The National Institutes of Health employee said she knew things would be difficult for federal workers after Donald Trump was elected. But she never imagined it would be like this.

Focused on Alzheimer’s and other dementia research, the worker is among thousands who abruptly lost their jobs in the Trump administration’s federal workforce purge. The way she was terminated — in February through a boilerplate notice alleging poor performance, something she pointedly said was “not true” — made her feel she was “losing hope in humans.”

She said she can’t focus or meditate, and can barely go to the gym. At the urging of her therapist, she made an appointment with a psychiatrist in March after she felt she’d “hit the bottom,” she said.

“I am going through hell,” said the employee, who worked at the National Institute on Aging, one of 27 centers that make up the NIH. The worker, like others interviewed for this story, was granted anonymity because of the fear of professional retaliation.

“I know I am a mother. I am a wife. But I am also a person who was very happy with her career,” she said. “They took my job and my life from my hands without any reason.”

President Trump and his allies have increasingly denigrated the roughly 2 million people who make up the federal workforce, 80% of whom work outside the Washington, D.C., area. Trump has said federal workers are “destroying this country,” called them “crooked” and “dishonest,” and insinuated that they’re lazy. “Many of them don’t work at all,” he said earlier this month.

Elon Musk — who is the world’s richest person and whose Department of Government Efficiency, created by a Trump executive order, is infiltrating federal agencies and spearheading mass firings — has claimed without evidence that “there are a number of people on the government payroll who are dead” and others “who are not real people.” At a conference for conservatives in February, Musk brandished what he called “the chain saw for bureaucracy” and said that “waste is pretty much everywhere.”

The firings that began in February are taking a significant toll on federal employees’ mental health. Workers said they feel overwhelmed and demoralized, have obtained or considered seeking psychiatric care and medication, and feel anxious about being able to pay bills or afford college for their children.

Federal employees are bracing for more layoffs after agencies were required to deliver plans by this month for large-scale staff reductions. Compounding the uncertainty: After judges ruled that some initial firings were illegal, agencies have rehired some workers and placed others on paid administrative leave. Then, Trump on March 20 issued a memo giving the Office of Personnel Management more power to fire people across agencies.

Researchers who study job loss say these mass layoffs not only are disrupting the lives of tens of thousands of federal workers but also will reverberate out to their spouses, children, and communities.

“I’d expect this will have long-lasting impacts on these people’s lives and those around them,” said Jennie Brand, a professor of sociology at UCLA who wrote a paper about the implications of job loss. “We can see this impact years down the road.”

Studies have shown that people who are unemployed experience greater anxiety, depression, and suicide risk. The longer the period of unemployment, the worse the effects.

Couples fight more when one person loses a job, and if it’s a man, divorce rates increase.

Children with an unemployed parent are more likely to do poorly in school, repeat a grade, or drop out. It can even affect whether they go to college, Brand said. There’s an “intergenerational impact of instability,” she said.

And it doesn’t stop there. When people lose their jobs, especially when it’s many people at once, the wealth and resources available in their community are reduced. Kids see fewer employed role models. As families are forced to move, neighborhood stability gets upended. Unemployed people often withdraw from social and civic life, avoiding community gatherings, church, or other places where they might have to discuss or explain their job loss.

Although getting a new job can alleviate some of these problems, it doesn’t eliminate them, Brand said.

“It’s not as if people just get new jobs and then pick up the activities they used to be involved with,” she said. “There’s not a quick recovery.”

Slashing Cultural Norms

The firings are upending a long-standing norm of the public sector — in exchange for earning less money compared with private-sector work, people had greater job security and more generous benefits. Now that’s no longer the case, fired workers said in interviews.

With the American economy moving toward temporary and gig jobs, landing a traditional government job was supposed to be “like you’ve got the golden goose,” said Blake Allan, a professor of counseling psychology at the University of Houston who researches how the quality of work affects people’s lives.

Even federal workers who are still employed face the daily question of whether they’ll be fired next. That constant state of insecurity, Allan said, can create chronic stress, which is linked to anxiety, depression, digestive problems, heart disease, and a host of other health issues.

One employee at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, who was granted anonymity to avoid professional retaliation, said the administration’s actions seem designed to cause enough emotional distress that workers voluntarily leave. “I feel like this ax will always be over my head for as long as I’m here and this administration is here,” the employee said.

Federal workers who passed on higher-paying private sector jobs because they wanted to serve their country may feel especially gutted to hear Trump and Musk denigrate their work as wasteful.

“Work is such a fundamental part of our identity,” Allan said. When it’s suddenly lost, “it can be really devastating to your sense of purpose and identity, your sense of social mattering, especially when it’s in a climate of devaluing what you do.”

