health policy research, polling, and news organization that includes KFF Health News.)

Focusing on initial cost increases is myopic, said Daniel Van Sant, the director of disability policy at The Harkin Institute at Iowa’s Drake University. More workers mean additional income tax revenue for states. It also enables some people with disabilities to earn enough to transition off other government assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

“Three, five, seven years from now, you may be recouping those expenses by having people be able to work their way off,” Van Sant said.

Falling Through the Cracks

Iowa lawmakers tried a more modest adjustment during this year’s legislative session. Instead of removing the income limit entirely, they introduced legislation that would raise the cap to 300% of the federal poverty level and exempt pension accounts and a spouse’s income, among other things, from the asset cap.

In the end, the provision was stripped from a wide-ranging public assistance bill. If it had passed, the new income limit would have been one of the highest in the country for a buy-in program, according to KFF.

Alex Watters, a former City Council member in Sioux City who was paralyzed from the chest down after a diving accident, told state lawmakers during a hearing in February that the proposal was a step in the right direction, but not enough.

“I fear that we’re going to lose people to other states,” said Watters, who added that he was considering moving to Minnesota, which never had an income cap and eliminated asset caps for its Medicaid buy-in program in 2024.

Even if Iowa had raised its income limit, Carter would still have been ineligible.

Carter remains committed to her primary job at the school district. She plans to keep working there and taking on additional jobs, seven days a week, so she can pay for her medical needs and continue helping students.

Carter makes her way through the cafeteria at the Omaha Nation Public Schools campus, where she works as a finance manager. (Natalie Krebs/Iowa Public Radio)

This article is from a partnership that includes Iowa Public Radio, NPR, and KFF Health News.

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Letters to the Editor is a periodic feature. We welcome all comments and will publish a selection. We edit for length and clarity and require full names.

Work Requirements Unfairly Burden Medicaid Applicants

Great story (“A Deloitte-Run System Denied Medicaid Benefits for Michigan’s Disabled. Now Trump’s Law Piles On,” July 21). However, a key point was missed. The wrongly denied recipients have the burden of proving their entitlement. This can cost thousands. They have no money with which to finance the carrying of that burden of proof. Additionally, how does one prove that they cannot do any work? Doctors generally say: I will just provide their work restrictions (e.g., 10-pound lifting restrictions), but I’m not a vocational expert, so I’m not going to opine on “employability” or “non-employability.” Moreover, it takes many months to go through reconsiderations and appeals, so even if the worker wins, they will have lost everything by then. Finally, under the doctrine of “exhaustion of remedies,” the recipient must suffer through the administrative steps before asking a court to help. And even then, the court will defer to the administrative agencies’ findings of fact (i.e., the department’s hired doctor over the treating doctor).

Bottom line: Once there is an incorrect/wrongful denial, it is an unjust horror show that literally destroys lives — all because far-right politicians have stereotyped Medicaid recipients, painting them all as presumptively people who could work but would rather just unjustly receive benefits — a totally false and ignorant paradigm. A partial solution would include placing the burden of proof on the state to prove the recipient can work and that suitable work is available, and to enact a presumption that when a treating doctor has credibly explained a substantial disability, the department must presume qualification absent clear and convincing proof to the contrary.

— N. Dean Nasser Jr.; Sioux Falls, South Dakota

A Reckless Data Grab?

The Office of Personnel Management has already suffered massive data breaches affecting millions of employees and their families.

I am a retired federal civil servant and one of the many whose data was stolen in 2015.

The latest federal actions (“Trump’s Personnel Agency Says It Will Remove Some Identifying Info as It Sweeps Up Medical Records,” July 22) raise the question of how the requested massive dump of health data can be safeguarded any better than the personnel records previously affected.

— Kathryn Edgecomb; Vancouver, Washington

States Need More Than Money To Fight the Opioid Crisis

New Mexico offers a compelling case study in the national conversation about opioid settlement accountability (“Leadership Vacuum: Agencies in New York and Beyond Pass the Buck on Opioid Cash Oversight,” July 21). While much of the public attention has focused on whether settlement dollars are being misspent, the New Mexico Office of the State Auditor’s review of local governments found a different problem: Large amounts of opioid remediation funding remain unspent years after settlements were reached and funds were distributed. The state auditor’s transparency review identified more than $100 million in opioid settlement funds held by local governments, with many entities reporting little or no expenditures as of fiscal year 2025.

That outcome does not point to widespread misuse. Instead, some local officials repeatedly cited workforce shortages, provider capacity constraints, procurement hurdles, and long-term sustainability concerns as barriers to moving dollars into prevention, treatment, and recovery programs.

While these barriers are significant, New Mexico has built structures that may be worth watching. A state law established dedicated opioid settlement funds and a framework intended to ensure resources are used for opioid remediation purposes. State agencies, local governments, behavioral health providers, and policymakers are now working through how best to coordinate spending, measure outcomes, and communicate progress to the public. The New Mexico Office of the State Auditor will continue to provide transparency, reporting on who is spending, what is producing results, and where bottlenecks exist.

The lesson for other states is clear: Securing settlement dollars creates an unprecedented opportunity to remediate harms resulting from the opioid crisis, but it is only the first step. States also need the workforce, infrastructure, and coordination to turn that money into treatment, recovery services, prevention programs, and fewer overdose deaths.

The core question is no longer just where the money is. It is whether states have built the systems to translate settlement dollars into measurable public health gains.

— New Mexico State Auditor Joseph Maestas; Santa Fe, New Mexico

Progress on the Prior Authorization Front

Health plans continue to make steady progress implementing the multiyear series of voluntary commitments to simplify prior authorization. The article “Insurers Hedge on Trump-Backed Pledge To Improve Denials Process” (July 17) paints an incomplete picture of this ongoing work, particularly related to supporting continuity of care for patients and standardized submissions for prior authorization requests.

Participating health plans committed to implementing six reforms aimed at reducing administrative burden and accelerating access to care on a transparent timeline, and that work is on track. In April 2026, participating health plans announced the elimination of 11% of prior authorizations and a standardized approach for submitting electronic prior authorization requests for most medical services starting in 2027.

