Céline Gounder, KFF Health News’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed the FDA’s phasing out of fluoride drops and tablets for children on CBS’ “CBS Mornings” on May 15.

• Click here to watch Gounder on “CBS Mornings.”

KFF Health News Southern correspondent Sam Whitehead discussed what Medicaid cuts could mean for Georgia on The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s “Politically Georgia” on May 14. Whitehead then discussed Georgia health bills on WUGA’s “The Georgia Health Report” on May 9. He also joined WNHN FM 94.7’s “The Attitude With Arnie Arnesen” to discuss Medicaid and work requirements on May 8.

• Click here to hear Whitehead on “Politically Georgia.”
• Read Whitehead and Renuka Rayasam’s “Government Watchdog Expects Medicaid Work Requirement Analysis by Fall.”
• Click here to hear Whitehead on “The Georgia Health Report.”
• Click here to hear Whitehead on “The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen.”
• Read Rayasam and Whitehead’s “Work Requirements Might Cut Medicaid Spending. But at What Cost?”

KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner discussed drug prices on CBS News 24/7 on May 12.

• Click here to hear Rovner on CBS News 24/7.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Uncertainty around federal efforts to expand high-speed internet — and with it telehealth access — to all Americans swirled fast this week after President Donald Trump vowed to end what he called the “racist” and “unconstitutional” Digital Equity Act. 

The act is part of the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, which passed under former President Joe Biden and included $65 billion for broadband infrastructure. But before Trump’s latest sniping on his Truth Social site, his administration had already thrown another of the infrastructure bill’s broadband programs into question. 

Ten days ago, Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia sent a letter to Trump’s Commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, admonishing him to speed up his department’s review of the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program. 

That program had been set to disburse money to states this spring to start connecting homes and businesses, and West Virginia would’ve been among the first recipients. 

“West Virginians have waited long enough,” Moore Capito wrote. Moore Capito noted her state was six weeks away from completing preparations to put the federal money to work. 

More than 200 mostly rural counties across the U.S. are in dire need of health care providers and reliable high-speed internet, according to a KFF Health News analysis. A quarter of West Virginia’s counties lack these services, making doctor visits either in person or through telehealth difficult or impossible. 

The analysis also showed that people who live in these counties tend to be sicker and die earlier than most other Americans. 

In Lincoln County, West Virginia, where the Mud River bends through hollows and past cattle farms, stroke survivor Ada Carol Adkins has what she calls “wacky” phone and internet service. It goes out frequently for days at a time. 

Adkins has one message for her telecommunications carrier and lawmakers: “Please come and hook me right.” 

She’s not the only West Virginian speaking out about bad connectivity. After receiving a briefing on the potential benefits of fiber and satellite connections, the West Virginia Broadband Enhancement Council last week adopted a resolution reaffirming its commitment to deploy high-speed fiber-optic lines. 

In Grant County, commissioners sent a letter to Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey expressing “strong support” for the deployment of fiber lines because of the region’s geographic and economic needs. Fiber, they wrote, is more sustainable and affordable than satellite, such as Elon Musk’s Starlink kits. 

“If the residents of Grant County wanted Starlink they could purchase it at any time,” the commissioners wrote.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

On the last day of patient care at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Marquette, Michigan, a port town on the shore of Lake Superior, dozens of people crowded into the parking lot and alley, holding pink homemade signs that read “Thank You!” and “Forever Grateful.”

“Oh my god,” physician assistant Anna Rink gasped, as she and three other Planned Parenthood employees finally walked outside. The crowd whooped and cheered. Then Rink addressed the gathering.

“Thank you for trusting us with your care,” Rink called out, her voice quavering. “And I’m not stopping here. I’m only going to make it better. I promise. I’m going to find a way.”

“We’re not done!” someone called out. “We’re not giving up!”

