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.

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.

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 up-front. “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.

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.

Céline Gounder, KFF Health News’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed the cyclosporiasis outbreak on CBS News’ CBS Mornings on Aug. 5. Gounder discussed New Mexico’s measles outbreak on CBS News 24/7’s The Daily Report on Aug. 4. She also discussed peptides on Ideastream Public Media/WKSU’s Sound of Ideas on Aug. 3.

• Click here to watch Gounder on CBS Mornings.
• Click here to watch Gounder on The Daily Report.
• Click here to hear Gounder on Sound of Ideas.

KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner discussed the end of a Biden-era Medicare Part D subsidy on WBUR’s Here & Now on Aug. 3.

• Click here to hear Rovner on Here & Now.

KFF Health News Southern correspondent Sam Whitehead discussed the new medical frailty work requirements on WUGA’s The Georgia Health Report on July 31.

• Click here to hear Whitehead on The Georgia Health Report.
• Read Whitehead’s “Doctors ‘Cringe’ at Possibility of Documenting Which Medicaid Enrollees Too Sick To Work.”

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 about the decertification of Network of Hope, the federally designated organ procurement organization.

Your browser does not support the audio element.

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

For years, Washington, D.C., has paid for Medicaid — the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people — out of its general budget. But next year, the city is shifting part of that recurring multimillion-dollar cost to a new funding source: opioid settlement dollars.

That’s raising red flags for addiction recovery advocates, people directly affected by the crisis, and the commission in charge of recommending how the city uses its share of the settlement money.

The opioid payouts come from a host of companies that made or distributed prescription painkillers and were accused of fueling the overdose crisis. State and local governments nationwide are set to receive more than $50 billion over almost two decades. Washington, D.C.’s cut is expected to exceed $100 million.

The money is meant to remediate the addiction crisis, often by increasing services or funding new programs.

But many states are facing increasing fiscal pressures as they are squeezed by inflation, federal funding cuts, and rising costs. Some officials have been tempted to turn to opioid settlement cash as a budget stopgap — an idea that can trigger opposition and outrage from recovery advocates and people who have struggled with opioid addiction and their family members.

“These funds were awarded to D.C. for very specific reasons and with a specific mandate, which are to remediate issues related to the opioid crisis in new and innovative ways,” said Queen Adesuyi, a partner at Reframe Health and Justice, a consulting group for community-based organizations, who is crying foul over the proposed fiscal year 2027 budget.

A document provided to KFF Health News shows line items in the district’s fiscal 2027 budget that would direct about $2.3 million in opioid settlement funds to help pay for the city’s Medicaid contribution and at least $5.5 million to support addiction treatment centers previously funded through the general budget. Substituting opioid settlement dollars for general funding keeps overall spending on treatment flat instead of increasing.

“Opioid settlement dollars are not meant to be a rainy-day fund for existing government obligations,” said Shelly Weizman, associate director of the Center on Addiction and Public Policy at Georgetown Law’s O’Neill Institute.

More than 80 individuals and 30 city organizations signed a letter protesting this use of settlement dollars, saying the district’s Department of Behavioral Health planned to spend opioid cash to “pay off its own debts.” The letter was sent to DBH Director Barbara Bazron; the chair of the D.C. Council’s Committee on Health, Christina Henderson; and Attorney General Brian Schwalb.

Chad Jackson, himself in recovery, chairs the district’s Opioid Abatement Advisory Commission, which was created to advise the city on how to spend its settlement dollars. Jackson called the latest move supplantation, a budgeting tactic that shifts money from one fund to another to free up dollars.

“If the opioid settlement funds were not there, I feel pretty confident that these things would have been funded, because they have to be funded,” Jackson said.

What’s happening now is against the district’s opioid litigation law, he said.

The law says that money from the district’s opioid abatement fund “shall supplement, and not supplant.”

“It’s a pretty tightly written law where the intent is very clear: Do not supplant,” Weizman said.

Adesuyi, an advocate for programs that help people who use drugs, said the council is flouting that law and that it’s a “slap in the face.”

Queen Adesuyi is a Washington, D.C.-based harm reduction advocate and partner at Reframe Health and Justice, a consulting group for community-based organizations. At the July 15 meeting of the Opioid Abatement Advisory Commission, they speak against the city’s use of opioid settlement dollars to fill budget holes. (Aneri Pattani/KFF Health News)

Councilmember Henderson and Attorney General Schwalb weighed in too.

“We are also concerned that DBH may be using the settlement monies for other unauthorized purposes,” they wrote in a July 17 letter to the department. They highlighted the $2.3 million used to cover the city’s Medicaid contribution and asked the department to explain by July 31 how it determined that was legal.

It’s unclear whether the Department of Behavioral Health met that deadline. DBH, Henderson’s office, and the attorney general’s office did not respond to that specific question.

However, DBH spokesperson Denise Reed said in a statement that the department is “committed to compliance with all statutory requirements governing opioid settlement funds.” The department’s general position has been that its budget was approved by the council, and that the funding supports efforts that counter opioid addiction.

The council in June “passed a legally-certified budget for the next fiscal year that makes the best use of all local resources, including the opioid settlement fund, to award grants to 17 community-based providers who last year served nearly 9,800 residents including 3,500 in medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction,” Reed told KFF Health News.

The district’s budget is pending a 30-day “congressional review,” which is the last step in its annual budgeting process.

Still, some residents like Adesuyi want more accountability for how the opioid money is spent.

“The drug supply is getting a lot more unpredictable, which calls for some nimbleness, and it calls for interventions that are more courageous. Unfortunately, DBH is not meeting the mark when it comes to that,” Adesuyi said, adding, “It’s frustrating, it’s disappointing, and it’s enraging because people are dying unnecessarily in the district to overdose.”

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.

Democratic primary voters in Michigan chose former Detroit public health director Abdul El-Sayed as their Senate nominee this week. El-Sayed is one of several high-profile candidates around the country who have been pushing “Medicare for All,” again elevating the issue, at a time when millions of Americans are losing their health coverage because of high costs.

Meanwhile, the Senate this week confirmed Erica Schwartz to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has been without a permanent leader for almost a year. But it remains unclear whether her support for childhood vaccinations will run afoul of her boss, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Amanda Seitz of KFF Health News.

Panelists Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico @JoanneKenen @joannekenen.bsky.social Read Joanne's bio. Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico @AliceOllstein @alicemiranda.bsky.social Read Alice's stories. Amanda Seitz KFF Health News @AmandaSeitz Read Amanda's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• El-Sayed’s primary victory in Michigan means a vocal supporter of Medicare for All will be on the ballot this fall. Progressives again are rallying behind universal healthcare as costs spike and more people lose their coverage — although there are few details so far to explain how they would implement such a policy.
• New polling shows more people are experiencing “job lock” because of limited options to obtain healthcare coverage outside employer-sponsored insurance. Meanwhile, more hospitals are reporting a sharp rise in the number of uninsured and in the costs to cover them.
• A federal judge recently declined to halt the implementation of Medicaid work requirements while considering a case brought by several states challenging the policy’s burden on sick people. And early reports out of Nebraska, the first state to implement the work requirements, show eligible people are losing coverage for administrative reasons.
• Kennedy sat down for an interview with CNN, during which he could not articulate specific plans to address disease outbreaks — as multiple outbreaks are ongoing. And a Senate committee voted along party lines Thursday to hold former public health official Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress over his appearance before the committee last week.

Also this week, as part of the “How Would You Fix It?” series, Rovner interviews Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), who has a new bill that would provide universal health coverage for all children.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “Spotlight on Fauci Said To Boost Book Sales for Kennedy and His Publisher,” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: NOTUS’ “Rand Paul’s Fauci Diary Dump Exposed People’s Medical Histories,” by Margaret Manto.  

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times Magazine’s “The U.S. Relies on Family Caregivers. Millions of Them Are Kids,” by Helen Ouyang.  

Amanda Seitz: The Wall Street Journal’s “A Florida Surrogate, a Father in China, and the Babies Caught Between,” by Katherine Long.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Bulwark’s “The ‘Medicare for All’ Test for Michigan Democrats,” by Jonathan Cohn.
• The New York Times’ “Uninsured Patients Rise Sharply, Hospitals Report, Citing Obamacare Cuts,” by Reed Abelson.
• Politico’s “Blanche Assures Anti-Abortion Supporters That Dobbs Will Be ‘Permanent in Every Single State,’” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Josh Gerstein.
• Underlying Conditions’ “RFK Jr. on CNN: Fact-Checking the Measles and Autism Claims,” by Céline Gounder.

Click to expand the transcript Transcript: The Return of ‘Medicare for All’

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using transcription software. It has been edited for style and clarity.] 

Julie Rovner: Hello, from KFF Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Aug. 6, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And my KFF Health News colleague Amanda Seitz. 

Amanda Seitz: Hi, great to be here. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have excerpts of my “How Would You Fix It?” interview with New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim, who’s proposing universal coverage starting with all American children. But first, the freight train of health news continues. 

We’re going to start this week in Michigan with that very closely watched Senate primary to fill the seat being vacated by the retiring Democrat Gary Peters. We’ve known for months the Republican candidate will be former congressman Mike Rogers, who narrowly lost to Sen. Elissa Slotkin two years ago. And now we know he will face Abdul El-Sayed, an MD epidemiologist and former public health director of Detroit. El-Sayed, who ran on a platform emphasizing “Medicare for All” and has even written a book about it, narrowly defeated four-term Democratic congresswoman Haley Stevens, who had a gigantic cash advantage, mostly provided by supporters of Israel. Now, the fight over Israel in Gaza is for some other podcast to get into, but I do think that this underscores the increasing popularity of Medicare for All in the base of the Democratic Party. What does El-Sayed’s primary win tell us? And can someone from the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party win in a very purple state like Michigan? 

Ollstein: Well, I also want to point out, like, this isn’t an outlier. It was really notable to me that during the Maine rushed, redo primary they just had for the Democratic Senate candidate to take on Susan Collins, everyone in that race was endorsing Medicare for All and calling for it. And Maine is also a very purple state with an older electorate, and, you know, not raging progressive. And so I think it is notable that this isn’t just in the big blue cities anymore. This is a growing drumbeat within the party, and, you know, of course it comes as we’re seeing a lot of people lose their health insurance, which we’re going to talk about. We’re seeing costs go way up, and so there’s just this wellspring of frustration that I think is fueling some of this. 

Seitz: Oh, I was just going to say I would caution, though, how big of a win this is for progressive Democrats. You know, they’ve won the battle, and I’ll say it has built quite a strong coalition. But this was a really narrow primary win, and that is not the situation you want to be in when you have two diametrically opposed candidates from the same party running in a primary in a very purple state headed into the midterm elections. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, let us talk a little bit more about Medicare for All because it’s a trendy moniker for something that’s not really all that specific. Some people think it’s just shorthand for “everyone gets government-provided health insurance.” Some think it’s actually socialized medicine. And some think it’s literally just an extension of today’s Medicare program, which is itself a very public-private hybrid. My friend Jonathan Cohn over at The Bulwark, who happens to live in Michigan, has a really good story this week that I will link to about how consideration of Medicare for All looks different in 2026 than it did in 2016 or even in 2009, when they were doing the Affordable Care Act. Where do you guys think we are on Medicare for All? I would remind that what was in the 2020 campaign, every candidate, every Democratic running except for Joe Biden said they were for Medicare for All, and yet Joe Biden is the one that came out of the primaries. 

Kenen: I think Kamala Harris was for “Medicare for All Who Wanted It.” She had some strange hybrid of it, but that is part of our past. I mean, Medicare for All is something you hear about from the Democratic Party, a segment of the Democratic Party, in pretty much every election with more or less intensity. And more so [with] Bernie Sanders running against Hillary [Clinton], it was a much more pronounced debate. In Michigan, I don’t think this is the defining issue. I mean, I think that global politics in the Middle East, and given the demographics of Michigan, and what the race is focused on, and points of contention are, it’s pretty easy to talk about wanting everybody to be covered, and it’s a lot harder to get there, as we all know, because we’ve been talking about it for decades. So I think you’ll hear about it from Democrats — I’m not sure in Michigan and elsewhere, but I’m not sure how specific a plan or a definition it is, sort of this holy grail that nobody knows quite what it looks like. 

Ollstein: But that also makes sense. I mean, it’s not really in their interest to put out detailed policy plans that people can pick apart at this phase of things. And so it makes sense that we’re in the grand, sweeping, dreams phase of things, and not in the … 

Rovner: We’re in the slogan phase. 

Ollstein: Exactly, exactly right. Because, you know, as soon as Democrats put out an actual bill, a draft bill, then the vultures will descend and point out all the downsides, and that doesn’t help them heading into, you know, a major midterm election. So we imagine that work is going on behind the scenes, because they want to have something ready to go if and when they have control in Congress. But what exactly that is, we don’t know. 