Health plans will continue adopting common data standards on a rolling basis as the standardization commitment is fully implemented, starting in 2027. As more providers move away from manual, error-prone processes and adopt electronic prior authorization, this standardized approach will mean faster answers, a more consistent experience, and less friction for everyone.

All participating plans have continuity of care programs in place to support member transitions between insurers during an active course of treatment. Under the voluntary commitments, when a patient with an approved authorization for in-network care switches health plans, the previous plan’s authorization is honored for 90 days. Health plans can implement several data exchange options to support patient transitions, and plans are not required to use a specific method to meet the commitment.

The series of voluntary commitments made by the industry requires substantial work, meaningful investment, and strong partnerships. Health plans are making steady progress in meeting these commitments and will continue to do so until they are fulfilled.

— Mike Tuffin; AHIP president and CEO; Washington, D.C.

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Media round-up related to HHS food policy reforms to advance President Trump’s MAHA agenda.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., announced the Best Practices Toolkit: Addressing Homelessness and Addiction Through Treatment First.

HHS announced a $4 million initiative to expand access to rapid, point-of-care syphilis testing.

Joint statement from HHS Secretary Kennedy and Secretary of State Rubio on the Geneva Consensus Declaration.

Thomas Zordani flew from his home in Denver to Phoenix for a consultation with a Mayo Clinic neurosurgeon, hoping to find out what could be done to treat his debilitating headaches after worrisome brain scan findings.

When making the appointment, Zordani said, he’d been told the clinic was in his insurer’s network. Upon arrival, Zordani was summoned to the clinic’s financial office and told he had to make a $5,000 preservice deposit, because Mayo had since determined it did not accept his insurance. He was automatically designated “self-pay,” even though his plan had out-of-network benefits.

Not having that kind of cash on hand — and angry on principle — he refused. His appointment was canceled.

“I was so livid,” Zordani said, recalling that day in early April 2024. He later learned that Mayo had sent a message to him in his insurance carrier’s patient portal shortly before his visit with an estimate of the cost: $565, not the larger amount it later demanded.

Traditionally, patients usually receive bills for their share only after getting treatment. But what Zordani faced is becoming increasingly common — hospitals or other medical providers seeking prepayments.

“We regret that this individual’s experience did not meet the high standard of communication we strive to provide when helping our patients understand their insurance coverage and financial responsibility,” Andrea Kalmanovitz, Mayo’s communications director, said in an emailed statement. “When prospective patients don’t have clarity that Mayo Clinic is not in-network with their health plan, unexpected pre-service deposit requests may result.”

Mayo’s website says it requires prepayments in a variety of cases, including for “noncontracted” — also known as out-of-network — insurance plans.

The trend of hospitals asking for money up front represents a double whammy for patients.

Medical providers are collecting larger shares of what patients might owe at a time when rising deductibles mean patients are owing more for care. The preservice charge could be all or part of a remaining deductible, for example, or a sizable percentage of what the visit or treatment might cost. Those deductibles go up when hospital prices, drug costs, and labor expenses increase, as insurers try to slow premium growth by shifting more costs to patients.

People are “basically being asked to self-insure,” said Richard Gundling, a senior vice president at the Healthcare Financial Management Association, an organization for finance professionals.

As that happens, hospitals figure more patients will have trouble meeting those deductibles, so they want to get as much up front as possible.

“Things like preservice deposits and those kinds of moves are probably going to become more and more likely,” said Chip Kahn, a visiting senior fellow at KFF and the American Enterprise Institute and former president and CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals. “That will make it harder on the provider, the clinician, and harder on the patients.”

The deposits can’t be viewed in isolation, Gundling said: It’s a bigger issue than just hospitals asking for money up front. The challenge, he said, is: “How do we maintain access to care when more patients can’t absorb the level of out-of-pocket costs?”

Already, consumers are increasingly worried about paying for healthcare. A recent KFF health tracking poll found that lower out-of-pocket costs ranked as the top change insured adults would like to see from their coverage plans. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

The average deductible in family coverage offered by employers is $3,762 per person, according to KFF, while the average deductible in Affordable Care Act plans jumped 37% this year to a similar amount, $3,786.

A Consumer Concern

Community Health Advocates, a health insurance consumer assistance program in New York state, hears from people who are concerned about prepayments, said Diane Spicer, a supervising attorney.

“We see this mostly with insured folks who are seeking out-of-network care but who have out-of-network coverage,” Spicer said, “and also sometimes for care that is not covered.”

Just how many hospitals collect what are often called point-of-service payments is not known, according to Kodiak Solutions, a technology company that provides services to health systems to help manage their revenue.

“But it is becoming more and more the center of many of our conversations with health systems,” said Matt Szaflarski, a vice president leading Kodiak’s revenue cycle intelligence team.

In addition to Mayo, Baltimore-based Johns Hopkins Medicine’s website says that “it is our policy to collect all amounts owed before services are rendered” for non-emergency care. University of Texas-affiliated MD Anderson in Houston, one of the nation’s premier cancer treatment centers, says patients who pay for their own care “will be asked to pay an initial deposit determined by the care center, based on the type of cancer.”

On average, hospitals collect about a quarter of what they expect the patient will owe, Szaflarski said, based on what they estimate the insurer will pay — a percentage that has grown in recent years.

For example, if a person is coming in for imaging and the insurer will reimburse $1,000 for that scan, the hospital will seek $250 from the patient up front, he said. “That used to be closer to $150.”

It also varies by hospital, and sometimes by state.

“The state of Indiana has some of the lowest cash collections in the country. They are Midwest nice,” Szaflarski said. He added that California and Texas are among those that collect more.

Even as hospitals increasingly collect more upfront payments, however, their uncollected debt is also rising, according to data Kodiak collected from more than 2,300 hospitals nationwide.

A Kodiak report in June said that’s because of a “fundamental shift” in coverage as plans “increasingly feature higher deductibles, greater coinsurance, and more complex cost-sharing structures: all elements that increase the nominal patient responsibility without improving—and often reducing—the probability of collection.”