But Planned Parenthood of Michigan is giving up on four of its health centers in the state, citing financial challenges. That includes Marquette, the only clinic that provided abortion in the vast, sparsely populated Upper Peninsula. For the roughly 1,100 patients who visit the clinic each year for anything from cancer screenings to contraceptive implants, the next-closest Planned Parenthood will now be a nearly five-hour drive south.

It’s part of a growing trend: At least 17 clinics closed last year in states where abortion remains legal, and another 17 have closed in just the first five months of this year, according to data gathered by ineedana.com. That includes states that have become abortion destinations, like Illinois, and those where voters have enshrined broad reproductive rights into the state constitution, like Michigan.

Experts say the closures indicate that financial and operational challenges, rather than future legal bans, may be the biggest threats to abortion access in states whose laws still protect it.

“These states that we have touted as being really the best kind of versions of our vision for reproductive justice, they too struggle with problems,” said Erin Grant, a co-executive director of the Abortion Care Network, a national membership organization for independent clinics.

“It’s gotten more expensive to provide care, it’s gotten more dangerous to provide care, and it’s just gotten, frankly, harder to provide care, when you’re expected to be in the clinic and then on the statehouse steps, and also speaking to your representatives and trying to find somebody who will fix your roof or paint your walls who’s not going to insert their opinion about health care rights.”

But some abortion rights supporters question whether leaders are prioritizing patient care for the most vulnerable populations. Planned Parenthood of Michigan isn’t cutting executive pay, even as it reduces staff by 10% and shuts down brick-and-mortar clinics in areas already facing health care shortages.

“I wish I had been in the room so I could have fought for us, and I could have fought for our community,” said Viktoria Koskenoja, an emergency medicine physician in the Upper Peninsula, who previously worked for Planned Parenthood in Marquette. “I just have to hope that they did the math of trying to hurt as few people as possible, and that’s how they made their decision. And we just weren’t part of the group that was going to be saved.”

Why Now?

If a clinic could survive the fall of Roe v. Wade, “you would think that resilience could carry you forward,” said Brittany Fonteno, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation.

But clinic operators say they face new financial strain, including rising costs, limited reimbursement rates, and growing demand for telehealth services. They’re also bracing for the Trump administration to again exclude them from Title X, the federal funding for low- and no-cost family planning services, as the previous Trump administration did in 2019.

PPMI says the cuts are painful but necessary for the organization’s long-term sustainability. The clinics being closed are “our smallest health centers,” said Sarah Wallett, PPMI’s chief medical operating officer. And while the thousands of patients those clinics served each year are important, she said, the clinics’ small size made them “the most difficult to operate.” The clinics being closed offered medication abortion, which is available in Michigan up until 11 weeks of pregnancy, but not procedural abortion.

Planned Parenthood of Illinois (a state that’s become a post-Roe v. Wade abortion destination) shuttered four clinics in March, pointing to a “financial shortfall.” Planned Parenthood of Greater New York is now selling its only Manhattan clinic, after closing four clinics last summer due to “compounding financial and political challenges.” And Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, where courts have blocked a near-total abortion ban and abortion is currently legal until 18 weeks of pregnancy, announced it closed two centers as of May 2.

Earlier this spring, the Trump administration began temporarily freezing funds to many clinics, including all Title X providers in California, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Utah, according to a KFF analysis.

While the current Title X freeze doesn’t yet include Planned Parenthood of Michigan, PPMI’s chief advocacy officer, Ashlea Phenicie, said it would amount to a loss of about $5.4 million annually, or 16% of its budget.

But Planned Parenthood of Michigan didn’t close clinics the last time the Trump administration froze its Title X funding. Its leader said that’s because the funding was stopped for only about two years, from 2019 until 2021, when the Biden administration restored it. “Now we’re faced with a longer period of time that we will be forced out of Title X, as opposed to the first administration,” said PPMI president and CEO Paula Thornton Greear.