Kenen: But I also think there’s pressure for the Democrats to be — in the best-case scenario, if you had a united Democratic Party where they all wanted Medicare for All and they all agreed on what that meant, you don’t press a button and get there. It would be some kind of incremental phase, and it’s not going to be, like, OK, today we have this and tomorrow we have Medicare for All. So I think, in the short term, less controversial and maybe more urgent is affordability and access right this minute. We are going to talk about the coverage decline and affordability and just access on a day-to-day … even if you are able to afford your care and even if you have pretty good insurance, getting into a doctor when you need to has become really frustrating. Even if you’re sick and already know that doctor. So even if you’re a pretty health-savvy consumer, the way all of us are, we see this in our friends and family, and we understand the system — sort of, like “the system” in quotes. So I mean, I think there’s the Medicare for All, you know, Democratic dream, and it — I don’t mean it’s not sincere; I mean, that’s what many people want — but I also think you’re going to see a lot more nuts and bolts: What has happened in the last two years, and how do we fix it? 

Rovner: I’m interested in the fact that Republicans who are already sort of ginning up their talking points against the, you know, wave of progressive candidates like El-Sayed, although he’s not as progressive as, you know, the [Zohran] Mamdanis and, you know, some of the other avowed socialists. They’re talking about socialism and communism, and they’re talking about all kinds of things. They don’t seem to be talking about healthcare, which suggests to me that Republicans are kind of aware that things are not going well, and that, Joanne, as you point out, I mean, you know, it used to be let’s see if we can fix the health system without messing up the people who are happy. There are fewer and fewer people who are happy right now with how the health system is falling apart. 

Kenen: Including the doctors, right?  

Rovner: Right. Oh, absolutely. 

Kenen: Nobody’s happy. 

Rovner: Well, well, let us move on to all of the ways in which the healthcare system is falling apart. Item one is a new Gallup-West Health poll that found nearly a quarter of workers surveyed said they were staying in a current job that they otherwise wanted to leave only to retain their health insurance. That was up 8 percentage points since the last time they’d asked in 2021. Now “job lock,” as this is called, is something that HIPAA was supposed to address back in 1996. The “P” in HIPAA stands for Portability. It was the Health Insurance Portability [and Accountability] Act. How is this still a thing 30 years later, that people feel stuck because they can’t change health insurance? 

Ollstein: This was also a big driving force behind the argument for Obamacare. The argument was: We’re going to free up all these people by creating this individual market, we’re going to unleash American ingenuity, and we’re going to have entrepreneurs and people starting their own businesses and experimenting and trying things that they wouldn’t feel able to do because they’re so afraid of …  

Rovner: Shark Tank for All! 

Ollstein: … losing their health insurance. And so I think the way the Trump administration has targeted some key pieces of Obamacare, you know, they obviously, as we know, failed to get rid of the whole thing, but they are chipping away at the subsidies, which has caused a lot of people to drop their coverage; they’re going after the Medicaid expansion piece of Obamacare, and so I think that’s driving some of this return to, you know, clinging to the job you have in order to maintain your health insurance. Although, going back to the point that nobody’s happy, employer health insurance, while it may be better than a lot of the other options, is, you know, people aren’t thrilled either. The costs are still quite high for both employers and employees. 

Rovner: And employers are looking for ways to cut back. Go ahead, Joanne. 

Kenen: I was also wondering, as I read those numbers about job lock — and we should also remember, even though it wasn’t in that particular story, there’s also something called “marriage lock,” where people stay in marriages they don’t really want to be in because they wouldn’t have, they fear they wouldn’t have coverage. But one thing I just sort of wondered about is I wonder how many people realize that they might, in fact, qualify for the Affordable Care Act. I think people are still confused about the ACA, as well as they’re confused about a whole laundry list of things that we could spend a year talking about. People aren’t always paying attention, so some of the people who are afraid that if they change jobs or think they have to stay in their job think that Obamacare is for somebody else. So I don’t know. 

Rovner: They wrongly think they’re in job lock. 

Kenen: Right, right. So, but it still affects the behavior. If you feel that way — you’re anxious and insecure and unhappy — then you’re anxious, insecure, and unhappy. Whether you are aware of there’s an alternative or not, it doesn’t affect how you feel now, which is, you know, grumpy. That’s not the right word, but you know what I mean. 

Rovner: I know what you mean. 

Seitz: Yeah, well, and I think that that’s what I found fascinating, too, is like when we look back at 2022, there was a lot of head-scratching as to how Democrats performed so well in the midterm elections. But you look back at that time, and people —it was the peak of the Great Resignation — people were leaving their jobs. They were able to get big raises for the first time in a while. Unemployment was extremely low, so you had, like, an electorate that was pretty happy and didn’t have that anxiety. And now you’re staring down a situation where people are afraid to leave their jobs. They’re afraid to lose their health insurance, and the social safety net is deteriorating at the behest of the Trump administration. And I think that’s not a very good situation to have a lot of Americans in, as you head to a midterm election. 

Rovner: Well, item two: Several outlets, including The New York Times, reported last week that hospital systems are seeing what the Times’ Reed Abelson described as, quote, an “unexpectedly sharp rise in uninsured patients and the costs associated with treating them.” We are starting to hear this in earnings reports from for-profit chains and anecdotally from nonprofits. Now, this was something that we saw coming. People can no longer afford their ACA plans and drop them, or as they can no longer afford the premiums without the expanded subsidies and had to buy down to less-generous plans with larger deductibles, which they then can’t cover when they end up in the hospital. This would suggest the Trump administration’s claim that the drop in ACA coverage is all due to fraudulently enrolled people with zero claims might not actually be the case. 

Seitz: I question how much, like, the Trump administration realizes they’re playing with fire here. And I think in part because during the first Trump administration, you saw a few hundred thousand people disenroll from the ACA. They kind of let it to languish, but there was also a lot of question about the ACA marketplaces’ ability to survive. This time around is so much different. You’re talking about millions of people losing coverage within the first year. The Trump administration came in; they had record enrollment in the program. So these are real losses. These are real hospitals, and these are going to be real headlines of real people experiencing these real misfortunes. And you’re going to have either taxpayers eating the cost of the care through emergency Medicaid, or you’re going to have people winding up with really big medical bills that they can’t pay. And again, those are going to be real stories. And the Trump administration is going to find that they can’t just continue to yell fraud to cover all that up. 

Ollstein: Yeah, to Amanda’s point, I think this message could definitely backfire politically. Nobody likes to be told that they are a fraudster or don’t exist when they are losing their health insurance. And this is hitting red-state hospitals just as much as blue states, if not more. And so, I think going into the midterm election, sticking by this line and not admitting who is being harmed is definitely risky. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s worth pointing out that, I mean, it does hit red states harder because the red states that didn’t expand Medicaid ended up with bigger enrollment in the ACA when they expanded the subsidies … 

Seitz: Florida’s the biggest. 

Rovner: … and so those people are now losing coverage. Yeah, Florida, Georgia, Texas. Those are the places where the hospitals are going to see it first when people are showing up who can’t pay their bills. 

Kenen: And those are the states that already have a lot of rural hospital closures. There are rural hospital closures and hospital closures across the country, but the rate of closures is much more acute in the states that did not expand Medicaid. So now you’re going to have more hospitals in jeopardy. It is not a healthy situation. 

Rovner: Well, related to this, we have the impending cuts to Medicaid. A federal judge appointed by Bill Clinton declined to block the Medicaid work rules from taking effect as scheduled Jan. 1. This was in a lawsuit filed by Democrat-led states. But there could still be some delay, right? I know doctor groups are completely freaked out by having to potentially write notes for tens of thousands of patients who may or may not be too medically frail to work. There’s still a lot of sort of panic, if you will, in the states about what’s going to happen to people if they can’t meet these work requirements. 

Ollstein: Yeah, and I want to make sure people know that the judge [who] ruled in this case, he said you shouldn’t take this ruling to mean that I think the states are wrong in challenging this policy. They could very well prevail eventually and strike it down. He just said, basically, this isn’t ripe. You don’t have enough evidence right now of harm to the states because the policy hasn’t officially started yet. Although it has in a couple states that weren’t part of the lawsuit, which we can get into. But this particular piece of the story is not over. Also, people should know that what was being challenged in court was not the entirety of the work requirements; it was just the piece requiring sick people on Medicaid to prove that they are too sick to work, prove beyond just having a diagnosis of cancer or an autoimmune disease or something. Just the diagnosis is not enough; they have to have some kind of proof. It’s not totally clear what kind of proof will count. And, to your point, they’re worried that it’s going to end up being individual doctors’ notes, which will completely overwhelm the system. Doctors don’t have the capacity to see all these people to document this and provide care. 

Rovner: And doctors don’t have the training to determine, you know, who’s disabled and who isn’t. That’s why we have these, you know, special masters for disability programs. Your average doctor is not really in a position to say, “Well, so-and-so can work this month but not next month.” Really, I mean, doctor groups really are legitimately worried about that this is going to fall to them. 

Kenen: And also, like, an awful lot of the people on Medicaid who would be affected … this is the Medicaid expansion population. It’s not all of Medicaid. But a lot of this population has chronic disease. And chronic disease is often sort of on and off, right? You’re doing OK for a while. You can work, and then kaboom, you have an exacerbation. You have a setback. You have an episode. Whatever your disease is, there are different things that happen, and then you can’t work. And doctors don’t know — I mean, mental illness is clearly one of the things where people could be stable for a long time and then crash and then recover and stabilize again. Cancer, you can be doing fine, on chemo for a certain amount of time, and then your body just says, you know, I’ve had enough chemicals pumped into it. Or you have … every chronic disease is pretty much … every one I can think of is an up-and-down, on-and-off … like how bad do you feel or how good you feel at any given time. And they certainly don’t have — then you’re out of compliance. You know, well, you’re healthy enough to work. Why aren’t you working? You know, bye-bye healthcare. So it’s really a complicated mess. The only little thing that may buy the states some time, in addition to whatever happens in the court, is for the first year and only the first year, people will be allowed to self-attest, meaning I’m just going up and saying I’m, you know, here’s my diagnosis, and I’m too sick to work. That is not likely to be extended. It’s unclear how that will play. I’ve written about it in somewhat detail about one state. I’m not exactly sure how it’ll run out in all 50, but it is part of the current rule that, this controversial rule that was dropped on June 1, that made this all sort of more complicated and more difficult. That self-attestation would be available on Jan. 1 for a limited period of time. 

Ollstein: But not in every state. So CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services], the federal government, said states can accept self-attestation. Several states are saying no thanks. We’re going to start requiring proof right away. No self-attestation allowed. So this is yet another sort of natural experiment where we’re going to see, you know, the differences between these states with these different policies, and how many people lose coverage as a result. 

Kenen: But it’s going to be way more than we thought at the beginning. I mean, the difference in this medical frailty rule versus what CMS was telling states until a few weeks ago versus, kaboom, on June 1, it is a much more cumbersome process. I mean, nobody thinks the old estimates of coverage loss are accurate anymore. I mean, there’s always a lot of guesswork in that, right? None of us know exactly how many people will lose coverage, but it looks like a lot more than we thought. 

Rovner: So we already have one of these natural experiments going on in Nebraska, which volunteered to implement its work rules first. The state is now getting ready to disenroll the first Medicaid patients who have failed to meet the requirements. Clearly, some of those people are still eligible, including a pregnant woman reported on by Nebraska Public Media who showed up for an appointment and was denied coverage because apparently the state missed the fact that she was pregnant and therefore eligible. I imagine we’re expecting more of this, right, Alice? We’ve seen this movie before? 

Ollstein: Yes, so we’re getting a sneak preview in Nebraska of what could happen in the rest of the states that expanded Medicaid come Jan. 1. A couple other states are also starting early, although they have different rules about when the penalties kick in and when the enforcement kicks in. But yes, you know we’re seeing a lot of confusion, people losing coverage who are technically eligible for coverage, and basically everything that providers and community groups and patient advocates predicted would happen. 

Kenen: And we know from Georgia, which does have work requirements already, they’re not a full-expansion state. They have their own version of a partial expansion, but it’s still, the law still applies to them. And they’ve had a lot of people losing coverage who probably are still eligible. We know from Arkansas’ experiment in, I believe was 2018, tons of people — I think it was 17,000 or 18,000 — who lost coverage, and most of them actually qualify. In fairness, the technology since 2018 and 2027 … and learning from Arkansas’ mistakes. … I think it’s important to be aware of how flawed and problematic Arkansas was. I don’t think it necessarily means that everything will be exactly that bad because, you know, there’s more broadband access in rural America, etc. We don’t have to go into all that. But it’s not a great precedent in terms of smooth rollouts. 

Seitz: And we also know it from the Medicaid unwind during the pandemic, too. We saw these errors and the initial estimates of how many people would be removed from coverage after the federal government said, OK, you can’t allow continuous enrollment anymore. They blew past those initial estimates. So, to your point, Joanne, earlier about how we are going to see much greater disenrollment than was initially predicted.  

Rovner: All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

We are back, turning to abortion. Alice, you were part of a big scoop this week about U.S. Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche and something he promised to anti-abortion groups. Tell us what he said. 