While many hospitals are doing fine, some, especially in rural areas, have thin margins — and things could soon tighten further as cuts to ACA and Medicaid funding lead to more people being uninsured.

As a result, hospitals “have to be concerned” about every cost-sharing dollar, Kahn said.

After Zordani returned to Denver, he said, it took a while to find another specialist. He eventually had a procedure in late June 2024, at a Denver hospital not affiliated with Mayo, to fix a spinal fluid leak.

The following fall, he filed a complaint against Mayo in Arizona civil court. He was awarded $47,500 in economic damages and attorney fees after an arbitrator in September 2025 determined Mayo violated a state consumer fraud law because it failed to reach him to say that his plan was not in-network before he traveled. Mayo’s statement to KFF Health News did not include any reference to the settlement.

“Had they notified me in timely fashion as required, I would not have flown there,” Zordani said. He’s still angry that the clinic didn’t ask his permission before designating his care as self-pay, which meant he wasn’t going to use his insurance, and he’s still unclear on how they calculated the $5,000 preservice amount.

When Do Consumers Have to Make Preservice Payments?

There is one clear rule: In emergency situations, hospitals that accept federal Medicare financing cannot, by law, demand upfront payment before stabilizing a patient who arrives at an ER, said Matthew Fiedler, a senior fellow and health policy researcher at the Brookings Institution.

Other consumer protections are less clear.

Patients who get in-network care may have some recourse in their contracts with their insurers, so they should check the fine print, experts told KFF Health News.

“In out-of-network settings, I’m not aware of any barriers that would prevent a provider from doing this,” Fiedler said of preservice deposits.

How those amounts are calculated also appears widely up to the provider and can be opaque.

“They could just say $1,500 and you’d be like, ‘Oh, is that 10%, or is that how much is left on my deductible?’” said Patricia Kelmer, senior director of healthcare campaigns at PIRG, a national federation of independent consumer advocacy groups.

Yet, she added, the patient might be scheduling three months in advance, so the provider wouldn’t know how much was left on the deductible. She recommends consumers ask for an itemized bill and call their insurer to find out whether it has rules regarding the charges.

Also unclear are how and when patients get their money back if they overpay.

Overpayments can happen if patients don’t require the services originally estimated or when insurers pay other bills first, such as the anesthesiology cost or a surgeon’s fees. If those payments are counted toward a patient’s deductible, yet the patient had already made a prepayment to the hospital for the expected deductible, they’ve now paid too much to the hospital.

How soon they get their money back can vary and can depend on state laws, though a small number of states directly address the issue. As of this year, Florida requires medical providers to reimburse patients within 30 days of a determination of an overpayment. Some states, including Maryland, prohibit certain hospitals from requiring prepayment simply to avoid offering financial assistance.

After alleging that some patients had to wait more than a year to get reimbursed, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes recently brought a suit under state consumer protection laws against SimonMed Imaging, which has 170 locations in 10 states.

In a settlement, SimonMed agreed to issue refunds within an average of 60 days.

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Hospitals across the U.S. are trying to reduce maternal deaths and complications after pregnancies using one small tool: a silicone wristband stamped with the declaration “I Gave Birth.”

The wristbands are part of a growing initiative first launched by North Carolina-based ECU Health as Congress sought to address the nation’s growing maternal mortality crisis during the covid pandemic. Since 2021, nearly 50 North Carolina hospitals and the state’s health department have begun distributing the wristbands, to give mothers and care providers a visual reminder of the life-threatening health risks after birth.

The Connecticut state health department; large health systems in Arkansas, Georgia, and Mississippi; and hospitals in at least 24 other states have also embraced the program. The wristbands are intended to make emergency workers aware of postpartum risks, ensure better treatment, and help lower maternal mortality rates in the U.S., where nearly 70% of pregnancy-related deaths happen after the day of delivery — and nearly 40% happen after the six-week mark.

This year, North Carolina plans to expand the initiative with part of the $213 million it received through the Rural Health Transformation Program, a provision of President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act, also known as HR 1.

Tamika Auguste, a physician and the board chair at the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists Foundation, praised the wristbands as a useful tool “to increase awareness and education around postpartum health.” But she and others who focus on maternal health said efforts like the wristband campaigns are only part of what’s needed to combat the broader maternal mortality crisis in the U.S.

And they noted the wristbands’ popularity is emerging as Trump’s 2025 law is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over 10 years, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis. Medicaid, the federal-state program that covers healthcare for low-income families, pays for at least 40% of births nationwide.

Elisabeth Wright Burak, a policy researcher at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, said Trump’s tax-and-spending law is stifling the momentum states had been gaining with maternal care since 2022. That’s when Congress allowed states to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage from 60 days to a year, which nearly every state did.

Now, those extensions could end up on the chopping block, Burak said, as states seek ways to manage Medicaid losses.

“There is no question that HR 1 risks setting the clock back for maternal health,” Burak said.

A report she co-authored in July warned that postpartum patients have more to worry about with the new law than simply cuts to Medicaid. States are also setting up systems that may not adequately track pregnant and postpartum enrollees who should be exempt from the law’s new work requirements, erroneously dropping them from coverage, Burak’s report said.

Maternal Mortality

U.S. maternal mortality rates have risen and fallen over the past seven years, with 649 maternal deaths in 2024, according to the most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Tennessee had the worst maternal mortality rate in the nation from 2020 to 2024, around 42 deaths per 100,000 births, according an analysis of CDC data by the Congressional Research Service. North Carolina’s rate was about 29 in 100,000, with a national average of 23.

In its Rural Health Transformation Program application, North Carolina said the initiative creating the “I Gave Birth” wristbands reduced postpartum readmissions by nearly a third at ECU Health Medical Center in Greenville, without elaborating. In online promotions, some hospitals have claimed the wristband campaigns can save lives, though many have recently launched and their impact has yet to be studied.