Andrew Hazelton, a scientist in Florida, was working on improving hurricane forecasts when he was fired in February from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The mass firings were carried out “with no humanity,” he said. “And that’s really tough.”

Hazelton became a federal employee in October but had worked alongside NOAA scientists for over eight years, including as an employee at the University of Miami. He lost his job as part of a purge targeting probationary workers, who lack civil service protections against firings.

His friends set up a GoFundMe crowdfunding page to provide a financial cushion for him, his wife, and their four children. Then in March, after a federal judge’s order requiring federal agencies to rescind those terminations, he was notified that he had been reinstated on paid administrative leave.

“It’s created a lot of instability,” said Hazelton, who still isn’t being allowed to do his work. “We just want to serve the public and get our forecasts and our data out there to help people make decisions, regardless of politics.”

Health Coverage Collateral

Along with their jobs, many federal workers are losing their health insurance, leaving them ill equipped to seek care just as they and their families are facing a tidal wave of potential mental and physical health consequences. And the nation’s mental health system is already underfunded, understaffed, and overstretched. Even with insurance, many people wait weeks or months to receive care.

“Most people don’t have a bunch of money sitting around to spend on therapy when you need to cover your mortgage for a couple months and try to find a different job,” Allan said.

A second NIH worker considered talking to a psychiatrist and potentially going on an antidepressant because of anxiety after being fired in February.

“And then the first thought after that was: ‘Oh, I’m about to not have insurance. I can’t do that,’” said the worker, who was granted anonymity to avoid professional retaliation. The worker’s health benefits were set to end in April — leaving too little time to get an appointment with a psychiatrist, let alone start a prescription.

“I don’t want to go on something and then have to stop it immediately,” the worker said.

The employee, one of several NIH workers reinstated this month, still fears getting fired again. The worker focuses on Alzheimer’s and related dementias and was inspired to join the agency because a grandmother has the disease.

The worker worries that “decades of research are going to be gone and people are going to be left with nothing.”

“I go from anxiety to deep sadness when I think about my own family,” the employee said.

The NIH, with its $47 billion annual budget, is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world. The agency awarded nearly 59,000 grants in fiscal 2023, but the Trump administration has begun canceling hundreds of grants on research topics that new political appointees oppose, including vaccine hesitancy and the health of LGBTQ+ populations.

The NIH worker who worked at the National Institute on Aging was informed in mid-March that she would be on paid administrative leave “until further notice.” She said she is not sure whether she would find a similar job, adding that she “cannot be at home doing nothing.”

Apart from loving her job, she said, she has one child in college and another in high school and needs stable income. “I don’t know what I’m going to do next.”

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

HELENA, Mont. — Mark Nay’s first client had lost the van she was living in and was struggling with substance use and medical conditions that had led to multiple emergency room visits.

Nay helped her apply for Medicaid and food assistance and obtain copies of her birth certificate and other identification documents needed to apply for housing assistance. He also advocated for her in the housing process and in the health care system, helping her find a provider and get to appointments.

After a year of “steady engagement,” Nay said, the client has a place to live, is insured, is connected to the health care system, and has the resources needed to “really start to be successful and stable” in her life.

Nay is one of two community health workers in a program that St. Peter’s Health of Helena started in 2022, focusing on people experiencing or at risk of homelessness who had five or more ER visits in a year. Nay and his colleague, Colette Murley, link their clients to services to meet basic needs, whether it’s health care, food, housing, or insurance. The goal is to provide stability and, ultimately, to improve health outcomes.

Similar work is done in hospitals, community health centers, and other settings across Montana by people with titles such as case manager, outreach worker, navigator, and care manager. State Rep. Ed Buttrey, a Great Falls Republican, is sponsoring a bill in Montana’s legislative session to put a common title — community health worker — to the type of work they do and define in law what the role entails. The bill also would provide for licensure and allow, but not require, Medicaid to cover the service.

“Health care is just a very difficult system to navigate, especially when you’re trying to sign up for service and you’re trying to get access to coverage for service,” Buttrey said. “So that’s where I see the biggest benefit.”

Buttrey’s HB 850 is one of several bills still alive this session that are related to Montana’s health care workforce, which is stretched thin throughout the state, the fourth-largest by land area. According to the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, more than one-fourth of the state’s residents live in an area with a shortage of primary care health professionals.

Other pending workforce bills include three interstate compact bills, to recognize licenses issued in other states for physician assistants, psychologists, and respiratory therapists. Then there are bills to prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians and some categories of mid-level practitioners. Other measures would allow more unsupervised activities by certain aides and assistants, let nurses provide low-cost home visits to low-income patients, allow licensure of doulas, and let physician assistants and physical therapists be considered “treating physicians” for workers’ compensation purposes.