Ollstein: Yes, so this was on a private call that the White House Faith Office did with what they said were thousands of faith leaders around the country. And they, you know, said over and over on this call, this is private, this is off the record, this is not for the news, and then they posted it on YouTube for some reason and on some other places online. Explain that. Anyways, it’s been taken down since our story published, but we have the audio saved. So Blanche was basically promising that not only would he take action to restrict mail delivery of abortion pills and curbing abortion access in other ways, if confirmed, he sort of went beyond that and said that policies are already in the works. There’s already discussions going on between the White House, DOJ [Department of Justice], FDA, all of these different agencies sort of pledged to stop the ability of patients in red states to order abortion pills online and get them delivered by mail, which is, you know, a key line of access that patients have turned to in this post-Roe era of bans. It was not clear from the audio that we obtained how he plans to go about doing that. I also imagine if, you know, the FDA does come out and change its policy, that his remarks could be used to challenge that and say, you know, this was not based on science. This was based on ideology and religious opposition to abortion, which is not what the FDA is supposed to base its drug access policies on. So this was really fascinating, particularly because it did not really jive with what he said publicly in his confirmation hearing, where he sort of hemmed and hawed and said, “Oh, I can’t speak to that because there’s ongoing litigation,” and sort of made — yes, this was more specific promise of action than we’ve heard from him publicly. 

Rovner: And just to be clear, I think I have this right: Even if the FDA doesn’t change its policy, the DOJ could decide We’re going to enforce the Comstock Act — that 1873 law that bans the mailing of abortion drugs. And that would sort of leave FDA out of the entire equation, right? I mean, in theory, he could do that. 

Ollstein: Yes, and a lot of anti-abortion activists are very frustrated that the administration has not done that yet. They could have done that a year ago, theoretically put out a new OLC memo. Of course … 

Rovner: OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel. 

Ollstein: Yeah, which the Biden administration used to say that the Comstock Act cannot be used for cracking down on mail delivery of abortion pills. Of course, even if that happened — and there’s no sign that that’s necessarily imminent or something the administration would want to do ahead of the midterms potentially — but, you know, I think it’s notable to ask: How would they enforce that? This is private mail going to people’s private homes — short of mass surveillance and looking at everyone’s mail. I mean, logistically and constitutionally, it raises a lot of questions. 

Rovner: It does. Well, and now Sen. Susan Collins has cited it as one of the reasons that she’s going to vote against Blanche’s confirmation. Although I will quickly add that once Susan Collins announces she’s voting against something controversial, that usually means Republicans already have the votes they need and can let her go. … I see nodding. Do we think that’s the case here? 

Kenen: She’s always in tight races. For the past 30 years, she’s won. But you know, Maine is really obviously in play this year. None of us have a good enough crystal ball to know how this plays out. But the issue for her, in many ways, is just her [Supreme Court Justice Brett] Kavanaugh confirmation vote. So anything she does seen as further eroding abortion could really tip the election for her. So I’m not positive that this goes through. I think it’s likely, but [Sen. Bill] Cassidy, I don’t believe, has said what he’s going to do. [Sen. Lisa] Murkowski hasn’t said … if someone has more recent information, please update me. But my understanding …  

Rovner: As of this morning, Cassidy and Murkowski are still holdouts. 

Kenen: Right. And I’m not 100%, even though [Sen. John] Cornyn and [Sen. Thom] Tillis got him out of committee, they’re watching. They’re seeing, you know, what’s going on. Abortion is not the issue for them, but the weaponization, you know, what did he really mean by, you know, does his memo really stop it? What else are they going to do? I don’t think this is a done deal, as opposed to getting closer to being a done deal. But there’s no question that Collins had to vote against this. 

Rovner: We will see. All right. Well, over at the Department of Health and Human Services, things continue to be messy, which is also the description of an interview that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gave to CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday. Here’s how my colleague Céline Gounder put it in her Substack. I don’t think I can improve on this. “This morning, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sat down with Dana Bash on CNN’s State of the Union, and for 20 minutes it went about the way you’d expect. Both of them raised their voices, each accused the other of attacking them. He told her she’d committed press malpractice and that scaring people was the job of CNN. She told him he was causing inaccurate information to circulate. By 9:20 a.m. they were calling each other parrots.” By the way, this week saw publication of yet another large-scale study, 2.5 million children large, that found no association between autism and the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. But it raises the broader question: Does giving the secretary a mainstream platform like this actually make the media complicit in spreading the misinformation that he likes to spew? 

Ollstein: Things like this are such a Rorschach test because you had everyone on the left describing it as a crash out and, you know, a meltdown and something that made the secretary look really terrible, and you had people on the right who support him sharing it widely and saying, “Oh, he really gave it to the evil mainstream media.” And so, in terms of, you know, value to the public, I’m not sure. 

Seitz: I think you’re totally right, Alice. But what was really revealing is we have a health secretary who could not articulate what his plan is for any sort of outbreak, as there are multiple infectious disease outbreaks exploding throughout the country. And the one thing that he said he would do repeatedly was he would listen to doctors. Well, doctors on the front line of emergency rooms are saying, We are overwhelmed with measles. We are overwhelmed with infectious disease. Please, promote vaccines more. Please get your children vaccinated. So I think that was really just revealing. And again, it’s really troubling to see because everyone’s going to walk away from that conversation viewing it one way or the other, and not agreeing on anything, it seems. 

Rovner: Yeah, I will say, I mean, I watched it live. It was hard to watch. I don’t think it covered anybody with any kind of glory. Well, earlier this morning, speaking of breaking news, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted to hold former NIH [National Institutes of Health] institute director and White House science adviser Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress for pleading the Fifth, rather than answering their questions at a hearing last week. As former Trump surgeon general Jerome Adams quipped on X: “Your healthcare costs are exploding and the entire U.S. financing system is collapsing in real time… Meanwhile Congress is spending more energy debating whether to lock up an 85-year-old over his private journal entries about Barbra Streisand. Priorities.” At the same time, Politico is reporting that a top candidate for Fauci’s old job, running the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is a pharma executive who co-authored a book arguing that covid came from a lab leak and that fact was covered up by U.S. scientists. Steven Quay, who’s the nominee, has no training in infectious disease and was not selected for an interview by NIH staff for the NIAID job, but was instead handpicked by RFK Jr. Institute directors, I would hasten to add, are not usually political positions, unlike the director of NIH as a whole. So, what does this all suggest? 

Kenen: More of the same and worse. The Fauci situation is mind-boggling, even to people whose minds are now frequently boggles. Right? It’s … I think it’s safe to guess that he regrets writing certain things down on a government computer. And now they’ve got his phone. Sen. Johnson has his phone … or a copy of what his phone is. So I don’t know what’s going to come out about that, and how it will be interpreted. Remember that the measures that people are so angry about, several years later, were actually done during the Trump administration. They were not implemented by Biden. The national rules set at the, you know, the “six weeks to stop the spread” — that was Trump. Later regulations about opening restaurants and so forth, and other businesses and schools, and schools being the most contentious — churches are also contentious — that was done at the state level. Anthony Fauci did not go around the country locking churches. So public health made mistakes. But what people are forgetting about is that public health made mistakes dealing with a completely unprecedented and extremely complicated disease, which we still don’t understand all the sequel, all the stuff that people are still dealing with post-covid, right? And under emergency circumstances, in a politically volatile environment. And what we’re also forgetting is mistakes were made on the other side too. People were spreading quote-unquote “facts” that harmed people, that killed people. … I don’t mean they went out and murdered people, but things that led to unnecessary and avoidable deaths. So the whole debate, I mean, you can tell I’m — I’ll stop. Tony Fauci was not single-handedly making every decision, and the people trying to make public health decisions in a difficult environment were doing their best to save lives. And … it doesn’t matter what he said about Barbra Streisand. 

Rovner: And I would just add that it is Congress’ job to do things like examine the mistakes that were made and how things could have been done better, how communication could have been better. And I feel like, you know, Congress is just is so busy finding a scapegoat that it is not doing what could be a really useful exercise in an after-action report. Because there will be another pandemic, and, you know as we’ve said, we are having smaller-scale public health emergencies even as we speak, and nobody is dealing with it well. 

All right, moving on. Finally, this week, the House has decamped for its August recess, but the Senate is still here on Capitol Hill, trying to get a pretty ambitious list of things passed before it leaves at the end of the week, starting with a continuing resolution to keep the government open when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1. The House passed a CR to run until after the midterms before it left in July. The Senate’s CR is similar with one big change that we have actually discussed lately. It would block, at least temporarily, a controversial rule from the Office of Management and Budget that would further politicize the grant-making process by allowing political appointees to decide whether individual grants conform to the president’s agenda. Can this get back through the House, assuming the Senate passes it when the House comes back in September? Or is this going to come down to the wire and we’re going to have a fight over it as we approach Oct. 1? 

Kenen: Well, the other question that some researchers, you know, when I when I talk to some people about, well, they — and remember they’re not killing this rule; they’re halting its implementation. 

Rovner: They’re delaying it, right? 

Kenen: Right. You know, one of the scientists’ first response was, “Yeah, well, just because Congress passes a law doesn’t mean the administration will respect it.” There are other ways to politicize, and I mean, they’ve been cutting funding and stopping grants and virtually shutting down agencies. Science has already been hurt. So whatever happens in the House, which, and I think Julie is right, I don’t think they just come back and say, “OK, we’re going to just agree.” I think there’ll be some kind of fight — how it fits into other trade-offs between the House and the Senate. And there are things other than health that we don’t pay as much attention to that are also out there, including a couple of wars. So yes, there’ll be some fighting about it. No, we don’t know how it turns out. But at the end of the day, if the administration really wants to further politicize an already politicized grant-making process, they will probably find a way of doing so. 

Rovner: Well, speaking of which, the administration has figured out other ways to effectively gut programs. Case in point: Head Start, which is a bipartisanly popular preschool education, nutrition, and healthcare program for low-income kids, just this morning, HHS is dropping new rules that would basically eliminate many of the required standards for Head Start programs, including things like teacher-to-student ratios. This administration is nothing if not creative, because this is not — you know, last year they were delaying the money going out for Head Start. Now they’re just going to say, Well, we’re just going to take away the rules, and you can sort of take this money and do whatever you want. Amanda, you’re nodding. 

Seitz: Yeah. Well, I found this really striking because I was with Secretary Kennedy a few months ago at a Head Start in Toledo, [Ohio], where he talked about the importance of the program, that it was inspired by his uncle, and he he said he really stood up against the White House to make sure … it was still funded last year, and he demanded that. And the other thing that really struck me about that visit is the Head Start’s owner had flown in from New York in this tailored suit to take photos with Kennedy and greet him personally. And I was a little confused why this person from New York is owning this Head Start. And it turns out a lot of private equity firms have been buying up daycares across the country, and this was the case for this Head Start. So, you know, pulling back the regulations of Head Start around class sizes — that seems like it would benefit more the private equity firms than the teachers and the children in the classrooms. 

Rovner: Fancy that! All right. Well, finally, finally, one of the things the Senate has managed to do this week is confirm Erica Schwartz as the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That agency has been operating without a Senate-confirmed head since the departure of Susan Monarez last August, just weeks after she had been confirmed over differences with Secretary RFK Jr. over vaccine policy. How confident are we that Dr. Schwartz, who is a retired rear admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and a self-proclaimed vaccine supporter, will last longer than her predecessor? 

Seitz: I think that is a huge question. I mean, we’re now on our third CDC nominee of this administration, second confirmed candidate, and we know that Secretary Kennedy and Susan Monarez never really got along. It was not, she was not his first choice. That has been made very clear with Schwartz as well, when he said that he was not even consulted really about the pick. So I think the big question is: Can these two work together, and how quickly will that potentially deteriorate? 

Rovner: Yeah, well, the clock is about to start. I guess as soon as she is sworn in. … She was just confirmed on Wednesday, so I don’t think she’s been sworn in yet. Alice, you want to add something? 

Ollstein: Yeah, I did think it was interesting, though. On Capitol Hill, you heard from some senators that, you know, they did have concerns about her ability to stand up to RFK and advocate for evidence-based medicine science, you know, particularly on the vaccine front. But because there hasn’t been a leader at this crucial agency for a year now, they wanted to vote to confirm her just for some stability and some leadership. I mean, look, we’ve got diarrhea lettuce, we’ve got salmonella eggs, we’ve got measles. We’ve got a lot of problems, and it’s never a great time to not have a leader of the CDC, but right now is really not a good time to not have a leader of the CDC. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s what Tim Kaine of Virginia, a Democrat, said. I think he was the only Democrat that voted for her. More important to have somebody at the CDC leading it. 

All right, that is this week’s news, or as much of this week’s news as we could get to. Now we’ll play my “How Would You Fix It?” interview with New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim. Then we’ll come back with our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim to “How Would You Fix It?” Sen. Kim’s a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and just introduced legislation to guarantee health coverage to every child up to age 26. Sen. Kim, welcome. 