“Additional research is needed to conclusively confirm the outcomes of such initiatives,” said Hannah Jones, a spokesperson for the North Carolina health department.

Hospitals provide a wristband to patients who have given birth and instruct them to wear it for weeks or months, hoping they’ll be reminded to check in with a physician if they feel chest pain, have headaches, or start bleeding. The accessory resembles the yellow Livestrong wristband, part of a cancer awareness campaign launched by cyclist Lance Armstrong’s foundation. A nurse also talks through postpartum risks with the patients, and they’re sent home with pamphlets and guidebooks on how to care for their new child and themselves.

“The bracelet itself is simply a reminder of, ‘Hey, I got education,’” said Jessica Noble, a nurse with East Carolina University-connected ECU Health who pioneered the initiative.

It’s also intended to alert first responders and other healthcare providers that a woman has recently given birth and to check for postpartum complications, such as low blood pressure, bleeding, or infections. Emergency department staff and EMS workers sometimes don’t have adequate training to recognize postpartum complications, research shows, which can be dangerous when those patients end up in an emergency room.

North Carolina and other states have embraced “I Gave Birth” wristbands as a way to encourage women to seek help when they have postpartum complications. They’re gaining steam as the Trump administration’s cuts to Medicaid threaten postpartum care. (University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences)

Postpartum wristbands gained traction across the country through health awareness campaigns fueled by social media posts and evening news segments. New mothers appeared in promotional photos and videos wearing the wristband and raving about the accessory, saying it celebrated childbirth.

Some postpartum patients who faced traumatic births or mental health struggles saw it differently.

‘So Many Risks’

Alexandra Mellon gave birth last year. Her daughter was stillborn. Devastated, she sought out a therapist, donated her breast milk, and tried to find meaning in her circumstances. She spent a year feeling isolated, she said, often because people don’t know what to say.

Mellon said wearing one of the wristbands would have been a painful reminder of her loss.

Now she works as a doula in Asheville, North Carolina. Mellon said what she thinks new moms need most is community and emotional support. The wristband could help encourage that for some patients, she said, but isn’t for everyone.

“There are so many risks, and it’s just like you almost become invisible,” she said.

More than 80% of pregnancy-related deaths are preventable, according to the CDC. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in March published guidance, developed during the Biden administration, that urged hospitals to create better emergency department protocols to catch postpartum complications and to measure their work against state and national maternal health data.

But those efforts faced a major threat last year when the Trump administration sought to cut CDC funding for state-level maternal mortality data in its proposed 2026 budget. While Congress rejected that move, the administration did lay off staff tracking postpartum patients’ health.

The Trump administration tried again to cut $113.5 million in CDC maternal health research in its proposed 2027 budget. Congress has instead proposed increasing funding to $115.5 million.

Without more research, it’s unclear how effective the wristbands are in encouraging postpartum patients to seek care when they need it. A U.K. study of mass media campaigns to improve health outcomes, such as preventing risky substance use or encouraging exercise, found that the campaigns didn’t change behaviors. Another study found that the U.S. “Back to Sleep” campaign, which educates parents on safe sleeping practices with babies, dramatically reduced rates of sudden infant death syndrome for several years after it launched in 1994, though rates plateaued in the early 2000s.

In 2020, the CDC tried a similar national campaign, “Hear Her,” aimed at helping women speak up when something felt wrong after delivery.

The CDC released a study on the campaign years later that said it “had the unintended consequence of appearing to put the burden on the people who are pregnant or postpartum to speak up.”

ECU Health Medical Center created the wristband initiative in 2021 and published a study two years later. In it the authors noted the pregnancy-related readmission rate at the Greenville hospital fell 0.77%. It attributed the change to the “education provided to patients, family members, and medical personnel” in the initiative, without elaborating.

Campaigns like the “I Gave Birth” initiative are far from a final solution to maternal mortality, said Noble, the campaign’s architect and lead author on the ECU Health study. If she “had a magic wand,” she said, North Carolina would not just have better postpartum care but would also address the root causes of pregnancy complications. “But I don’t have one, and I can’t make system-level change immediately.”

ECU Health in eastern North Carolina created the “I Gave Birth” wristband initiative in 2021 at a time when Congress was seeking to address the nation’s maternal mortality crisis during the covid pandemic. (ECU Health) KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Sex-rejecting procedures on children, which include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical operations, can result in irreversible damage.

HOT SPRINGS, S.D. — Two of the nation’s most powerful health officials predict artificial intelligence will play a key role in solving rural America’s health challenges.

Health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told a panel of U.S. senators that AI nurses can provide “concierge care” to rural patients. Mehmet Oz, who leads the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, has said “the best way to help some of these communities is going to be AI-based avatars” that connect rural patients to mental health services.

And many state health leaders agree. They are using some of their funding from the $50 billion federal Rural Health Transformation Program to expand AI among rural health organizations.

AI is computer technology that performs tasks that typically rely on human intelligence by finding patterns or generating words. It has the potential to improve the healthcare system by automating back-office work or identifying patients at risk, but several reports contend there’s little evidence AI can improve access to care and patient health in rural areas. It’s unclear how well states will track and share outcomes of the tech they invest in.

Meanwhile, some rural Americans are skeptical, according to interviews with people in Hot Springs, South Dakota, a city of about 3,400 residents at the southern end of the Black Hills.

“I get artificial intelligence for certain things, but for personal healthcare — no,” Tara Haffner said while standing outside the American Legion.

Haffner said she’s worried about AI making mistakes and wants healthcare to stay between her and her doctor.

But Phillip Mues, who oversees technology at Cherry County Hospital and Clinic in rural Valentine, Nebraska, said AI is already helping clinicians save time, reduce burnout, and focus more on patient care.

“I think it will help reduce burden on actual staffing,” he said. “It won’t replace people, but I think it will help in rural communities.”

Still, Mues said, AI can’t fix every challenge. Rural hospitals at risk of closing or ending certain services probably can’t use AI to save enough money to prevent those consequences, he said.