State Rep. Jodee Etchart, a Billings Republican and a physician assistant, is sponsoring two of the interstate compact licensure bills and one of the bills to limit noncompete clauses.

Etchart termed the compact bills “a no-brainer” because they allow people to get licensed, get a job, and start working in Montana right away.

In 2023, Etchart sponsored successful bills to allow physician assistants to practice without physician supervision and to expand the scope of practice for direct-entry midwives. Those bills, she said, helped pave the way for the progress this year’s workforce bills have made this session.

“It opened a lot of people’s eyes about how we can increase access to health care all over Montana,” she said.

The 2023 bill allowing independent practice by physician assistants drew opposition from physicians, with the Montana Medical Association saying it extended their scope of practice without requiring additional training. This session, the MMA has supported the bills to remove noncompete provisions but opposed bills on expanding the scope of practice for chiropractors and optometrists. MMA CEO Jean Branscum said the group generally believes scope-of-practice changes don’t fix workforce problems if the expanded practice isn’t supported by evidence or training.

Buttrey said this session’s bills to extend unsupervised practice and enact licensure compacts are an acknowledgment of the difficulty that small, rural communities have in attracting doctors. Physician assistants and nurse practitioners have been filling those gaps, he said.

Community health workers fill a different type of gap. They don’t provide direct medical care, instead helping people find the health care and support services they need to become and remain healthy.

Many states have already adopted definitions for community health workers and started providing Medicaid reimbursement for their services.

The requests to add to the list of Medicaid-covered services come at a time when Congress is considering significant budget cuts that could affect the amount of funding the federal government contributes to the Medicaid program. Although the legislature this session continued Montana’s Medicaid expansion program for low-income adults without disabilities, some legislators expressed concern about potential federal changes that could lower the amount of federal funds available for the program.

State Sen. Carl Glimm, a Kila Republican, was one of those legislators. He said he has similar concerns about increasing the types of services covered by Medicaid.

“The more stuff we add,” he said, “the more responsibility the state has” if the federal government shifts more of the program’s costs to the states.

Buttrey’s bill would define a community health worker as a “frontline public health worker” who helps people obtain medical and social services, advocates for their health, and educates individuals, providers, and the community about health care needs. Workers could be licensed after completing training and supervision requirements.

Most medical providers don’t have time to delve into all the outside factors influencing a patient’s health, said Cindy Stergar, CEO of the Montana Primary Care Association, which is supporting Buttrey’s bill. Community health workers can assist with that, she said, adding that research shows people with complex needs become healthier faster when their basic nonmedical needs, such as food and housing, are met.

“At the end of the day, the patient is better,” Stergar said. “That’s first and foremost.”

The Area Health Education Center at Montana State University has been offering community health worker training since 2018, and the University of Montana’s Center for Children, Families and Workforce Development began a training program in 2023. Together, the programs have trained nearly 500 people in how to identify the medical and social factors influencing a person’s health and in strategies for connecting the person with the right community resources.

“Ideally, what community health workers are doing is getting out of the clinic walls, meeting people where they are, and addressing the priorities of the client to get to the root cause of their health conditions and health needs,” said Mackenzie Petersen, project director for the training program at the University of Montana.

Supporters of the community health worker role say the workers are uniquely positioned to observe, understand, and address the barriers preventing a person from getting and staying healthy.

The barriers might be a lack of transportation or insurance or, for a homeless person, the inability to refrigerate a prescribed medication. A community health worker can arrange rides to appointments, help with insurance applications, or make sure a health care provider prescribes a medication that doesn’t need refrigeration.

Murley, with the St. Peter’s Health program, recalled that one of her clients was making frequent trips to the ER with suicidal ideation. Murley learned that he faced bullying in his apartment building and helped him relocate. The ER visits dropped off.

As Nay put it: “It’s really about helping the people that we work with create a path to their 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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

PLEASANTVILLE, Iowa — Zach Mecham has heard politicians demand that Medicaid recipients work or lose their benefits. He also has run into a jumble of Medicaid rules that effectively prevent many people with disabilities from holding full-time jobs.

“Which is it? Do you want us to work or not?” he said.

Mecham, 31, relies on the public insurance program to pay for services that help him live on his own despite a disability caused by muscular dystrophy. He uses a wheelchair to get around and a portable ventilator to breathe.

A paid assistant stays with Mecham at night. Then a home health aide comes in the morning to help him get out of bed, go to the bathroom, shower, and get dressed for work at his online marketing business. Without the assistance, he would have to shutter his company and move into a nursing home, he said.

Private health insurance plans generally do not cover such support services, so he relies on Medicaid, which is jointly financed by federal and state governments and covers millions of Americans who have low incomes or disabilities.