Andy Kim: Yeah, thanks for having me. It’s a pleasure. 

Rovner: As I hope this series is highlighting, it appears the country is moving, albeit kind of slowly, towards another major debate over healthcare coverage and cost. What made you decide to step into these very choppy political waters? 

Kim: Well, first of all, I’ll say it is because of healthcare that I ran for Congress to start with. So, you know, eight years ago or so, when I first started running, it was because I had a little baby boy who had some real health issues right there as he was born, and I was one of those very scared, anxious parents trying to figure out what kind of care could my kid get. Meanwhile, we saw a debate in Congress where the Republican-led Congress in 2017 was trying to gut the Affordable Care Act. So that was why I actually got engaged in politics, [because] my congressman was leading that charge on trying to cut preexisting condition protections.  

The other aspect of this is right now things are just moving in the wrong direction. We have upwards of, you know, 1.75 million to 2 million more kids losing Medicaid over the last year and a half. We see the numbers already atrocious. You know, 4.4 million children in this country without health insurance, 23 million kids that are underinsured, which means they have coverage that doesn’t cover their full needs. I’m appalled by that. I’ll be honest with you. Like, you know, we’re the richest, most powerful country in the world. I’m here at the Capitol, where we’re right now having these debates about, you know, a $1.5 trillion defense budget and other things that, you know, just are pushing forward. Yet we are just for some reason just OK with, or at least just allowing this type of void when it comes to our healthcare. I just find it to be — I mean, just appalling and a real dereliction of our duty that we have not found a way to be able to ensure that every child is able to go see a doctor when they need to without breaking the bank. So I think, for me, this has just been years in the making, and right now I wanted to introduce this because I can’t just be talking about what I’m against. I have to be talking about what I’m for. What is the vision for this country? Not just to reverse things that I think are wrong from what this administration has done, but I owe it to my constituents and to the American people to lay out a vision forward for us to try to think through where we go from here. 

Rovner: So, how would this bill work? 

Kim: First of all, the bill is called MediKids. So, as you said, it would be a guarantee of healthcare from birth to 26. I think one of the more novel parts of this that is different from what we see right now is that there’s an automatic enrollment upon birth into MediKids, which is a foundation built upon Medicaid. So the idea right now is we’re seeing so many kids and families losing Medicaid or potentially losing Medicaid in part because of just the onerous paperwork, the bureaucracy, the different types of things that are meant right now, just the twice-annual requirements to be able to recertify. That’s what’s standing in the way here and preventing so much of the progress that we need. So I wanted to really tackle that and be able to make sure that people can be able to get the care that they need.  

And another part of it is that I chose to put the platform upon Medicaid because Medicaid, in many ways, was designed for kids. You know, when it comes to the early and periodic screenings and diagnostics and treatment, that whole system is, as I’ve looked at it, really the most comprehensive system for kids. What healthcare experts have really shared with me over the years, as I taught talk them, is we can’t just think of kids as little adults. But instead, like, having a system that is designed for kids, that is designed to be able to have the screenings at the appropriate times and age intervals, to be able to have that requirement, to be able to treat any and all problems that are determined, and to think about this as comprehensively — not just like healthcare here, dental and vision, but to think about it across all of it. All of that is necessary for kids because their bodies are developing, their brains are developing well into their 20s, which is why, again, I pushed meta kids out into the 20s. It’s like you want to make sure that all of these kids are able to get the care that they need, and that you don’t see the kind of withdrawal of or restriction of care that could have real consequences down the road. So that’s really what we were trying to do. 

Rovner: So, as you well know, Democrats have been fighting for decades now over whether to try for a really comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system or something more incremental. Obviously, the Affordable Care Act was something more incremental, but also fairly comprehensive. Is that how you envision this? Where do you fall on the “Let’s pull it up and start over from scratch,” and the “Let’s try to fix it one step at a time” debate? 

Kim: Well, yeah. Well, look, I want to be bold, and I want something that can really push forward. Because look, I’ll be honest: The American people want something bold. Like, the problems that we are facing are enormous. No one is happy with the status quo, so we need to have that change. But I was also thinking through how to design something that I think will have enormous impact upon healthcare, but doing it in a way that is implementable. You know, so with MediKids, I’m not creating some new bureaucracy. I’m not creating some new agency or new department. I am taking something that is already, frankly, covering a large percentage of children in this country already, and I’m trying to make it available for everybody through that automatic enrollment, and taking something that is proven to be able to have that comprehensive approach and use that as a foundation. I really tried to design this in a way that is implementable. As I’ve been in Congress now for eight years, I see the types of bills that can get through parliamentarians and get through into passage, and I’ve really tried to design something that hits that sweet spot while still fundamentally reshaping how healthcare in this country will be attained by people. And I really do think that it will have a sizable impact tremendously. Not just in terms of providing that care for kids, but everyone knows healthier kids means healthier adults, which means a healthier workforce, which means a stronger economy, which means lower healthcare costs. The knock-on effects are so strong. So many of the challenges that we see amongst adults when it comes to chronic illnesses and other challenges are often things that have been exacerbated because of the lateness of diagnosis or the lack of treatment early on. So those are the things that we’re really trying to think through when it comes to this approach. 

Rovner: Back in 1994, when the Bill Clinton plan went down, the first big health reform that I covered, there was an effort, mostly spearheaded by Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, that they called “Kids First.” They said, well, let’s just cover kids. It still took three years, a lot of fighting, and sort of they luckily found a tobacco tax to help pay for it. But it was bipartisan. Do you have any thoughts that Republicans are going to maybe have some renewed interest in increasing healthcare coverage? 

Kim: Well, what I will say is, first of all, if ever there was an issue that should be bipartisan or, frankly, nonpartisan, it should be about our kids, right? And that’s why I wanted to focus on this too. I think it’s the strongest argument that we have in our country when it comes to guaranteed healthcare. I get it, eyes wide open, I was on the Senate floor last year when I saw my colleagues vote to cut Medicaid at such a dangerous level, so I have my eyes wide open. But what I will say is, I’ve gone around the Senate over the last period of time, like the last two weeks since I’ve introduced, is that it is sparking that conversation. And whether or not my colleagues on the other side of the aisle or both sides of the aisle agree with all the different principles and proposals that I have in MediKids, it is creating this dialogue and this debate about healthcare for our kids. And that’s what I want. Yeah, that’s what I want us to be able to do. And you’re right. Like, we’ve seen bipartisan support in the past for CHIP [the Children’s Health Insurance Program], for healthcare for kids in different ways, and I just saw that going in the wrong direction last year, which is why I wanted to release this now to try to move it back into the fold. I saw a real deprioritization of concerns raised by parents of kids with disabilities that were worried about how these Medicaid cuts would affect them. It’s not good enough for them to just get, like, a wink and a “trust us” type of message. We really need to make sure that we just never have parents with that type of anxiety about whether or not they’re going to lose care for their child. So, well, we’ll see going forward. But at least my early conversations with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, certainly around the overarching principles of care for kids, is promising. And I’m hopeful to be able to make some gains as we move forward in both the Senate, as well as in the House, as we start to push forward on that debate there too. 

Rovner: Well, we’re all about keeping the conversation going forward. Sen. Andy Kim, thank you so much. 

Kim: Yeah, thanks so much for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week? 

Kenen: OK. This is a story that’s up online in The New York Times, and I believe it’ll be in the Sunday Magazine this weekend. It’s by Dr. Helen Ouyang, whose name I don’t know how to pronounce, so I’m just going to apologize for not knowing how to pronounce it. The story is “The U.S. Relies on Family Caregivers. Millions of Them Are Kids.” For me, it’s not great because I was working on the same story, talking to some of the same people, and you know that’s not going to happen now. But something like she used the number 4 million, and it’s probably closer to 6 million, kids, between roughly the ages of like 10 and 18 or 19, are in fact the major caregiver for a sick parent or grandparent, and they are trying to juggle some kind of attendance at school and then doing medically complicated things, plus the psychological burden and not being able to be a normal teen. And these are largely poor kids. They are disproportionately Black and Hispanic kids. We do not have a system for helping them. The answer is not let them be caregivers because no one would be a caregiver. The person would have no care. The question is, really, how do we support them? Make it easier. Make sure they’re connected to whatever community resources or state resources or health resources that are available. Make sure they’re maxing out on that. But it’s a really disturbing and very moving story what these kids go through, because even those of us who are adults who’ve taken care of grandparents or parents, it’s really hard. And if you’re 15 or 10, it’s even harder. 

Rovner: Yeah, and taking care of siblings too in a lot of cases. Amanda. 

Seitz: My pick this week is “A Florida Surrogate, a Father in China, and the Babies Caught Between,” by Katherine Long of The Wall Street Journal. This is a story about a surrogate who agreed to carry what ended up being triplets for a father overseas in China. What I just found really remarkable about the reporting is that it takes this really horrible case — these children have essentially been left in the U.S. with the surrogate mother because the father from China hadn’t been able to come over due to visa issues. And, but it takes this really complicated story and looks at just the overall perils of the surrogacy industry that has exploded while being completely unregulated, and how all of these cases are largely playing out in courts and being complicated by the immigration policies of the Trump administration. So it was just a really fascinating read. 

Rovner: Other things that policymakers could be doing with their time. Alice. 

Ollstein: My pick is from NOTUS. It is called “Rand Paul’s Fauci Diary Dump Exposed People’s Medical Histories.” So we talked about the vote to hold Fauci in contempt, but this is a look at what inadvertently, I guess, happened as a result of Rand Paul, who, let’s remember, is a doctor himself as well as a senator, releasing a huge tranche of private documents from Fauci and not redacting people’s personal medical information about their diagnoses. And this article talks about how that happened and how little recourse the people involved have about their information being exposed, and how this is a pattern with the administration of failing to redact people’s sensitive information when they do these big document dumps. 

Rovner: Oops. Yeah. Well, my extra credit this week is also about the Fauci affair. It’s from our podcast pal Sheryl Gay Stolberg at The New York Times, and it’s called “Spotlight on Fauci Said To Boost Book Sales for Kennedy and His Publisher.” And wouldn’t you just know it, but it turns out that HHS Secretary RFK Jr. and one of his sons, and Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, have all published books accusing Tony Fauci of various crimes and misdeeds, and that after last week’s hearing, sales of those books jumped. Wrote Sheryl, “Ethics experts say that Mr. Kennedy, his son and Mr. Paul did not cross any legal or ethical lines, but several said the secretary and the senator did cross a threshold for hypocrisy by using their platforms to sell books about Dr. Fauci while accusing the scientist of profiting from his own public service.” I will let you all draw your own conclusions. 

All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. We also had production help this week from Taylor Cook. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me on X @jrovner, or on Bluesky @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging these days. Alice? 

Ollstein: On Bluesky @alicemiranda, and on X @AliceOllstein. 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: I’m mostly on Bluesky and on LinkedIn @JoanneKenen. 

Rovner: Amanda. 

Seitz: And I am still tweeting from X on @AmandaSeitz. 

Rovner: We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits Francis Ying Audio producer Taylor Cook 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.

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.

Democratic primary voters in Michigan chose former Detroit public health director Abdul El-Sayed as their Senate nominee this week. El-Sayed is one of several high-profile candidates around the country who have been pushing “Medicare for All,” again elevating the issue, at a time when millions of Americans are losing their health coverage because of high costs.

Meanwhile, the Senate this week confirmed Erica Schwartz to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has been without a permanent leader for almost a year. But it remains unclear whether her support for childhood vaccinations will run afoul of her boss, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Amanda Seitz of KFF Health News.

Panelists Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico @JoanneKenen @joannekenen.bsky.social Read Joanne's bio. Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico @AliceOllstein @alicemiranda.bsky.social Read Alice's stories. Amanda Seitz KFF Health News @AmandaSeitz Read Amanda's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• El-Sayed’s primary victory in Michigan means a vocal supporter of Medicare for All will be on the ballot this fall. Progressives again are rallying behind universal healthcare as costs spike and more people lose their coverage — although there are few details so far to explain how they would implement such a policy.
• New polling shows more people are experiencing “job lock” because of limited options to obtain healthcare coverage outside employer-sponsored insurance. Meanwhile, more hospitals are reporting a sharp rise in the number of uninsured and in the costs to cover them.
• A federal judge recently declined to halt the implementation of Medicaid work requirements while considering a case brought by several states challenging the policy’s burden on sick people. And early reports out of Nebraska, the first state to implement the work requirements, show eligible people are losing coverage for administrative reasons.
• Kennedy sat down for an interview with CNN, during which he could not articulate specific plans to address disease outbreaks — as multiple outbreaks are ongoing. And a Senate committee voted along party lines Thursday to hold former public health official Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress over his appearance before the committee last week.

Also this week, as part of the “How Would You Fix It?” series, Rovner interviews Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), who has a new bill that would provide universal health coverage for all children.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “Spotlight on Fauci Said To Boost Book Sales for Kennedy and His Publisher,” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: NOTUS’ “Rand Paul’s Fauci Diary Dump Exposed People’s Medical Histories,” by Margaret Manto.  