Congressional Republicans created the five-year Rural Health Transformation Program last summer as a last-minute sweetener to President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The funding was intended to offset concerns about the outsize fallout anticipated in rural communities from the law, which is expected to reduce overall Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over a decade.

The Word on the Street

Hot Springs, which has a 25-bed independent hospital and a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital, is known for its sandstone buildings, veterans’ services, and, yes, hot springs. Residents must drive at least an hour for more advanced care.

Six people interviewed there by KFF Health News said the biggest problem in rural healthcare is the cost or long wait times caused by staffing shortages.

Doug Nikkila, a heavy equipment operator, said AI and other technology come with benefits and risks.

“If it’s not utilized correctly, it becomes a burden,” he said.

Nikkila, who’s concerned about nursing home residents being neglected amid staffing shortages, said he thinks AI should send reminders to staff when their residents are due for diaper changes or other care. He also wondered whether AI-powered video monitors could send alerts when they detect falls or illness symptoms.

The healthcare industry is rapidly adopting AI despite the tools being “poorly evaluated,” according to a recent report from ARISE, a Stanford- and Harvard-led group that evaluates health-related AI. The report says that while some AI has been successful in controlled settings, there’s less evidence it can perform in the real world. It also said few studies track patient outcomes.

Evidence is especially lacking in rural areas. A recent academic paper found that only 26 peer-reviewed studies about AI in rural healthcare were published from 2010 through April 29, 2025. Few analyzed implementation or outcomes.

Despite the dearth of results, some states appear interested in bold experiments — such as using AI to suggest diagnoses or recommend treatments. Utah officials said in their application to the rural health program that they are interested in funding a controversial experiment in AI-powered prescription refill requests.

Even tools proven to work in urban settings may not work in rural ones, said Qian Huang, an assistant professor at the Center for Rural Health and Research at East Tennessee State University.

She said the technology is usually tested at large, academic hospitals and trained on data from urban patients, who may not have the same health issues and obstacles — such as a lack of transportation — as rural patients.

A KFF Health News review of states’ plans for the Rural Health Transformation Program shows they’re interested in using AI to automate time-consuming, behind-the-scenes tasks, such as medical charting, coding, referrals, and prior authorization requests. Some states also mentioned ways AI can save money, such as Washington, which discussed tools that “identify and recover” money it’s owed.

Mues said the Valentine clinic has been using AI scribes that record appointments and generate notes describing the visit. He said surveys of clinicians before and after they started using the technology show the scribes have helped reduce burnout by letting providers focus on patient care with “eye contact on the patient, not the computer.”

States also mentioned funding AI that directly affects patient care, such as tools that recommend possible diagnoses and treatment options to clinicians. Mississippi wants to use predictive AI algorithms to “guide” emergency medics with “triage, routing, and treatment decisions.”

Several states want to use AI to analyze patients’ medical charts and remote monitoring devices to identify immediate or future health risks. North Dakota’s plans mention AI to “detect early signs of chronic disease and behavioral health conditions,” while New Hampshire’s discusses AI that identifies patients “at high risk of adverse drug events.”

Some states plan to give patients access to chatbots or wearable devices that transmit data to their clinicians. Utah is interested in funding AI-powered fetal-monitoring devices, while Kentucky will explore using AI chatbots to “deliver personalized nudges and education” through “health coaching, gamified incentives, and rewards.”

Whether the technology appeals to consumers is another matter. Hot Springs resident Stephanie Keller wears a smartwatch to track her fitness but has no interest in an AI chatbot using her data to encourage her to reach her health goals.

“I don’t have the time to chat with AI every day. I mean, are you kidding me? I don’t want to spend my time on a cellphone,” she said.

Rural health facilities also face challenges in implementing AI.

Huang, who has written about AI in rural healthcare, said rural hospitals and clinics may not have the hardware or IT staff needed to support the technology. She said clinicians and staff may already be doing three jobs at once and not have time to go through AI training.

Rural health facilities may not have fast-enough internet to use AI, while patients may have slow connections at home — if they have internet at all — or may not feel comfortable using AI, Huang said.

“In rural communities, trust and a personal relationship is essential,” she said.

Roy Ehlers, a Hot Springs resident, said he doesn’t trust AI in healthcare, or anywhere else.

“I’m old-fashioned. I don’t believe in it. Technology is not my forte,” Ehlers said.

Mues said that while some rural patients are “scared of AI,” most have let their clinicians at the Valentine facility use the scribing technology to record patients’ visits.

Will States Share AI Results?

Despite questions about implementation, the boom is on. Jordan Everson, an assistant professor at the Georgetown University Department of Family Medicine, said both urban and rural health facilities are rushing to use AI.

“The risk of signing contracts that rural healthcare organizations come to regret is pretty high,” said Everson, who previously worked in the information technology office at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Several states are addressing that risk by using their rural health funding to create groups that will help rural health facilities vet, select, or monitor AI tools while offering training, ongoing assistance, or funding for upfront costs.

CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster said the agency doesn’t have any AI-specific reporting requirements but is working on a form for states to report their overall progress and outcomes.

Abraham Pritzker, who works at Julota, a company that helps health organizations track data, said states should measure more than how often AI programs are used.

For example, states can measure whether the tech reduces falls, 911 calls, or hospital admissions, said Pritzker, a former paramedic. Huang said it’s also important to ask clinicians and patients about their experiences using AI.

Yet many states’ applications to the rural health program mention tracking only AI adoption metrics, not what happens after facilities deploy the tech. Some of these states may add further reporting requirements down the road.

Vermont spokespeople did not respond when asked why their state’s funding opportunity for AI scribes requires organizations to report only how many clinicians and patients are served by the tech, not how much time they save.

States requiring recipients to report outcomes include Connecticut, which will track how often AI-powered patient monitoring devices trigger accurate alerts. Texas will require organizations to track cost savings, while Wisconsin lists “patient outcomes” and “productivity and efficiencies” as possible metrics.

Huang said that after collecting results, states need to share them so other states and healthcare organizations can learn from their experiences.

“We do not have a lot of resources to waste on tools that don’t work in rural areas,” she said.