Like most other states, Iowa has a Medicaid “buy-in program,” which allows people with disabilities to join Medicaid even if their incomes are a bit higher than would typically be permitted. About two-thirds of such programs charge premiums, and most have caps on how much money participants can earn and save.

Some states have raised or eliminated such financial caps for people with disabilities. Mecham has repeatedly traveled to the Iowa Capitol to lobby legislators to follow those states’ lead. The “Work Without Worry” bill would remove income and asset caps and instead require Iowans with disabilities to pay 6% of their incomes as premiums to remain in Medicaid. Those fees would be waived if participants pay premiums for employer-based health insurance, which would help cover standard medical care.

Disability rights advocates say income and asset caps for Medicaid buy-in programs can prevent participants from working full time or accepting promotions. “It’s a trap — a poverty trap,” said Stephen Lieberman, a policy director for the United Spinal Association, which supports the changes.

Lawmakers in Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, and New Jersey have introduced bills to address the issue this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Several other states have raised or eliminated their program’s income and asset caps. Iowa’s proposal is modeled on a Tennessee law passed last year, said Josh Turek, a Democratic state representative from Council Bluffs. Turek, who is promoting the Iowa bill, uses a wheelchair and earned two gold medals as a member of the U.S. Paralympics basketball team.

Proponents say allowing people with disabilities to earn more money and still qualify for Medicaid would help ease persistent worker shortages, including in rural areas where the working-age population is shrinking.

Turek believes now is a good time to seek expanded employment rights for people with disabilities, since Republicans who control the state and federal governments have been touting the value of holding a job. “That’s the trumpet I’ve been blowing,” he said with a smile.

The Iowa Legislature has been moving to require many nondisabled Medicaid recipients to work or to document why they can’t. Opponents say most Medicaid recipients who can work already do so, and the critics say work requirements add red tape that is expensive to administer and could lead Medicaid recipients to lose their coverage over paperwork issues.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds has made Medicaid work requirements a priority this year. “If you can work, you should. It’s common sense and good policy,” the Republican governor told legislators in January in her “Condition of the State Address.” “Getting back to work can be a lifeline to stability and self-sufficiency.”

Her office did not respond to KFF Health News’ queries about whether Reynolds supports eliminating income and asset caps for Iowa’s buy-in program, known as Medicaid for Employed People with Disabilities.

National disability rights activists say income and asset caps on Medicaid buy-in programs discourage couples from marrying or even pressure them to split up if one or both partners have disabilities. That’s because in many states a spouse’s income and assets are counted when determining eligibility.

In Iowa, for example, the monthly net income cap is $3,138 for a single person and $4,259 for a couple.

Iowa’s current asset cap for a single person in the Medicaid buy-in plan is $12,000. For a couple, that cap rises only to $13,000. Countable assets include investments, bank accounts, and other things that could be easily converted to cash, but not a primary home, vehicle, or household furnishings.

“You have couples who have been married for decades who have to go through what we call a ‘Medicaid divorce,’ just to get access to these supports and services that cannot be covered in any other way,” said Maria Town, president of the American Association of People with Disabilities.

Town said some states, including Massachusetts, have removed income caps for people with disabilities who want to join Medicaid. She said the cost of adding such people to the program is at least partially offset by the premiums they pay for coverage and the increased taxes they contribute because they are allowed to work more hours. “I don’t think it has to be expensive” for the state and federal governments, she said.

Congress has considered a similar proposal to allow people with disabilities to work more hours without losing their Social Security disability benefits, but that bill has not advanced.

Although most states have Medicaid buy-in programs, enrollment is relatively low, said Alice Burns, a Medicaid analyst at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Fewer than 200,000 people nationwide are covered under the options, Burns said. “Awareness of these programs is really limited,” she said, and the income limits and paperwork can dissuade potential participants.

In states that charge premiums for Medicaid buy-in programs, monthly fees can range from $10 to 10% of a person’s income, according to a KFF analysis of 2022 data.

The Iowa proposal to remove income and asset caps has drawn bipartisan backing from legislators, including a 20-0 vote of approval from the House Health and Human Services Committee. “This aligns with things both parties are aiming to do,” said state Rep. Carter Nordman, a Republican who chaired a subcommittee meeting on the bill. Nordman said he supports the idea but wants to see an official estimate of how much it would cost the state to let more people with disabilities participate in the Medicaid buy-in program.

Mecham, the citizen activist lobbying for the Iowa bill, said he hopes it allows him to expand his online marketing and graphic design business, “Zach of All Trades.”

On a recent morning, health aide Courtnie Imler visited Mecham’s modest house in Pleasantville, a town of about 1,700 people in an agricultural region of central Iowa. Imler chatted with Mecham while she used a hoist to lift him out of his wheelchair and onto the toilet. Then she cleaned him up, brushed his hair, and helped him put on jeans and a John Deere T-shirt. She poured him a cup of coffee and put a straw in it so he could drink it on his own, swept the kitchen floor, and wiped the counters. After about an hour, she said goodbye.