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times Magazine’s “The U.S. Relies on Family Caregivers. Millions of Them Are Kids,” by Helen Ouyang.  

Amanda Seitz: The Wall Street Journal’s “A Florida Surrogate, a Father in China, and the Babies Caught Between,” by Katherine Long.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Bulwark’s “The ‘Medicare for All’ Test for Michigan Democrats,” by Jonathan Cohn.
• The New York Times’ “Uninsured Patients Rise Sharply, Hospitals Report, Citing Obamacare Cuts,” by Reed Abelson.
• Politico’s “Blanche Assures Anti-Abortion Supporters That Dobbs Will Be ‘Permanent in Every Single State,’” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Josh Gerstein.
• Underlying Conditions’ “RFK Jr. on CNN: Fact-Checking the Measles and Autism Claims,” by Céline Gounder.

Credits Francis Ying Audio producer Taylor Cook 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.

Proposed Rule Could Create Up to 268,000 New Slots While Strengthening Focus on Health and Nutrition

In this “How Would You Fix It?” interview, Julie Rovner, KFF Health News’ chief Washington correspondent and host of the What the Health? podcast, sat down with Sen. Andy Kim, a New Jersey Democrat, to discuss his proposal to grant all kids access to health coverage.

Kim, who serves on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said it is “a real dereliction of our duty that we have not found a way to be able to ensure that every child is able to go see a doctor when they need to without breaking the bank.”

Under the senator’s proposal, children would be automatically enrolled at birth in the public program, which he has dubbed MediKids. Parents would have the option to opt their kids out, though they could reenroll them at any time until age 26, Kim told Rovner.

“You want to make sure that all of these kids are able to get the care that they need as their bodies are and their brains are developing and that you don’t see the kind of withdrawal of or restriction of care that could have real consequences down the road,” he said.

Kim said offering comprehensive, universal coverage to American children would help them avoid chronic conditions in adulthood, in addition to providing broader societal benefits, such as a healthier workforce.

He added that he hopes his idea could gain traction should Democrats claim a majority in Congress in the midterm elections, as well as foster an important discussion about healthcare in the 2028 presidential race.

An abbreviated version of this interview aired Aug. 6 during Episode 458 of What the Health? From KFF Health News: “The Return of ‘Medicare for All.’”

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.

MISSOULA, Mont. — Tywon Pugh has seizures that make it hard to find and keep a job.

“They called me a ‘liability to the job site,’” Pugh said, recalling the words of his manager when a seizure cost him his last job at a fast-food restaurant in this western Montana city.

When the 46-year-old lost work in the past, his wife of 10 years covered their rent and he tended to their home until he found another job. But his wife died last year. Soon after, Pugh became homeless. His problem with alcohol became worse, which made managing his seizures more difficult.

“When she died, my whole base was depleted,” Pugh said.

Medicaid pays for the prescriptions that keep Pugh’s seizures at bay. The government-subsidized health coverage would also pay for an addiction treatment program that Pugh said he has tried to get into, but he was told there’s a waitlist.

Pugh’s goal has been to get healthy enough to work again. But he’s worried about being able to keep the Medicaid coverage he needs to get to that point.

Early Embrace of New Rules

In the spring, the federal government finalized regulations requiring millions of people who receive Medicaid benefits to prove they’re working, volunteering, or going to school to keep their coverage. States have until January to begin those checks. Montana, Arkansas, and Nebraska have already started implementing them.

The Trump administration’s federal work requirements exempt certain groups of people: those with disabilities, those older than 64, pregnant people and Native Americans, among others. To receive an exemption, anyone without a clear-cut qualification — such as through their age or disability status — will have to prove they’re too sick to work.

But the administration decided that being homeless isn’t a medical condition and can’t count as an automatic out from having to meet the new requirements. Many conservative policymakers support work requirements, and some states have attempted to implement such rules for years. At least four states — Montana, Arizona, Kentucky, and Utah — previously proposed policies that included homelessness as an exemption.

But federal officials have said that’s not allowed. In an email to KFF Health News, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declined to provide a comment on the record. But the agency confirmed that states must stick to the federal government’s list of exemptions. Homelessness in the U.S. increased by 27% from 2013 to 2025, according to data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Last year, about 746,000 people were homeless.

Many, like Pugh, qualified for Medicaid, though the number of enrollees who are homeless is difficult to measure. In 2023, 55% of patients who received medical or behavioral health services through one of the nation’s roughly 300 Health Care for the Homeless programs were enrolled in Medicaid.

“My Medicaid is still active, but when are they gonna cut that off from me? I can’t get employed,” says Tywon Pugh, who been homeless in Missoula since his wife’s death in 2025. The federal government does not exempt people who are homeless from Medicaid work requirements. (Katheryn Houghton/KFF Health News)

Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, said the federal regulations are a lot stricter than many states had expected, even those on board with work requirements. (KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.)

“It took everyone by surprise,” Tolbert said.

Mehmet Oz, who leads CMS, touted the regulations as a “path to prosperity” during a press conference in June.

“We need to get people to try to work,” Oz said. In June, 25 mostly Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration over the regulations, arguing the medical frailty standard would be too hard for enrollees to meet — and for states to assess. The work requirements are projected to increase the number of uninsured people nationwide by more than 5 million by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Most states will begin to implement the Medicaid work requirements in January. 

Montana plans to begin booting Medicaid enrollees from coverage this October if they can’t prove they’re in compliance with the work requirement.

“My Medicaid is still active, but when are they gonna cut that off from me?” Pugh said. “I can’t get employed. How am I supposed to survive?”

The differences between the states’ and federal government’s exemption lists don’t end with people who are homeless. In Montana, lawmakers also planned to excuse people fleeing domestic violence and caregivers of hospitalized family members — two other groups left off the federal exemption list.

“These are simply parties that, due to a number of conditions, cannot meet those requirements,” Republican state Rep. Ed Buttrey said in 2019 when the Montana Legislature passed its first Medicaid work requirement bill. Buttrey did not comment for this article.

Federal officials have said many people who are homeless could fall under another exemption, such as being too sick to work. But, like many states, Montana’s system to automatically conduct those checks through existing medical records isn’t ready, though health department spokesperson Jon Ebelt said it should be in place by October. Anyone not automatically exempted by the state would have 30 days to prove their case.

Flyers at Partnership Health Center locations in Montana announce eligibility changes to Medicaid. (Katheryn Houghton/KFF Health News) Partnership Health Center is one of roughly 1,400 health centers nationwide that receive federal funding to serve patients based on what they can afford. (Katheryn Houghton/KFF Health News)

A Possible Exemption for Health

Pugh might qualify for a pass due to his seizures. But getting to doctor appointments the past year has been hard for him.

The anniversary of his wife’s death just passed. Typically, Pugh has to find a new place to sleep outside each night. One night while camping, Pugh lost his wallet and important documents. And with the addiction treatment centers that accept Medicaid patients overbooked, Pugh has had to rely on willpower to avoid drinking.

“I’m taking it one day at a time,” he said.

A little over two hours north, in Kalispell, Dustin Goss, a case manager at a homeless shelter called Samaritan House, said Pugh’s experience reflects why he’s worried that people who qualify for an exemption will get tangled in bureaucratic tape.

“You can’t really worry about getting paperwork done when you don’t know where you’re eating today,” Goss said.

Cassidy Kipp, who heads Samaritan House, said once people find shelter and start to stabilize, they typically find work. But even then, meeting the new requirements can be challenging. Clients often start with temporary and informal jobs — such as cleaning out a storage unit — that don’t come with a pay stub, Kipp said. 

Kaitlyn Bosshardt, a social worker at Partnership Health Center, a health clinic in Missoula, has seen more people priced out of longtime rentals as housing costs outpace people’s paychecks. Meanwhile, affordable housing and rental aid are limited.

Kaitlyn Bosshardt, a social worker at Partnership Health Center in Missoula, counts letters about Medicaid that the state’s health department sent to clinic patients who don’t have a steady address. (Katheryn Houghton/KFF Health News)

Partnership Health is one of roughly 1,400 health centers nationwide that receive federal funding to serve patients based on what they can afford — meaning even those who lose Medicaid can receive care. But organizations representing health centers have said if too many patients lose the coverage, some clinics won’t be able to fill the financial hole.

The other problem is that these clinics generally don’t provide specialty care.

One day in June, as temperatures hovered around 90,  Pugh visited Watershed Navigation Center, a refuge run by Partnership for people without steady housing to have a meal or see a doctor. His doctor, Atarah Sidey, told Pugh that the neurology clinic that managed his seizures had dismissed him from their care after he missed three appointments.

She referred Pugh to the other neurologist in town and talked about trying to find treatment for his addiction.

“It’s just that if I don’t make the effort at changing, it ain’t gonna happen and I’m gonna end up found on the side of the road somewhere,” Pugh told Sidey.

“You got this, though, Tywon,” she responded as Pugh nodded his head. “You can do this.”

Pugh has connected with a social worker for help keeping his Medicaid. By late July, he was waiting for space to open at a Missoula addiction treatment center and waiting on responses from two job applications.

In the hard moments, Pugh imagines his wife telling him to stay calm, that things will get better.

“I just don’t wanna lose hope in the meantime,” 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.

In this “How Would You Fix It?” interview, Julie Rovner, KFF Health News’ chief Washington correspondent and host of the What the Health? podcast, sat down with Sen. Andy Kim, a New Jersey Democrat, to discuss his proposal to grant all kids access to health coverage.

Kim, who serves on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said it is “a real dereliction of our duty that we have not found a way to be able to ensure that every child is able to go see a doctor when they need to without breaking the bank.”

Under the senator’s proposal, children would be automatically enrolled at birth in the public program, which he has dubbed MediKids. Parents would have the option to opt their kids out, though they could reenroll them at any time until age 26, Kim told Rovner.

“You want to make sure that all of these kids are able to get the care that they need as their bodies are and their brains are developing and that you don’t see the kind of withdrawal of or restriction of care that could have real consequences down the road,” he said.

Kim said offering comprehensive, universal coverage to American children would help them avoid chronic conditions in adulthood, in addition to providing broader societal benefits, such as a healthier workforce.

He added that he hopes his idea could gain traction should Democrats claim a majority in Congress in the midterm elections, as well as foster an important discussion about healthcare in the 2028 presidential race.

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 that Kentucky has become the latest state in the nation to achieve full participation in the Department’s Nutrition Education Initiative.

HHS began the decertification of Network for Hope, the federally designated organ procurement organization

Julie Rovner, KFF Health News’ chief Washington correspondent and host of the What the Health? podcast, joins An Arm and a Leg host Dan Weissmann to discuss the state of U.S. healthcare.

Rovner talks about the fallout from Trump administration cuts to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act subsidies. She also shares why she thinks healthcare will play a big role in the 2028 presidential election, and how she hopes her new podcast project — “How Would You Fix it?” — will contribute to the discussion.

You can hear “How Would You Fix It?” on Rovner’s weekly What the Health? From KFF Health News podcast, in which she speaks with newsmakers and journalists from top media outlets about the latest health policy headlines. 

Dan Weissmann @danweissmann @danweissmann.bsky.social Host and producer of "An Arm and a Leg." Previously, Dan was a staff reporter for Marketplace and Chicago's WBEZ. His work also appears on "All Things Considered," Marketplace, the BBC, "99% Invisible," and "Reveal," from the Center for Investigative Reporting. Credits Emily Pisacreta Producer Lynn Barbera Producer Adam Raymonda Audio wizard Ellen Weiss Editor Click to open the Transcript Transcript: Julie Rovner is worried: Checking in with a veteran DC reporter.

Note: “An Arm and a Leg” uses speech-recognition software to generate transcripts, which may contain errors. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast.

Dan: Hey there. It was just a little more than a year ago, in May 2025, the last time I checked in with my colleague Julie Rovner. She’s the chief Washington correspondent for our pals at KFF Health News and in what I would call a normal world, like a little more than a year would be really, really soon to talk with her again on this show.

Cause when I started making An Arm and a Leg, I didn’t expect that trying to keep up with the news was gonna be anything I would really have to think about too much. Like, I was setting out to understand and explain a multi-trillion dollar chunk of the economy that isn’t the tech industry, so I was like, how fast could it possibly move? And Julie Rovner’s thing is fast-moving news. On her weekly podcast, What The Health?, she leads a round table of health policy experts and journalists, and pours over a steady stream of headlines. Like whatever happens, big or small, Julie is tracking it. 

And then came 2025, and suddenly there’s this avalanche of news, and it’s big. Like, the Trump administration was making these sweeping changes, cuts to federal health programs. It was a ton of change, and I wanted to talk to Julie to try and wrap my head around it. And she told me even she was struggling to keep up. 

Here’s what she said then.

Julie Rovner: I’m trying to keep a running list of what’s been cut and what’s been restored, yeah, and it’s virtually impossible because there’s 20 things every day.