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

HHS announced two landmark actions to modernize federal oversight of food ingredients and establish a stronger scientific foundation.

Doula Taja Iglesias and her business partner have built a space in Alexandria, Virginia, that’s all things pregnancy, birth, and childcare.

Comfortable couches in one area invite expectant parents to settle in for birth education classes. In another, a colorful pile of toys await the babies and toddlers. And there’s a free supply of diapers and food. Years ago, as Iglesias was giving birth and expressing her wish not to have an epidural for pain, she felt isolated and that her preferences were dismissed by the medical staff. Today, she works hard to make sure other parents can have the support of a doula.

“We kind of created this to fill the gaps that we realized existed because we had to go through it,” Iglesias said. She’s the founder of The Momager Co., a doula agency dedicated to giving parents care throughout the perinatal process.

Iglesias said one of the widest gaps is the lack of access to doula care for parents on Medicaid.

Doula care has been associated with improved breastfeeding initiation and less maternal anxiety. The perinatal doula care covers education about pregnancy and birth, advocacy for new parents in the hospital, and help after delivery with lactation and recovery. Doulas often work alongside doctors or midwives who provide medical care.

“The doula is the person that already knows what you want. We know what your dream birth is,” Iglesias explained. “We’re somebody that is standing on the side of the parent.”

Doula Taja Iglesias, founder of The Momager Co., a doula agency, offers some of her services from a welcoming space in Alexandria, Virginia. (Lynne Shallcross/KFF Health News) (Lynne Shallcross/KFF Health News) Your browser does not support the audio element.

Can’t see the audio player? Visit kffhealthnews.org to listen.

In 2022, Virginia became the fourth state to start reimbursing doulas through Medicaid. A push to address the country’s maternal mortality rates, which are higher than in other high-income countries, has been an engine for lawmakers looking to give women on Medicaid the support of doula care. For example, another Virginia law requires hospitals to allow an extra person, other than a family member, in the delivery room.

The services offered and the number of visits covered by Medicaid vary by state, but today doulas are covered in 26 states and Washington, D.C. An additional 20 states have considered proposals or are in the process of implementing similar policies.

In Virginia, doulas say the administrative and logistical challenges they encounter are trickling down to moms. A review of the Virginia Certification Board’s Doula Registry this June found just 19 doulas based in Northern Virginia accept payment from Medicaid.

Doulas say that while Medicaid coverage of their services is a good first step, the amount of paperwork required in the approval process and the low reimbursement rates mean that fewer doulas participate in the Medicaid program, reducing access for beneficiaries.

A 2021 law that extended doula benefits to Medicaid enrollees sought to improve the health of Virginia parents and decrease the number of mothers who die during the time surrounding birth. The state’s maternal mortality rate is among the nation’s highest.

As co-chair of the state’s task force on doula regulations, Iglesias helps shape policies that make it easier for moms on Medicaid to get doula care through the program.

To access doula services in Virginia, parents on Medicaid must have a referral from a doctor, and their doula must be approved by the state to care for Medicaid beneficiaries. Iglesias would like to see that process be quicker and less costly for doulas, who pay $75-$150 for certification.

While the policy debates continue, Iglesias has decided not to get certified to care for parents on Medicaid. Instead, she raises money to provide doula care for parents on Medicaid outside the system.

“I don’t want to be state-certified with a training that I feel is not full and complete, a training that doesn’t touch on that community aspect of work,” she said.

Iglesias said the services covered are too limited and Medicaid does not allow her to work with clients as she sees fit. Virginia’s payment covers up to eight doula visits. All but the first visit are limited to one hour, which Iglesias said isn’t enough time.

“If you want to actually build a relationship with this person that you’re going to be standing in with in their most vulnerable moment, it ain’t happening,” Iglesias said.

Informational pamphlets are displayed at The Momager Co., which offers appointments and group classes. (Lynne Shallcross/KFF Health News) The Momager Co. operates a store with free postpartum provisions, maternity clothes, baby essentials, and breast/chestfeeding supplies, as well as food and hygiene items. (Lynne Shallcross/KFF Health News) Donated baby clothing is available free to parents at the Alexandria, Virginia-based doula agency. (Lynne Shallcross/KFF Health News)

While pursuing her PhD at George Mason University, Desirae Leaphart Mensah studied the initial implementation of the doula reimbursement policy in Virginia.

Mensah collected data from 2022 to 2024 for a study published this year. She interviewed doulas eager to serve clients on Medicaid. But some told her they got bogged down in the paperwork and never were certified. Doulas report similar struggles with the certification process today.

Mensah said the mismatch between the size of the Medicaid population in Northern Virginia and the low number of doulas available leads to fewer parents receiving doula care.

Coverage is a good first step, Mensah noted, but it doesn’t translate to enough access. During the first two years of implementation, fewer than 1% of Medicaid births in Virginia used doula services. That study is the latest available.

Kenda Denia, executive director of Birth in Color, a statewide doula collective in Virginia, welcomed the law at first.

“But now we’re looking at certain logistics that are not working,” Denia said.

Private-pay doulas in Virginia commonly charge $1,200 to $3,000 per pregnancy. For families wanting more extensive prenatal or postpartum services, the fee can be as much as $6,000. Virginia’s Medicaid program, also known as Cardinal Care, reimburses doulas $859 per pregnancy. They receive an additional $100 if their client attends prenatal and postpartum doctors’ visits.

The pay is too low and does not reflect the value of the services they provide, Denia said. “Midwives don’t get paid this. Doctors don’t get paid this,” she explained. “We are driving to people’s homes for postpartum and prenatal care.”

Doulas might wait weeks or months for reimbursement, and the pay is not flexible. The Medicaid reimbursement rate is the same across the state and does not capture the higher cost of living in areas like Alexandria. It’s roughly 32% more expensive in Alexandria than the average cost of living in Virginia, according to ERI Economic Research Institute, a private data analytics group.

Despite the barriers, Denia applauded parts of the policy. Medicaid coverage of doulas means that more parents can have a “birthing bestie,” she said.