After getting cleaned up and dressed, Mecham rolled his motorized wheelchair over to his plain wooden desk, fired up his computer, and began working on a social media video for a client promoting a book. He scrolled back and forth through footage of an interview she’d done, so he could pick the best clip to post online. He also shoots video, takes photos, and writes advertising copy.

Mecham loves feeling productive, and he figures he could work at least twice as many hours if not for the risk of losing Medicaid coverage. He said he’s allowed to make a bit more money than Iowa Medicaid’s standard limit because he signed up for a federal option under which he eventually expects to work his way off Social Security disability payments.

There are several such options for people with disabilities, but they all involve complicated paperwork and frequent reports, he said. “This is such a convoluted system that I have to navigate to build any kind of life for myself,” he said. Many people with disabilities are intimidated by the rules, so they don’t apply, he said. “If you get it wrong, you lose the health care your life depends on.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

“On Feb. 25, I voted yes on a budget resolution that protects Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid while cutting some spending elsewhere.”

Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), in a YouTube video posted March 4, 2025

On Feb. 25, Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) voted in favor of a House budget resolution that calls for sharp cuts in spending across a vast array of government areas. Medicaid is among the programs that could be at risk — catapulting it to the center of the political debate.

President Donald Trump has insisted he won’t harm Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security benefits, saying his administration is looking to root out fraud. But Democrats have pushed back, saying the sheer size of the proposed cuts will result in harm to the Medicaid program, its enrollees, and medical providers.

A KFF tracking poll has found widespread public support for Medicaid, which suggests efforts to cut the program could face political headwinds. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

LaLota, who represents part of Long Island, posted a video for his constituents explaining his position: “I voted yes on a budget resolution that protects Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid while cutting some spending elsewhere.” Because much of his video focused on Medicaid, we did too. We found that his statement in this regard was layered with mischaracterizations and inaccuracies. Yet, in his video, LaLota advises his constituents to get their information straight from him, saying, “I’ll always be honest with you.”

We asked LaLota’s office for the information he used to back up his statement. The budget resolution makes no cuts to those programs, he wrote in a statement emailed by his communications aide Mary O’Hara. “Rather, it opens the door to protect Medicaid with common-sense solutions which ensure its availability for those Americans who qualify, including the removal of illegals from the rolls, work requirements for able-bodied adults, and the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Let’s parse what the resolution does say and do, and the changes it could trigger for Medicaid.

Explaining the Basics

Budget resolutions are not law, but rather blueprints that guide lawmakers on budget-related legislation. The House-passed resolution — approved with 217 Republicans voting for it and 214 Democrats and one Republican against — is just one part of the budget process. The Senate also has a say, so changes are possible.

As written, the resolution seeks broad spending reductions across a range of areas overseen by various committees. It specifically asks the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to submit proposals “to reduce the deficit by not less than $880,000,000,000 [$880 billion] for the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.”

It does not say it would protect Medicaid. The word Medicaid is nowhere in the document. It does not prescribe any specific action on the program, such as instituting work requirements for recipients. Lawmakers separately draft legislation to make program adjustments to achieve the spending cut targets.

A little background: Medicaid is a state-federal program that provides medical coverage to lower-income residents, as well as payments to nursing homes for caring for seniors and disabled residents. Medicaid and the closely related Children’s Health Insurance Program cover more than 79 million people.

Medicare is the federal program that provides health insurance for some disabled people and most people over age 65. More than 68 million people are enrolled.

The resolution directs the committee to draft legislative language that would cut spending from areas under its jurisdiction, which include Medicaid and about half of Medicare.

Social Security is mainly overseen in the House by the Committee on Ways and Means. The panel also shares jurisdiction over Medicare with Energy and Commerce.

Policy experts and the Congressional Budget Office have said that, after removing Medicare from consideration, there’s not enough under the committee’s jurisdiction to cut $880 billion without substantially reducing Medicaid spending. (Medicare is generally considered a third rail because its beneficiaries are a powerful voting bloc.)

Indeed, of the $8.8 trillion in projected spending under the committee’s purview for the 10-year period, Medicaid accounts for $8.2 trillion, or 93%.

“Even if the committee eliminated all of non-Medicare and non-Medicaid spending, they would still have to cut Medicaid by well over $700 billion,” said Alice Burns, an associate director of KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

Adding work requirements — most Medicaid recipients already have jobs — would not yield that level of savings and could increase state costs. Other cuts suggested by Republicans, including capping federal spending per enrollee, reducing federal matching dollars, and eliminating the use of provider taxes, which states use to pay for their share of Medicaid spending, could force states to cut spending or find new revenue sources.