Dan: Yeah. And a lot’s happened since then. Like, Congress has added work requirements to Medicaid. It allowed federal subsidies for Obamacare to expire for millions of people. And those are, like, the biggest picture items. The rest of it feels like a blur. So, pop quiz: do we have a permanent FDA commissioner, CDC director, surgeon general?

I looked it up. As of July 21 the answer is no, in all three cases. It is an avalanche. So I wanted to talk to Julie again to get a glimpse at that avalanche from, like, further up the mountain, so to speak. 

Julie, thank you so much for coming back.

Julie Rovner: Always a pleasure, Dan.

Dan: Well, we’ll see how much of a pleasure it is to talk about the American healthcare system, but let’s give it a shot. 

Dan: This is An Arm and a Leg, a show about why healthcare costs so freaking much and what we can maybe do about it. I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter. I like a challenge, so the job we’ve chosen here is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life and bring you something entertaining, empowering, and useful. This time with help from Julie Rovner. Here we go.

Julie, last time we talked, you were astonished and worried about the pace of change and, like, destruction given all the cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services. And here’s what you said then…

Julie Rovner: How I’ve been thinking about this is that our healthcare system is a giant Jenga tower and it’s a little wobbly and what holds it up is everything that happens from the Department of Health and Human Services and they’re yanking out sticks from this Jenga tower as fast as they possibly can and when the whole thing comes down, it’s gonna be very not pretty.

Dan: So you said that a year and change ago, and just like the news I’m seeing this week, we’re taping more than a week before we’re gonna publish this, but there’s been a huge public health story in the news. You know, this outbreak of a foodborne parasite called cyclospora that causes explosive diarrhea.

Boris Sanchez: a warning to more sensitive viewers, this next story is kind of gross.

Caitríona Perry: If you are about to tuck into a bowl of raspberries or a big plate of salad, we’re very sorry because we may be about to put you off your food.

Dr. Richard Smith: If you’re somebody that’s into going to salad bars on a weekly basis Just give that a rest for a week or two

Dan: Yeah again, we’re taping this in mid-July, so maybe this all gets cleared up by the time we publish, but right now, like, I’m personally having early COVID flashbacks trying to figure out what fruits and vegetables are safe to eat and how long I have to cook them.

And you know, sure enough, folks are pointing out that among last year’s many cuts at HHS was federal tracking of a half dozen foodborne pathogens, including this one, cyclospora. So I mean, it all feels a little on the nose. Julie, how are you seeing all this play out?

Julie Rovner: Yeah, it does feel very on the nose, if you will, um, because we’re, like, a month into this outbreak, and it’s a very big outbreak. But we still don’t know what’s causing it. So now we’re having, you know, I saw this morning, uh, a recommendation from a doctor said, “Just don’t eat any fresh fruits and vegetables for the next week or so,” um, because this is unfortunately a parasite that doesn’t –  you can’t necessarily get rid of by washing.

Which is not to say don’t wash your fruits and vegetables. Do wash your fruits and vegetables, but that’s not enough in this case. Um, but yeah, in an, in a normal world, we would know by now what it was, and nobody knows what’s safe to eat, and that’s what happens when you pull those pieces out of the Jenga tower.

Dan: Yeah. And again, like, a week from now when we publish this, who knows what we’ll know, who knows what we’ll be eating. But it seems symbolic.

Julie Rovner: Yeah, I think one of the things that’s going on, you know, last year when we had sort of DOGE cutting and, you know, there were headlines everywhere, and this, these many people were being laid off, and these many people were taking early buyouts and, you know, there was, there was all of this sort of coverage if you will, of all of these cuts.

Things are still not happening, and things are still getting cut, and it’s much quieter. You know, money that officials promised would get distributed as Congress ordered, um, is not getting distributed as Congress ordered. 

So, you know, there are people who are waiting for grants that have not come. Things are still getting cut. Um, political appointees are still making decisions that often, that in the past were always made by career professional scientists, um, doctors, um, people with long experience. As we know, we’ve seen large cuts at a lot of these agencies, so there’s a lot of expertise that’s walked out the door.

So even if there are people still there, they don’t necessarily know as much as they used to. Um, things are sort of going on at that lower level that are not making headlines, but that are still, for the people who are involved in them, or at least what they tell me, are not great.

Dan: Yeah. And what are you seeing play out as a result of the cuts that we’ve seen so far? Like, what are you hearing about that I – like, what do I not know that my neighbors might be experiencing, but I just don’t happen to be hearing about?

Julie Rovner: What you don’t know is how many people are not getting needed medical care because they can’t afford it, whether because they lost their subsidies for the Affordable Care Act and they couldn’t continue to afford their insurance, or in even more cases, their subsidies went down and they bought down into less generous policies and now they have, you know, five-figure deductibles, and so they have insurance, but they still can’t afford to get care.

Or they may be legal immigrants who lost their eligibility for health insurance that they used to have, um, or they may be part of a mixed-status family that dropped insurance because they were afraid of getting targeted by immigration authorities even though, you know, some, some people in the family, were perfectly eligible for these programs.

And we have seen states that are starting to cut back on Medicaid in anticipation of some of these federal cuts that mostly take effect next January, but that are starting to take effect in states already. 

Adam Atchison: Some individual caregivers in Colorado are about to see their Medicaid funding cut.

Michael Perchick: Tonight, the major question remains what can North Carolina do to make up for that major funding shortfall? 

Justin Corr: One of the biggest issues we knew the Idaho Legislature would debate this year. Now Medicaid cuts are moving forward.

Julie Rovner: And we’re seeing states that are cutting back on optional programs, which, you know, members of Congress last year when they were debating this bill said, “Oh, we’re not gonna go after people, you know, who are seniors or who have disabilities.”

Um, except those are the programs that are optional, and when states have to roll back their Medicaid programs, that’s what they roll back, and indeed, that’s what’s happening, and we’re seeing, you know, story after story. But again, these are happening a little more quietly, making fewer headlines. But for the people they’re hurting, they are really hurting.

Dan: Wow. Yeah, I mean, a couple of stories that I, you know, you’re reminding me of, right, that, um, new federal rules keep rolling out, and some of them include eligibility for Medicaid for, like, people giving care or, or what it means to be medically frail and not be able to work, right? Tightening those restrictions and saying, “Look, it’s, you’re gonna have to jump through a lot more hoops to prove that you can’t work.”

Julie Rovner: Yeah, almost all of these rules are being … Those are not finalized yet, but almost all of these rules are also being challenged in court, um, by states, by, uh, healthcare providers, who obviously wouldn’t get paid anymore for providing this care, um, and by patients. So we will see, you know, how these ultimately play out.

But there are, you know, a — this administration has been sort of cut first, answer questions later. That’s been kind of the theme from the beginning, and that is still what’s going on. You know, one of the things we’re gonna talk about, um, on our podcast this week, uh, are stories of family caregivers, people who are losing eligibility for their families, uh, to help take care of them. You know, and, uh, Dr. Oz, who’s the head of Medicare and Medicaid, you know, has been talking about people who are, you know, collecting money for, you know, going to the grocery store or bringing in the newspaper…

Dr. Oz: Something called personal care services. You’ve never heard of that. Personal care services, basically, you’re paying your kids to carry the groceries upstairs, but you’re not actually paying. The state’s paying, and then the federal government’s paying the state back.

Julie Rovner: That’s not what these people are doing. These are people who are changing feeding tubes and, you know, helping people who are not ambulatory in and out of bed and on and off the toilet. I mean, this is … these are very, very difficult jobs, um, that, yes, sometimes family members are paid to do, but if they make it impossible, a lot of these people don’t know where they’re going to get help, and in some cases, these patients are gonna end up in institutions, and that’s gonna end up costing the federal government and taxpayers even more money in the long run.

Dan: And, and these cutoffs are happening now? 

Julie Rovner: They are. 

Dan: Like, folks are, folks are getting notices or being told, like, “No, your check for taking care of mom isn’t coming this week. You’re not getting that.”

Julie Rovner: That’s exactly what’s going on. In, in, in my home state of Maryland, they are cutting off this program. I believe… I can’t remember the exact date. It may be, there may be another month or so, but it’s, you know, they are getting notices that these programs are ending and I think Maryland is one of a half a dozen states that’s doing that.

Dan: Wow. And it’s, it’s like you said, these huge stories, they’re not grabbing a lot of headlines. I mean, like recently on your show, you were like, “What was shocking last year is now kind of status quo,” like at least in terms of media attention. But you’re still tracking all of it. 

And, all this reminded me of what you said when I talked with you the first time last year. So our Zoom meeting started, we started rolling tape. I said, “How are you?” And this is what you said:

Julie Rovner: I have a shirt that says, “Up and not crying.” I also have a shirt that says, “This is not normal.”

Dan: And I wanted to ask you, like, how are you doing now? Are y- d- are those shirts still in your wardrobe?

Julie Rovner: They are, and I have another one that says, “This is my living in unprecedented times shirt.” And I kind of rotate them.

Dan: And, and how, because many of us have the option, I always figured I did, of like, “Yeah, I’m gonna, I’m gonna titrate my exposure to news. I’m gonna calibrate, like this is how much I, you know, is good for me, is healthy for me to have right now.” And you know, some people turn it off altogether. And you do not have that option, unless you choose to do something entirely different. But like, I wanna ask you personally, like what is that like for you? 

Julie Rovner: It’s exhausting. 

Dan: Yeah.

Julie Rovner: I mean, I, and I worry. I worry about people, um, who need healthcare and aren’t getting it. I worry about students who, um, are trying to decide whether they can actually pursue their dreams of becoming a healthcare practitioner or a scientific researcher who are seeing sort of their pipelines cut off. That’s, that’s a big concern for me right now.

And I see things like Ben Sasse, the former senator who was very near death from pancreatic cancer, suddenly being able to take a new drug. And he said that, you know, his cancer is 99% gone. I mean, you see these medical breakthroughs that frankly government-sponsored research has helped bring to us, um, and I worry about whether they’re gonna be there for the next generation.

I mean, that’s something that’s, that’s really sort of jumping out at me. It’s like, look at all the things that we can do. Do you know why we’ve been able to do this? We’ve had this bipartisan agreement that investing in science and medicine is a good thing. That’s separate and apart from the fact that our healthcare system is messed up and costs too much, which I know is what you concentrate on – thank you very much. Um, but, you know, both of them are in trouble right now. And as I say, it’s not so much … You know, last year it was all the headlines. Now it’s just sort of, as I said, it’s kind of become the status quo that things are crumbling, and that worries me even more than when it was all over the headlines.

Dan: Coming up, I get Julie’s take on what’s happening to the Affordable Care Act and what she thinks is gonna happen in 2028 and beyond. That’s next

Dan: This episode of An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a nonprofit newsroom covering health issues in America.

The folks at KFF Health News are amazing journalists like, you know, today’s guest, Julie Rovner. Their work wins all kinds of awards every year, and we are honored to work with them

Dan: So, Julie, you know, since the last time we talked, as you noted: some Obamacare subsidies ended, and premiums went through the roof. Millions of people have dropped their insurance. And lots have signed up for cheaper plans that cover less.

And now, the Trump administration has been rewriting the rules for next year to encourage more people to sign up for plans that would cover a lot less, like including plans that require you to spend $30,000 or more to cover your family before insurance kicks in at all. And, you know, like, the two pillars of the Affordable Care Act were, like, let’s use subsidies to make non-crummy private insurance affordable for most people, and let’s expand Medicaid.

So, Republicans kept saying they just wanted to repeal the ACA, but, you know, they never did. And now I’m wondering, like, are we seeing something that’s, like, effectively kind of a slow motion repeal of the ACA by other means?

Julie Rovner: Oh, absolutely. No question about it. Um, most of the Affordable Care Act has been dismantled over, you know, th- th- this was … Several people have written this story. It’s like, you know, Republicans failed on their repeal and replace when they called it repeal. But basically, over the last 10 years, look at all the things we’ve taken away.

All the taxes that supported the financing of this have gone away. So the supporting taxes which were on mostly individ- you know, they were on health insurers, and drug companies, and, and large businesses, most of those have been, have gone away. Thank you lobbyists, you know, who came and said, “We don’t wanna pay these taxes.” Um, so basically the money’s just coming out of the treasury now. 

The- one of the things that the Republican budget bill did last year um, it didn’t roll back the explicit, expansion of Medicaid, but now we’re gonna have these work requirements, which, what we know from other states that have done work requirements end up, yes, taking off people who are, who simply refuse to work, but also because of the bureaucracy involved, end up cutting off people who are working, and who are eligible, and who do need the, the health insurance coverage. We have seen this.

You know, most of the people who end up getting kicked off the program get kicked off for what are called administrative reasons, which means they just could not navigate all of the required paperwork and bureaucracy. Um, so I mean, we really are seeing a slow motion repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Dan: And so what might happen? I mean, Like, you’ve been looking at this for 40 years, and I’m, I am old enough to remember as a young person noticing that, like, when Bill Clinton ran for president in the early 1990s, you know, a big piece of the pitch was like, “Healthcare costs too much. Not enough people have insurance. We gotta do something about it.” And it, you know, they weren’t able to pass a law. But where might things go?