Before getting pregnant, Juliana Navia had no idea what doulas did. But while at a free clinic for her prenatal checkups, Navia connected with Iglesias. Later, Iglesias became Navia’s doula and helped her navigate a difficult situation when she wasn’t getting the kind of care she wanted at the hospital.

“I was stressed giving birth, but my doula helped me,” Navia said. “I was advocated for.”

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

More than a million times a year, a U.S. surgeon slices open a knee, strips out worn cartilage, caps the leg bones with metal, and drops in a plastic spacer to allow the new joint to glide.

While knee replacement procedures have become standard, however, the prices charged have not.

At Catawba Valley Medical Center in Hickory, North Carolina, for example, the cost of the procedure under a Blue Cross Blue Shield health plan this year was about $16,000, according to data from Serif Health, a San Francisco startup that collects recently released data from hospitals and insurers. Little more than an hour’s drive west, however, at Mission Hospital in Asheville, the cost of the procedure under the same health plan was around $40,000, or more than double, the data showed.

Formed by the merger of the two largest hospitals in the region, Mission has little competition and more power to demand the higher price.

This comparison between these two hospitals illuminates how large hospital systems created by a wave of U.S. mergers in recent decades can dominate the competition and push up healthcare costs.

While many factors affect the price of a medical procedure, hospitals with few competitors can charge more, health economists say.

The hospital price hikes mean patients and their insurers must pay more for an episode of healthcare. But there is an important side effect, too, even for people who don’t require medical care. When insurers face higher hospital prices, they pass the costs on and raise the prices they charge for everyone’s health insurance.

Using Serif Health’s pricing data, it is possible to see how mergers like the one that created Mission Hospital influence costs. For years, it was difficult to determine how much hospital monopolies boosted charges. But since 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has required hospitals to disclose prices, making it possible to gather comprehensive data such as Serif Health’s.

The connection between market power and prices exists across the country. In Melbourne, Florida, Holmes Regional Medical Center is part of a health system, Health First, that dominates surrounding Brevard County. The center has charged Cigna two times what a hospital two hours north did for a knee replacement this year, the Serif Health data shows.

Banner North Colorado Medical Center, which ranks as the leading healthcare provider in Weld County, Colorado, charged a UnitedHealthcare patient $20,000 more for the surgery in Greeley than a health system an hour’s drive south in Denver, according to Serif’s figures.

The American Hospital Association has argued that hospital mergers can improve quality and reduce healthcare costs by creating “a fiscally sustainable environment.” A Mission Hospital spokesperson said comparing hospitals’ prices was unfair or misleading because their practices and constraints vary so much.

For years, economists suspected that the run of mergers beginning in the late 1990s was a main driver of the rising costs of U.S. healthcare. From 2002 to 2020 alone, more than 1,000 hospital mergers unfolded in the United States.

But until the recent federal disclosure rule, the effect of healthcare monopolies on pricing was often overlooked or harder to detect. Hospitals do not advertise their prices, and even when they are revealed on a bill, patients scarcely notice the bottom line because they don’t pay most of it — their insurers do.

“What the data shows pretty clearly is that when hospitals have bargaining leverage, they tend to have higher prices,” said Zack Cooper, an associate professor of public health and economics at Yale University who has spent more than a decade studying hospital monopolies.

Over the last quarter century, Cooper said, hospital prices have risen faster than those for any other economic sector, and “hospital consolidation is one of the primary drivers.”

Federal and state officials have wavered over when to intervene when hospitals are proposing to merge. Last summer, President Donald Trump revoked former President Joe Biden’s 2021 directive that urged federal agencies to challenge mergers that could harm consumers, reversing course from Biden’s more aggressive enforcement of antitrust law. In a March memo, however, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson called for a task force on healthcare mergers that are leading to “higher prices” and “decreased quality” of care.

Several states have sought to curb healthcare monopolies. In 2023, Minnesota passed a law banning anticompetitive healthcare mergers and bolstering state oversight. In 2022, California passed a law requiring healthcare businesses to give the state a 90-day notice of large mergers and created an agency to investigate their effects on competition. And Oregon passed a law in 2021 enabling the state health department to block acquisitions and mergers of hospitals.

Nothing has stopped the overall trend, however, as hospitals seek to grow and gain leverage over insurers and competitors. Last year alone, hospital and health systems announced 46 mergers and acquisitions, according to Kaufman Hall, a healthcare business consulting firm. Five ranked as “mega-mergers,” meaning they were valued at more than $1 billion. One merged 28 hospitals across Connecticut and New York into a powerful interstate health system. Another linked Sanford Health and Marshfield Clinic Health System, a deal that created a 56-hospital system across the Midwest — including Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming — with combined revenue of about $10 billion.

Other mergers have been proposed in California, Hawai‘i, and Minnesota.

Asheville’s Dominant Hospital

Few places in the United States better exemplify how hospital mergers reshape healthcare than Asheville.

In 1998, the state authorized a deal that joined the city’s two acute-care hospitals, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Memorial Mission Medical Center, to create Mission Hospital. Ever since, its effects have been studied and its prices fiercely contested.

Data shows a strong link between hospital mergers and higher prices for procedures. By 2016, Mission Hospital had secured a monopoly in Buncombe County and successfully lobbied the state to drop limits on its profits. (Katie Linsky Shaw for KFF Health News)

Marcelle Crago, a nurse and lactation consultant, is one of many patients who have accused Mission Health, which operates Mission Hospital, of gouging consumers. Last year, she tweaked her knee while cross-country skiing.

“My knee went ‘pop, pop, pop,’” she recalled. She had torn her meniscus, the rubbery cartilage around the knee that acts as a shock absorber. A doctor advised her to have a portion of it removed.

Two days before the surgery, Mission Health told her the total charge would be over $9,000, according to paperwork on her case filed with the state’s Consumer Protection Division.

“I was shocked at the number,” she said.