“Cuts to Medicaid could mean eliminating coverage for children, parents, working adults or those who might need long term care; limiting benefits; or cutting payment rates for health plans or providers. These choices could come at a time when state revenue growth is slowing, and most states face requirements to pass balanced budgets,” according to an analysis by Robin Rudowitz, vice president of the KFF Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

The downstream effects if the House-passed budget resolution were enacted would be wide-ranging and significantly alter the safety net program, said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University.

He noted growing opposition to such large-scale Medicaid cuts from “beneficiaries and parents of children with disabilities, families with parents in nursing homes, and from health care providers.”

“Medicaid cuts are highly unpopular even among Trump voters,” he said.

Opposition to Medicaid cuts helped kill the 2017 attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act during the first Trump administration, noted Joseph Antos, a senior fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute.

Antos thinks the current spending cut target is unrealistic and will likely not survive the effort to merge the House budget blueprint with what the Senate wishes to do.

“Ultimately, the problem is you can’t take that much out of Medicaid,” Antos said.

LaLota’s focus on immigrants lacking legal status as a way to reduce federal spending on Medicaid is also misleading.

A number of states, including New York, offer coverage to children or adults regardless of immigration status, but they can use only state money to pay for such programs.

“States cannot use federal funding to cover undocumented immigrants,” Burns said. So removing them “won’t do anything for the deficit reduction targets.”

Our Ruling

LaLota said, “On Feb. 25, I voted yes on a budget resolution that protects Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid while cutting some spending elsewhere.”

His statement is inaccurate and mischaracterizes laws and the language included in the budget resolution, creating a false impression of what his vote supported.

The 32-word sentence that directs the Energy and Commerce Committee to trim $880 billion over 10 years from programs it authorizes does not include any protections, guardrails, or specific directions for the panel to follow.

We rate this claim False.

Sources:

Rep. Nick LaLota, constituent video, March 4, 2025.

Clerk, United States House of Representatives, “Roll Call 50 | Bill Number H. Con. Res. 14,” Feb. 25, 2025.

Newsweek, “Donald Trump Issues Social Security, Medicaid Update,” March 10, 2025.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, press release, March 16, 2025.

KFF, February tracking poll, March 7, 2025.

Medicaid.gov, “October 2024 Medicaid & CHIP Enrollment Data Highlights,” accessed March 17, 2025.

Congressional Budget Office, letter to Reps. Brendan Boyle and Frank Pallone, March 5, 2025.

KFF Quick Takes, “As Governors Meet in D.C., Possible Federal Medicaid Cuts Loom as Big State Funding Issue,” Feb. 20, 2025.

KFF, “Key Facts on Health Coverage of Immigrants, Jan. 15, 2025.

Telephone interview with Joseph Antos, senior fellow emeritus, American Enterprise Institute, March 17, 2025.

Telephone interview with Edwin Park, research professor at the Center for Children and Families, Georgetown University, March 17, 2025.

Telephone interview with Alice Burns, associate director, Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, KFF, March 17, 2025.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Columbia University’ is taking steps to comply with the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism preconditions to restore canceled federal grants and contracts.

BOULDER, Colo. — Colorado regulators are issuing licenses for providing psychedelic mushrooms and are planning to authorize the state’s first “healing centers,” where the mushrooms can be ingested under supervision, in late spring or early summer.

The dawn of state-regulated psychedelic mushrooms has arrived in Colorado, nearly two years since Oregon began offering them. The mushrooms are a Schedule I drug and illegal under federal law except for clinical research. But more than a dozen cities nationwide have deprioritized or decriminalized them in the past five years, and many eyes are turned toward Oregon’s and Colorado’s state-regulated programs.

“In Oregon and Colorado, we’re going to learn a lot about administration of psychedelics outside of clinical, religious, and underground settings because they’re the first to try this in the U.S.,” said William R. Smith, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine.

Psychedelic mushrooms and their psychoactive compound psilocybin have the potential to treat people with depression and anxiety, including those unresponsive to other medications or therapy. The National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, says the risk of mental health problems caused by ingesting mushrooms in a supervised clinical setting is low, but may be higher outside of a clinical setting. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a social media post last year, before his nomination as U.S. health secretary, that his “mind is open to the idea of psychedelics for treatment.”

Medical experts say more research is needed, particularly in people with a diagnosis or family history of psychotic or bipolar disorder. Adverse effects of psilocybin, including headache and nausea, typically resolve within one to two days. However, extended difficulties from using psychedelics can last weeks, months, or years; anxiety and fear, existential struggle, social disconnection, and feeling detached from oneself and one’s surroundings are most common. After the decriminalization and legalization in Oregon and Colorado, psychedelic mushroom exposures reported to poison control centers ticked up in these states and nationally.