Julie Rovner: So let me tell you one of the things that kind of freaks me out. Um, would, and you go back to sort of the Affordable Care Act. I covered the Clinton health plan, and it- it died, as I like to describe, because, you know, everybody, all of those special interests wanted to cut off just one finger of it, and in the end, the patient bled to death. That’s sort of been my go-to metaphor for the Clinton healthcare plan. 

So what happened when they tried to put together the Obama healthcare plan is it like- like rather than have all of the special interest outside of the tent, let’s get all the special interest into the tent, and one of the ways they did that is said, “Look, if more people are insured, then you’re gonna get more of your bills paid.”

And particularly, you know, the hospitals and the drug companies said, “Yeah, that sounds good. We would like people to be able to pay for the things that we provide.” Um, well, so what are we doing now? We’re taking this apart, and we’re having people not be able to pay for things, and we’re having states not be able to pay for things.

States had used what was called creative financing for their portion of Medicaid, which remember, is a shared expense between the federal government and the states. So now you’ve got hospitals freaking out, and you also … I mean, we’re seeing hospitals close. It starts with rural hospitals. But, you know, I- I like to say it’s not just people without insurance who are gonna be impacted by this.

If health providers can no longer keep their doors open, then even if you have insurance, you may not have any place to go to get it. We’re already seeing healthcare deserts in, you know, less populated parts of the country. What is this gonna do when you see fewer people with health insurance, fewer people with Medicaid, fewer people with the Affordable Care Act?

Dan: Umm. Wow. 

Julie Rovner: Sorry, I’m just a continuing ray of sunshine.

Dan: No, no, no. No, no, you’re, you’re like– I’m asking you what might happen, you’re like, “Well, here’s the worst that might happen.” But, um, you know, what might a path look like to changing course?

Julie Rovner: Well, I feel like, you know, and when it comes to healthcare, the left is moving to the left and the right is moving to the right. Um, you know, we’ve always in, in the 40 years I’ve been doing this, um, and even going back to things like Medicare in 1965, what has gotten things done is when people, is when the two sides come together in a compromise. Those are the only big achievements in healthcare. Um, with the possible exception of the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans say, you know, “Oh, that wasn’t, you know, that w- that was only, that passed only with Democratic votes,” but it was a Republican idea. It was pulled from what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts in 2006. So it was intended as a compromise, um, even if in the end the Republicans … The Republicans started moving right, I think, before the Democrats started moving left. 

But now you’re seeing, you know, most of the Democratic candidates, I’m looking in the midterms, you know, are, are back to the mantra of Medicare for All. Joe Biden was one of the few candidates in 2020 who did not endorse Medicare for All. He wanted to just expand the Affordable Care Act. That’s what was seen as a middle ground. 

Now nobody seems to want a middle ground. You know, the right wants to just take everything apart and get government out of healthcare in general and let people, you know, sort of give people a little bit of money and have them, you know, have the free market take over. And the left wants Medicare for All, which is, you know, the, the U.S. has tried to, to do what every other country has done and have universal coverage, and has so far not really succeeded at that. Although I will say at its peak, the, when the Affordable Care Act had the expanded subsidies, we were down to about an 8% uninsurance rate, which was the lowest since anybody had been keeping track. So it was, it was getting closer. 

Um, but now I see the parties moving apart. Will they move back together again at some point? I don’t know. Um, but, but for, I think, the immediate future, we’re seeing them retreat to their corners. And in healthcare that really, even though sometimes at the 30,000-foot level they’ve been fighting about that, at the 5,000-foot level they’ve been able to get together and do things. Um, a good example is the No Surprises Act, you know, the let’s get rid of surprise bills. 

Um, I’m not sure I even see them coming together on sort of the little stuff right now. Everybody is just very, very, very unhappy with everybody else.

Dan: Wow. Well. Okay. Uh, it’s not the cheerfulest thing I ever

Julie Rovner: You look like you’re, you’re processing that.

Dan: I am. I am. I am. I am. And of course, you know, as you say, during this period when people had, when the, the greatest proportion of people had insurance, uh, you know, I’m still doing this show. I mean, people have insurance, but having insurance doesn’t necessarily mean you have healthcare that you need and can afford.

Julie Rovner: Yes, everything. We will both be employed for as long as we want talking about the foibles of the U.S. healthcare system.

Dan: I mean…

Julie Rovner: That I am con- that prediction I am very confident of

Dan: I will never run out of material – that’s the crappy thing. But things are, like we said, they’re accelerating, they’re different, and I’m wondering how is all this changing how you see your job going forward?

Julie Rovner: Well, one thing that I’m, working towards myself, is I am predicting that we are going to have another major political throw down over healthcare in the coming years. Not necessarily next year, but probably, you know, the … I think this will be a big focus of the 2028 presidential campaign, and in 2029 we’re gonna have a big debate.

Are we gonna solve anything? I have no idea. But in preparation for that debate, I feel like there’s a whole generation that sort of didn’t live through the Clinton health plan, and that didn’t even live through the fight over the Affordable Care Act, and that one of the things that I would like to do as sort of a public service, um, is throw all of the options back on the table for people to see that, you know, that if this was easy, we would’ve solved it a long time ago. 

So I am … One of the things that we’re doing as part of our podcast is a special project called How Would You Fix It? I am sort of calling every smart person I know from across the ideological spectrum and asking them, “Okay, how would you fix it?”

I mean, I’m nearing retirement myself. I feel like I have this obligation to kind of, you know, shepherd the people who wanna learn through another round of this, um, so that we can have an educated debate and decide what we as a society wanna do about healthcare.

Dan: Wow. You think there will be a great big conversation, there will be a great big change. 

Julie Rovner: Uh, I think there will be a great big conversation. I don’t know that I think there will be great big change. I’ve, I’ve, I have covered enough of unsuccessful ones of these. I, I am not predicting its success, I am simply predicting the fight.

Dan: Fair, fair, fair. But, uh, even so, um, having a big public conversation seems better than not. 

Julie Rovner: As a journalist, I would think that. As somebody, and who’s … As somebody who cares about the, the, the sorry state of our healthcare system, I, I think it would be — I think it’s time.

Frankly, one of the reasons I think this is about to happen is that when in the early 2000s, when we were sort of building up to the fight over the Affordable Care Act, you could sort of see it coming because everybody was unhappy, and everybody wanted to sue for peace.

Um, you know, that the, the hospitals were unhappy, the drug companies were unhappy, the doctors were unhappy. You know, the, the employers were unhappy. The labor unions were unhappy. I feel like that is true again, and it’s more true.

And now even the haves, what we call them, the people who have insurance and don’t want, you know, are afraid of change, even the haves are unhappy. Everybody thinks they’re paying too much, which is why I’m predicting we’re gonna have another big public debate about this in the next four or five years.

Dan: I think the prospect of having a big public debate about a big public problem also strikes me as like an optimistic stance for anyone who cares about, you know, living in a democracy where people have a say in, in democracy where people have a say in what happens.  

Julie Rovner: It is, I, I’m sort of clinging to it as a, as a hope

Dan: Mm-hmm. I, uh, I just really appreciate that.

Julie Rovner, thank you so much for joining me. It’s been such a pleasure. Um, till next time, I’ll be listening to “How Did You Fix It?”

Julie Rovner: Thank you, Dan. And see, talking to you makes me feel better.

Dan: All right. That’s what I’m going for. That’s what I’m going for. Let, let’s stay in touch. 

Julie Rovner: We will. 

Dan: All right. Great. Take care. 

Julie Rovner: Thanks, Dan. 

Dan: Bye-bye. 

Dan: Okay, so I asked Julie Rovner how the avalanche of change has her thinking about her job description these days, and I wanna share how I’ve been thinking about mine.

You might have noticed over the last couple of months we’ve taken a break from producing podcast episodes, and here’s why. Basically, in April a few family health issues blossomed all at once. And as I turned my attention there, I realized I had some health issues of my own that needed attention. 

I started making this show eight years ago. I’ve been running it on a shoestring ever since, and that has meant running myself a little ragged sometimes. Honestly, too often and for too long. That’s not good for my health, and it’s not good for An Arm and a Leg, ’cause a ragged version of me does not make the best version of this show.

I needed some time just to break some habits — I called it detox from workaholism — and I needed to attend to my own health.

Like, earlier this year, I’d scheduled a little surgery, and I put it off ’cause I got sick from — you guessed it — running myself so ragged. And of course I was still trying to run so hard, I couldn’t imagine when I might reschedule it. So honestly, it wasn’t until I put myself on break for a minute that I even thought, “Oh yeah, I, I could do that surgery now.”

So surgery happened in early June. I’m all healed up, and I’ve been working with a really excellent therapist, and I’ve been incredibly grateful to my colleagues for their patience and for keeping things running. And together, we are starting to put together some new ways of doing things. It’s gonna be a work in progress.

There are so many things we wanna do. But I can’t be a workaholic anymore. So for our next episode, we’re gonna bring back one more favorite from our archives, give ourselves a running start, and then we’ve got some incredible, important stories and projects we just can’t wait to get back to. For now, thank you so much for sticking with us. It is a privilege to get to do this work, make this show for you, and to work with my incredible colleagues.

I will catch you soon. Till then let’s all take care of ourselves.

This episode of An Arm and a Leg was produced by Emily Pisacreta, with help from our summer intern, Lynn Barbera (welcome, Lynn!) — and edited by Ellen Weiss. 

Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard.

Our music is by Dave Weiner and Blue Dot Sessions. 

Claire Davenport is our engagement producer.

Amanda Boyd is our Operations Manager. Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations. 

An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a national newsroom producing in-depth journalism about health issues in America and a core program at KFF, an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Zach Dyer is senior audio producer at KFF Health News. He’s editorial liaison to this show.

An Arm and a Leg is distributed by KUOW, Seattle’s NPR news station.

And thanks to the Institute for Nonprofit News for serving as our fiscal sponsor.

They allow us to accept tax-exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at INN.org.

Finally, thank you to everybody who supports this show financially.

You can join in any time at arm and a leg show, dot com, slash: support.

An Arm and a Leg is a co-production of KFF Health News and Public Road Productions.

For more from the team at An Arm and a Leg, subscribe to its weekly newsletter, First Aid Kit. You can also follow the show on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Bluesky. And if you’ve got stories to tell about the healthcare system, the producers would love to hear from you.

To hear all KFF Health News podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to An Arm and a Leg on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

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

Vanessa Barahona received a call this past spring from Angelica at Kern Family Health Care in Bakersfield, California, telling her it was time to renew her coverage under Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid.

Angelica helped Barahona, 41, schedule an appointment to complete her paperwork in person at Kern Family’s offices before she submitted it to Kern County officials for approval. When Barahona had a conflict with her office-cleaning job, Angelica rescheduled the appointment. Barahona finished the process a little later than she’d planned but early enough to avoid an interruption in her coverage.

“It was easy. The fact that Angelica spoke Spanish when we were on the phone made it better,” Barahona, whom KFF Health News met through Kern Family Health Care, said via a translator. “It felt like I was talking to a real person.”

She definitely wasn’t.

“Angelica” is the name assigned to an AI program deployed last year by Kern Family Health Care, the largest provider of Medi-Cal services in Kern County. An estimated 52% of residents there rely on the safety net program for health coverage, among the highest enrollment rates in the state.

Kern Family has spent about $370,000 on the software from Careforce, a San Francisco startup, to facilitate rapid and repeated outreach to members when it’s time to renew their coverage — a process that is about to become more complex under new Medicaid eligibility rules established under Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law last year by President Donald Trump. Mandatory work requirement documentation will take effect nationally beginning in 2027, and under the GOP’s new rules, most Medicaid patients will now have to renew their enrollment twice a year, rather than once a year.

Kern Family and other similar health plans have an interest in keeping people enrolled, since they’re paid through managed care contracts with Medi-Cal. They can also save money by using AI software to do what Kern says would otherwise require it to hire 40 full-time workers. Angelica does it at a fraction of the cost and without increasing payroll — or requiring Kern Family to navigate workers’ rights issues or government-mandated workplace protections.

Although Kern Family officials say no workers have lost jobs, the health plan, which is not unionized, estimated it would have had to spend $2.4 million in staffing costs to match the program’s more than 800,000 calls to its 387,000 members since Kern Family began using Angelica late last year.

As the federal government ended pandemic-era protections and states resumed screening people for Medicaid eligibility, health plans such as Kern Family began looking to technology to keep eligible people enrolled. Kern Family officials say that Angelica helps people, in their preferred language, set up appointments with the plan’s staffers, who make sure that applications are filled out correctly and delivered to county health officials for verification and processing.

Careforce CEO Huzaifa Sial said Kern Family is one of a few health insurers using his company’s software to help boost its Medi-Cal enrollment, and the company is also working with the Central California Alliance for Health in much the same way. “Most people don’t know what they need, and if they do, they have a hard time getting there,” Sial said. “That’s the hidden execution problem that nobody sees.”