Crago’s insurance policy from UnitedHealth Group had a high deductible, so she would have had to pay most of the cost. She decided to postpone the surgery and shop around, eventually arranging to have it done at an outpatient center not affiliated with Mission. There, the bill came to less than a third of the price Mission Health charged, according to paperwork she kept.

“The way Mission Health handled the whole thing felt predatory,” Crago recalled, noting that when she balked at the $9,000 figure, the hospital offered a 20% discount if she paid upfront. “It makes you wonder how much they are playing with prices.”

In responding to Crago’s complaint with the state, an attorney for Mission and HCA Healthcare, which owns the hospital, wrote that hospital charges “represent the cost for supporting the entire episode of care” and must cover the hospital’s investments in advanced technology, training, staff, and other critical needs.

“Patients are certainly entitled to ‘shop around’ for surgical procedures,” wrote the attorney, Phillip Jackson.

Marcelle Crago was cross-country skiing when she hurt her knee. She needed surgery and says she “was shocked” at the estimated $9,000 cost from Mission Health. (Katie Linsky Shaw for KFF Health News)

It is not just patients who bear the burden of rising hospital prices.

Over time, anyone who pays for health insurance pays a price for hospital monopolies, as insurers boost premiums as medical costs rise. The full cost for an employer to pay for an average family health insurance plan rose to more than $27,000 in 2025, up from $21,000 just six years ago, according to figures from KFF.

Around Asheville, employers and employees complain that their insurance premiums are higher because Mission’s prices are so high.

As the chef and co-founder of Cúrate restaurant in Asheville, a business with about 100 employees, Katie Button provides employee health coverage and believes she has been paying for Mission Hospital’s excessive prices, according to a pending class-action lawsuit she filed in 2021 with five residents who say the monopoly has harmed them.

Any insurance plan in Asheville must include Mission Hospital, she said, because it is the only one around. This makes the burden of its prices unavoidable.

“We are where we are because we don’t have a choice of hospitals,” Button said. “There is no other option.”

The steady creep of healthcare costs is top of mind not just in Asheville but for most U.S. voters, according to an April KFF poll. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults were worried about being able to afford healthcare, the poll found.

Yet while federal law allows regulators to step in and block mergers deemed to create monopolies, the FTC intervened in only about 1% of such cases from 2002 to 2020 to stop a hospital merger, according to a Yale University study. The FTC has since announced challenges to five other hospital mergers.

Birth of a Monopoly

When Mission Health was formed by a merger in 1998, state officials recognized that Asheville’s new dominant hospital system would have the power to raise prices and required Mission to sign an agreement to limit spending and profit margins.

Even with these restrictions, the hospital substantially hiked prices, according to economic research cited by the FTC. But Mission’s prices were about to go up even more. In 2015, Mission Health lobbied the state legislature to drop the state restrictions, abandoning the profit limits.

“After 20 years of the hospital behaving itself, the state decided to terminate its oversight,” said Mark Hall, a professor emeritus at Wake Forest University who has written an account of the hospital’s merger history. Then, three years later, HCA, the largest hospital corporation in the country, bought Mission Health. (The Dogwood Health Trust, a nonprofit established as part of HCA’s purchase of Mission Health, helps fund KFF Health News’ coverage.)

“This put a prepackaged monopoly into the hands of the world’s largest for-profit hospital corporation,” Hall said.

Across a range of services, Mission Hospital charges more than other North Carolina hospitals, according to figures from Serif Health.

Consider the prices that Mission negotiated with UnitedHealthcare compared with those the insurer pays at Catawba Valley Medical Center. For a breast biopsy, UnitedHealth pays $7,500 at Mission and $1,700 at Catawba, according to Serif. For a hernia repair, it pays $17,700 at Mission and $9,600 at Catawba.

“The prices hospitals charge are one of the leading drivers of rising healthcare costs,” according to a UnitedHealthcare statement sent by spokesperson Cole Manbeck.

Crago filed a complaint with the state’s Consumer Protection Division accusing Mission Health of excessive pricing when she needed knee surgery. (Katie Linsky Shaw for KFF Health News)

Mission spokesperson Katie Czerwinski, in a statement, said that it can be misleading to compare one hospital with another.

Mission Hospital is almost three times as large as Catawba Valley Health and is a Level 1 trauma center serving a different population, Czerwinski said. She also said that pulling individual rates for comparison paints an incomplete picture.

But other figures indicate that prices at Mission Hospital are relatively high, even when viewed collectively.

A team at the think tank Rand, led by Christopher Whaley, now a Brown University health economist, uses commercial insurance records to compare average hospital prices across the U.S. relative to those paid by Medicare. According to the Rand figures, Mission Hospital in 2024 charged prices that were 334% of prices set by Medicare. Catawba Valley Medical Center charged 237%. The state benchmark for prices is 280% of Medicare, Rand figures showed.

“The prices we pay for healthcare vary tremendously and are uncorrelated to the value we receive,” according to the Rand website.

For many in Asheville, the primary complaints about Mission Hospital focus on the quality of patient care. This is consistent with academic studies showing that the quality of care declines when hospitals have little competition.

Amid rising complaints about hospital services, North Carolina state Sen. Julie Mayfield, a Democrat, helped launch a nonprofit organization two years ago called Reclaim Healthcare WNC to hold Mission “accountable for its harmful practices.”

“Within a year of the HCA sale, I started hearing stories from physicians and other friends about all the terrible things that were happening there,” Mayfield said, most of them caused by severe staff cuts and physicians leaving.

Three times since 2024, state health inspectors working on behalf of CMS have issued “immediate jeopardy” findings to Mission Hospital, indicating problems so severe that they posed an imminent risk of serious injury or death to patients.

In the most recent CMS report, an 88-year-old woman recovering from a fall and hip surgery at Mission Hospital died after going a night without receiving a blood transfusion.

Czerwinski, the Mission Hospital spokesperson, said a proposed plan of correction “allows Mission to address the findings from the survey and complete a comprehensive review of operations.”

As more hospitals across the United States plan to merge, Mayfield said, the experience in Asheville represents a cautionary tale.

“Unregulated monopolies have never gone well for the public.”

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.