In February, about 40 people organized by the psychedelic advocacy group the Nowak Society gathered in Boulder to talk about the coming changes in Colorado. They included Mandy Grace, who received her state license to administer psychedelic mushrooms, and Amanda Clark, a licensed mental health counselor from Denver, who both praised the therapeutic power of mushrooms.

“You get discouraged in your practice because the current therapies are not enough for people,” Clark said.

Colorado voters approved Proposition 122 in 2022 to legalize natural psychedelics, after Oregon voters in 2020 approved legalizing psilocybin for therapeutic use. Colorado’s program is modeled after, but not the same as, Oregon’s, under which 21,246 psilocybin products have been sold as of March, a total that could include secondary doses, according to the Oregon Health Authority.

As of mid-March, Colorado has received applications for at least 15 healing center licenses, nine cultivation licenses, four manufacturer licenses, and one testing facility license for growing and preparing the mushrooms, under rules developed over two years by the governor-appointed Natural Medicine Advisory Board.

Psychedelic treatments in Oregon are expensive, and are likely to be so in Colorado, too, said Tasia Poinsatte, Colorado director of the nonprofit Healing Advocacy Fund, which supports state-regulated programs for psychedelic therapy. In Oregon, psychedelic mushroom sessions are typically $1,000 to $3,000, are not covered by insurance, and must be paid for up front.

The mushrooms themselves are not expensive, Poinsatte said, but a facilitator’s time and support services are costly, and there are state fees. In Colorado, for doses over 2 milligrams, facilitators will screen participants at least 24 hours in advance, then supervise the session in which the participant consumes and experiences mushrooms, lasting several hours, plus a later meeting to integrate the experience.

Facilitators, who may not have experience with mental health emergencies, need training in screening, informed consent, and postsession monitoring, Smith said. “Because these models are new, we need to gather data from Colorado and Oregon to ensure safety.”

Facilitators generally pay a $420 training fee, which allows them to pursue the necessary consultation hours, and roughly $900 a year for a license, and healing centers pay $3,000 to $6,000 for initial licenses in Colorado. But the up-front cost for facilitators is significant: The required 150 hours in a state-accredited program and 80 hours of hands-on training can cost $10,000 or more, and Clark said she wouldn’t pursue a facilitator license due to the prohibitive time and cost.

To increase affordability for patients in Colorado, Poinsatte said, healing centers plan to offer sliding-scale pay options, and discounts for veterans, Medicaid enrollees, and those with low incomes. Group sessions are another option to lower costs.

Colorado law does not allow retail sales of psilocybin, unlike cannabis, which can be sold both recreationally and medically in the state. But it allows adults 21 and older to grow, use, and share psychedelic mushrooms for personal use.

Despite the retail ban, adjacent businesses have mushroomed. Inside the warehouse and laboratory of Activated Brands in Arvada, brown bags of sterilized grains such as corn, millet, and sorghum and plastic bags of soil substrate are for sale, along with genetic materials and ready-to-grow kits.

Co-founder Sean Winfield sells these supplies for growing psychedelic or functional mushrooms such as lion’s mane to people hoping to grow their own at home. Soon, Activated Brands will host cultivation and education classes for the public, Winfield said.

Winfield and co-founder Shawn Cox recently hosted a psychedelic potluck at which experts studying and cultivating psychedelic mushrooms discussed genetics, extraction, and specialized equipment.

Psychedelic mushrooms have a long history in Indigenous cultures, and provisions for their use in spiritual, cultural, or religious ceremonies are included in Colorado law, along with recognition of the cultural harm that could occur to federally recognized tribes and Indigenous people if natural medicine is overly commercialized or exploited.

Several studies over the past five years have shown the long-term benefits of psilocybin for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, and the Food and Drug Administration designated it a breakthrough therapy. Late-stage trials, often a precursor to application for FDA approval, are underway.

Smith said psilocybin is a promising tool for treating mental health disorders but has not yet been shown to be better than other advanced treatments. Joshua Woolley, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California-San Francisco, said he has seen the benefits of psilocybin as an investigator in clinical trials.

“People can change hard-set habits. They can become unstuck. They can see things in new ways,” he said of treating patients with a combination of psilocybin and psychotherapy.

Colorado, unlike Oregon, allows integration of psilocybin into existing mental health and medical practices with a clinical facilitator license, and through micro-healing centers that are more limited in the amounts of mushrooms they can store.

Still, Woolley said, between the federal ban and new state laws for psychedelics, this is uncharted territory. Most drugs used to treat mental health disorders are regulated by the FDA, something that Colorado is “taking into its own hands” by setting up its own program to regulate manufacturing and administration of psilocybin.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado declined to comment on its policy toward state-regulated psychedelic programs or personal use provisions, but Poinsatte hopes the same federal hands-off approach to marijuana will be taken for psilocybin in Oregon and Colorado.