“Angelica” is the name assigned to a conversational AI program deployed last year by California’s Kern Family Health Care, the largest provider of Medi-Cal services in Kern County. Kern Family has spent about $370,000 on the software by Careforce, a San Francisco startup, to facilitate rapid and repeated outreach to members when it’s time to renew their coverage. (Screengrab of Careforce.ai)

The rise of AI in the healthcare industry has prompted worries about who’s overseeing these tools and whether people are being improperly denied treatments or cut off from care. Unions have raised concerns about workplace surveillance and the prioritizing of savings over safety. Polling shows widespread fear over AI-driven job losses and growing income inequality, while health policy researchers have also raised red flags about algorithmic biases, transparency, data privacy, and safety risks.

Mark Duggan, a Stanford University economics professor who has studied the Medicaid system for 30 years, said one long-standing fear is that insurers could use such software to cherry-pick patients for coverage.

“When you have a new technology like this, you need to police it,” Duggan said.

Complying With Regulations

California health plan regulators say they are tracking AI use closely, and the state attorney general’s office has sent reminders to healthcare entities about their obligation to follow consumer protection rules.

Anthony Cava, a spokesperson for the state’s Department of Health Care Services, said Medi-Cal health plans have flexibility in how they handle member renewals, including with the use of AI tools. But plans are responsible for ensuring that technology complies with state and federal regulations, including patient privacy and data security, he said.

Last year, the agency, foreseeing the huge volume of reenrollments that were going to be required in the state, began allowing managed care plans to contact members about renewals. State rules still prohibit Medi-Cal health plans from soliciting new enrollees, and only county health officials determine eligibility.

Emily Duran, CEO of Kern Health Services (which administers Kern Family), said that the plan worked closely with the Kern County Department of Human Services to obtain some data, allowing Kern Family to know when a member’s Medi-Cal eligibility will expire.

The health plan, in turn, lets the county know anytime it receives updated demographic or contact information for its Medi-Cal members. And the county has stationed workers inside Kern Family Health Care’s main facility in Bakersfield to answer enrollment questions for people who walk in to finish their paperwork.

“They have a leadership group that is very innovative and forward-thinking,” Vanessa Frando, the chief deputy director of Kern County Human Services, said of Kern Family. The agency also works closely with other Medi-Cal providers in the county, Frando said.

Duran said the health plan was initially concerned about how Angelica would be received.

“We had to set the tone to really be open to the idea, because you hear ‘AI’ and you’re like, ‘Oh, yeah, Jeff Bezos laid off 100,000 people because of that,’” Duran said. “But we are already stretched thin. We need this functionality to be much more effective and augment our efforts.”

Duran said Kern Family’s leadership and staff bought in after seeing a demonstration.

Today, it would take 40 Kern Family employees, each working 40 hours a week, to match Angelica’s calls to remind people to reenroll and talk them through what is involved, according to Jackie Byrd, a spokesperson for the health plan. The AI program’s settings are constantly adjusted to match the capacity of Kern Family’s full-time staff.

Full Conversations With AI

Barahona said she received a Medi-Cal packet in the mail but didn’t think about it until Angelica called days later. That exchange highlights one of local and state health officials’ biggest concerns — that people who’ve grown accustomed to automatic renewals aren’t aware of the reenrollment requirements.

Angelica speaks more than 30 languages and can answer lengthy questions. In samples of actual conversations provided to a reporter, Angelica sounded lifelike at first, although more than once cross-talk with a patient caused the program to pause suddenly. Barahona said it took her a minute before she realized she wasn’t speaking with a human, but she ended up having a full conversation with Angelica.

Duran said Kern Family was able to redirect full-time staff to focus on the more complex parts of the Medi-Cal process, such as making sure the patients’ information is complete and up to date. The Angelica software also operates at all hours, making it easier for patients to call back at their convenience. Another version, David, is used internally to help staffers navigate the technology.

“This will always be, in my opinion, an AI-human combination,” said Careforce’s Sial. Working with AI solutions for more than a decade at UnitedHealthcare and Optum, Sial said, he saw an opportunity to improve the enrollment process by helping people organize their paperwork.

Kern Family’s Medi-Cal renewal rate in April was 94.9%, delighting the plan’s officials, who feared a significant drop-off from patients who’d gotten used to being automatically renewed over the past several years. By comparison, Duran said that about 80% of enrollments had automatically renewed under federal pandemic-era rules, but that figure was cut in half as those protections began to expire.

Kern Family officials say there could be other uses for Careforce’s software in the future; Angelica, like other generative-AI large language models, can learn and adapt to new situations and requests.

Cesar Delgado, Kern Family’s chief information officer, said Angelica is already being used to make general greeting calls to new members and can discuss plan benefits and answer basic questions. But Kern Family officials say the program’s primary purpose, for now, is limited to contacting patients whose Medi-Cal eligibility is coming up for review.

Duggan, the Stanford professor, said Angelica could help Kern Family minimize the number of Medi-Cal enrollees who lose coverage as federal requirements take effect.

“The best-case scenario is helping people to stay on when they don’t realize that things are changing,” Duggan said. “It’s not an easy program to navigate.”

This article was produced in collaboration with Capital & Main, an independent, California-based nonprofit investigative news publication that reports on inequality, climate change and other issues.

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.

Vanessa Barahona received a call this past spring from Angelica at Kern Family Health Care in Bakersfield, California, telling her it was time to renew her coverage under Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid.

Angelica helped Barahona, 41, schedule an appointment to complete her paperwork in person at Kern Family’s offices before she submitted it to Kern County officials for approval. When Barahona had a conflict with her office-cleaning job, Angelica rescheduled the appointment. Barahona finished the process a little later than she’d planned but early enough to avoid an interruption in her coverage.

“It was easy. The fact that Angelica spoke Spanish when we were on the phone made it better,” Barahona, whom KFF Health News met through Kern Family Health Care, said via a translator. “It felt like I was talking to a real person.”

She definitely wasn’t.

“Angelica” is the name assigned to an AI program deployed last year by Kern Family Health Care, the largest provider of Medi-Cal services in Kern County. An estimated 52% of residents there rely on the safety net program for health coverage, among the highest enrollment rates in the state.

Kern Family has spent about $370,000 on the software from Careforce, a San Francisco startup, to facilitate rapid and repeated outreach to members when it’s time to renew their coverage — a process that is about to become more complex under new Medicaid eligibility rules established under Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law last year by President Donald Trump. Mandatory work requirement documentation will take effect nationally beginning in 2027, and under the GOP’s new rules, most Medicaid patients will now have to renew their enrollment twice a year, rather than once a year.

Kern Family and other similar health plans have an interest in keeping people enrolled, since they’re paid through managed care contracts with Medi-Cal. They can also save money by using AI software to do what Kern says would otherwise require it to hire 40 full-time workers. Angelica does it at a fraction of the cost and without increasing payroll — or requiring Kern Family to navigate workers’ rights issues or government-mandated workplace protections.

Although Kern Family officials say no workers have lost jobs, the health plan, which is not unionized, estimated it would have had to spend $2.4 million in staffing costs to match the program’s more than 800,000 calls to its 387,000 members since Kern Family began using Angelica late last year.

As the federal government ended pandemic-era protections and states resumed screening people for Medicaid eligibility, health plans such as Kern Family began looking to technology to keep eligible people enrolled. Kern Family officials say that Angelica helps people, in their preferred language, set up appointments with the plan’s staffers, who make sure that applications are filled out correctly and delivered to county health officials for verification and processing.

Careforce CEO Huzaifa Sial said Kern Family is one of a few health insurers using his company’s software to help boost its Medi-Cal enrollment, and the company is also working with the Central California Alliance for Health in much the same way. “Most people don’t know what they need, and if they do, they have a hard time getting there,” Sial said. “That’s the hidden execution problem that nobody sees.”

“Angelica” is the name assigned to a conversational AI program deployed last year by California’s Kern Family Health Care, the largest provider of Medi-Cal services in Kern County. Kern Family has spent about $370,000 on the software by Careforce, a San Francisco startup, to facilitate rapid and repeated outreach to members when it’s time to renew their coverage. (Screengrab of Careforce.ai)

The rise of AI in the healthcare industry has prompted worries about who’s overseeing these tools and whether people are being improperly denied treatments or cut off from care. Unions have raised concerns about workplace surveillance and the prioritizing of savings over safety. Polling shows widespread fear over AI-driven job losses and growing income inequality, while health policy researchers have also raised red flags about algorithmic biases, transparency, data privacy, and safety risks.

Mark Duggan, a Stanford University economics professor who has studied the Medicaid system for 30 years, said one long-standing fear is that insurers could use such software to cherry-pick patients for coverage.

“When you have a new technology like this, you need to police it,” Duggan said.

Complying With Regulations

California health plan regulators say they are tracking AI use closely, and the state attorney general’s office has sent reminders to healthcare entities about their obligation to follow consumer protection rules.

Anthony Cava, a spokesperson for the state’s Department of Managed Health Care, said Medi-Cal health plans have flexibility in how they handle member renewals, including with the use of AI tools. But plans are responsible for ensuring that technology complies with state and federal regulations, including patient privacy and data security, he said.

Last year, the agency, foreseeing the huge volume of reenrollments that were going to be required in the state, began allowing managed care plans to contact members about renewals. State rules still prohibit Medi-Cal health plans from soliciting new enrollees, and only county health officials determine eligibility.

Emily Duran, CEO of Kern Health Services (which administers Kern Family), said that the plan worked closely with the Kern County Department of Human Services to obtain some data, allowing Kern Family to know when a member’s Medi-Cal eligibility will expire.

The health plan, in turn, lets the county know anytime it receives updated demographic or contact information for its Medi-Cal members. And the county has stationed workers inside Kern Family Health Care’s main facility in Bakersfield to answer enrollment questions for people who walk in to finish their paperwork.

“They have a leadership group that is very innovative and forward-thinking,” Vanessa Frando, the chief deputy director of Kern County Human Services, said of Kern Family. The agency also works closely with other Medi-Cal providers in the county, Frando said.

Duran said the health plan was initially concerned about how Angelica would be received.

“We had to set the tone to really be open to the idea, because you hear ‘AI’ and you’re like, ‘Oh, yeah, Jeff Bezos laid off 100,000 people because of that,’” Duran said. “But we are already stretched thin. We need this functionality to be much more effective and augment our efforts.”

Duran said Kern Family’s leadership and staff bought in after seeing a demonstration.

Today, it would take 40 Kern Family employees, each working 40 hours a week, to match Angelica’s calls to remind people to reenroll and talk them through what is involved, according to Jackie Byrd, a spokesperson for the health plan. The AI program’s settings are constantly adjusted to match the capacity of Kern Family’s full-time staff.

Full Conversations With AI

Barahona said she received a Medi-Cal packet in the mail but didn’t think about it until Angelica called days later. That exchange highlights one of local and state health officials’ biggest concerns — that people who’ve grown accustomed to automatic renewals aren’t aware of the reenrollment requirements.

Angelica speaks more than 30 languages and can answer lengthy questions. In samples of actual conversations provided to a reporter, Angelica sounded lifelike at first, although more than once cross-talk with a patient caused the program to pause suddenly. Barahona said it took her a minute before she realized she wasn’t speaking with a human, but she ended up having a full conversation with Angelica.

Duran said Kern Family was able to redirect full-time staff to focus on the more complex parts of the Medi-Cal process, such as making sure the patients’ information is complete and up to date. The Angelica software also operates at all hours, making it easier for patients to call back at their convenience. Another version, David, is used internally to help staffers navigate the technology.

“This will always be, in my opinion, an AI-human combination,” said Careforce’s Sial. Working with AI solutions for more than a decade at UnitedHealthcare and Optum, Sial said, he saw an opportunity to improve the enrollment process by helping people organize their paperwork.

Kern Family’s Medi-Cal renewal rate in April was 94.9%, delighting the plan’s officials, who feared a significant drop-off from patients who’d gotten used to being automatically renewed over the past several years. By comparison, Duran said that about 80% of enrollments had automatically renewed under federal pandemic-era rules, but that figure was cut in half as those protections began to expire.

Kern Family officials say there could be other uses for Careforce’s software in the future; Angelica, like other generative-AI large language models, can learn and adapt to new situations and requests.

Cesar Delgado, Kern Family’s chief information officer, said Angelica is already being used to make general greeting calls to new members and can discuss plan benefits and answer basic questions. But Kern Family officials say the program’s primary purpose, for now, is limited to contacting patients whose Medi-Cal eligibility is coming up for review.

Duggan, the Stanford professor, said Angelica could help Kern Family minimize the number of Medi-Cal enrollees who lose coverage as federal requirements take effect.

“The best-case scenario is helping people to stay on when they don’t realize that things are changing,” Duggan said. “It’s not an easy program to navigate.”

This article was produced in collaboration with Capital & Main, an independent, California-based nonprofit investigative news publication that reports on inequality, climate change and other issues.

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.