Winfield said he looks forward to the upcoming rollout and potential addition of other plant psychedelics, such as mescaline. “We’re talking about clandestine industries coming into the light,” 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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

On a sunny weekday in Atlanta, a small crowd of people gathered for a rally outside of a labor union headquarters building.

The event, put together by Atlanta-area Democratic U.S. Rep. Nikema Williams, was attended mostly by union members and recently fired federal workers, including Ryan Sloane.

“I was fired by an anonymous email at 9 p.m. in the middle of a holiday weekend,” he said.

Sloane is still seeking reinstatement, but he feels he no longer has much to lose by speaking out.

“I’m only here today because they cannot fire me twice,” Sloane said.

When he received his termination notice, he was a few months into a job as a public affairs specialist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

At the CDC, his days were spent updating far-flung local TV, radio, and newspaper journalists about threats such as seasonal flu, measles, and food safety in their communities.

A judge has ordered the reinstatement of some fired federal employees, at least temporarily. But their jobs are still on the line.

Sloane said his former colleagues at the CDC whose jobs aren’t yet in limbo are scared.

“They are terrified that their life’s work is going to be deleted from servers and not backed up because it does not comport with the ideologies of the new administration,” he said. “No one is benefiting from this.”

From the end of January to mid-February, the Trump administration took offline some CDC webpages and froze external communications, including its widely read Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report epidemiological digest.

The webpages that were removed included CDC public health reports, datasets, and guidance on infectious diseases and sexual health. After a court order, some agency information was restored, at least for now.

But even temporary disruptions to CDC communications could have big ripple effects.

It is information that state and local health departments, hospitals, university researchers, and others rely on to help them respond to outbreaks.

“CDC is there to provide technical information, provide funding, provide support, but it’s a collaborative work, working together to keep Americans safe,” said former CDC Director Tom Frieden, who headed the agency from 2009 to 2017. He is now president and CEO of the nonprofit organization Resolve to Save Lives. “In this country, we have a patchwork or network of public health. It’s really up to the local, city, and state health departments to get the job done.”

City and state health agencies also need the collaboration of CDC experts to help investigate local disease outbreaks and other threats to public health.

A clinician who has worked at the agency for more than two decades pointed to the CDC’s singular ability to send medical supplies and deploy highly specialized teams of scientists to help local communities identify and contain outbreaks. KFF Health News agreed not to use the clinician’s name because she fears she will be fired for airing these views publicly.

“A lot of them are assigned to state and local health departments, so really even beyond individual positions, any funding cuts that the agency takes are also passed on to state and local health departments,” the clinician said. “A lot of their budget comes from federal money as well.”

The Trump administration has attempted to terminate hundreds of employees from the CDC alone, along with hundreds more workers at the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies with a U.S. health and safety role.

Many public health and science researchers are concerned about the cuts’ impacts on the nation’s ability to respond to threats — and about whether state and local public health departments will be able to keep communities healthy without the CDC’s partnership.

Billionaire Elon Musk has said his Department of Government Efficiency intends to keep cutting federal agencies’ budgets and staff, targeting what it calls “fraud.”

“Anytime someone gets fired, it’s always difficult. But with $36 trillion in debt, we have to reduce the size of the federal government,” Republican U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene told WABE during a March visit to the Georgia State Capitol.

Her district includes parts of suburban Atlanta about 30 miles from CDC headquarters.

Greene also chairs a House subcommittee also called “DOGE,” for “Delivering on Government Efficiency.”

“Fortunately, with all the investments that are being brought back into the country under President Trump, I really hope that those federal workers are able to find new jobs,” she said.

She did not comment on whether local public health departments around the country would be able to work efficiently without the support of CDC experts who have been terminated.

But many U.S. public health experts are expressing concern.

The CDC has long been a key training ground for the next generation of U.S. public health researchers.

Emory University epidemiology professor Patrick Sullivan was one of them earlier in his career. The HIV expert previously worked at the CDC for about 15 years.

“When I started working in HIV prevention at CDC in the early 1990s, we didn’t have the treatments that essentially allowed people living with HIV to have a full, healthy, normal lifespan,” he said. “We didn’t have the treatments that essentially allowed people living with HIV to have a test that people could take home to test themselves.”

Sullivan said the progress he has seen over the last several decades gave him optimism, and that advances in HIV treatment and prevention are a great example of the importance of federal support for public health work.

“Discovery science and pharmacy science really have given us the tools that we need to end the HIV epidemic in the United States,” he said.

But, to have those scientific tools without adequate public health staff or funding to use them, he said, will cost American lives.

This article is from a partnership that includes WABE, 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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).