And at the same time, the rise of telehealth abortion has put “new pressures in the older-school brick-and-mortar facilities,” said Caitlin Myers, a Middlebury College economics professor who maps brick-and-mortar clinics across the U.S. that provide abortion.

Until a few years ago, doctors could prescribe abortion pills only in person. Those restrictions were lifted during the covid-19 pandemic, but it was the Dobbs decision in 2022 that really “accelerated expansions in telehealth,” Myers said, “because it drew all this attention to models of providing abortion services.”

Suddenly, new online providers entered the field, advertising virtual consultations and pills shipped directly to your home. And plenty of patients who still have access to a brick-and-mortar clinic prefer that option. “Put more simply, it’s gotta change their business model,” she said.

Balancing Cost and Care

Historically, about 28% of PPMI’s patients receive Medicaid benefits, according to Phenicie. And, like many states, Michigan’s Medicaid program doesn’t cover abortion, leaving those patients to either pay out-of-pocket or rely on help from abortion funds, several of which have also been struggling financially.

“When patients can’t afford care, that means that they might not be showing up to clinics,” said Fonteno of the National Abortion Federation, which had to cut its monthly budget nearly in half last year, from covering up to 50% of an eligible patient’s costs to 30%. “So seeing a sort of decline in patient volume, and then associated revenue, is definitely something that we’ve seen.”

Meanwhile, more clinics and abortion funds say patients have delayed care because of those rising costs. According to a small November-December 2024 survey of providers and funds conducted by ineedana.com, “85% of clinics reported seeing an increase of clients delaying care due to lack of funding.” One abortion fund said the number of patients who had to delay care until their second trimester had “grown by over 60%.”

Even when non-abortion services like birth control and cervical cancer screenings are covered by insurance, clinics aren’t always reimbursed for the full cost, Thornton Greear said.

“The reality is that insurance reimbursement rates across the board are low,” she said. “It’s been that way for a while. When you start looking at the costs to run a health care organization, from supply costs, etc., when you layer on these funding impacts, it creates a chasm that’s impossible to fill.”

Yet, unlike some independent clinics that have had to close, Planned Parenthood’s national federation brings in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, the majority of which is spent on policy and legal efforts rather than state-level medical services. The organization and some of its state affiliates have also battled allegations of mismanagement, as well as complaints about staffing and patient care problems. Planned Parenthood of Michigan staffers in five clinics unionized last year, with some citing management problems and workplace and patient care conditions.

Asked whether Planned Parenthood’s national funding structure needs to change, PPMI CEO Thornton Greear said: “I think that it needs to be looked at, and what they’re able to do. And I know that that is actively happening.”

The Gaps That Telehealth Can’t Fill

When the Marquette clinic’s closure was announced, dozens of patients voiced their concerns in Google reviews, with several saying the clinic had “saved my life,” and describing how they’d been helped after an assault, or been able to get low-cost care when they couldn’t afford other options.

Planned Parenthood of Michigan responded to most comments with the same statement and pointed patients to telehealth in the clinic’s absence:

“Please know that closing health centers wasn’t a choice that was made lightly, but one forced upon us by the escalating attacks against sexual and reproductive health providers like Planned Parenthood. We are doing everything we can to protect as much access to care as possible. We know you’re sad and angry — we are, too.

“We know that telehealth cannot bridge every gap; however, the majority of the services PPMI provides will remain available via the Virtual Health Center and PP Direct, including medication abortion, birth control, HIV services, UTI treatment, emergency contraception, gender-affirming care, and yeast infection treatment. Learn more at ppmi.org/telehealth.”

PPMI’s virtual health center is already its most popular clinic, according to the organization, serving more than 10,000 patients a year. And PPMI plans to expand virtual appointments by 40%, including weekend and evening hours.

“For some rural communities, having access to telehealth has made significant changes in their health,” said Wallett, PPMI’s chief medical operating officer. “In telehealth, I can have an appointment in my car during lunch. I don’t have to take extra time off. I don’t have to drive there. I don’t have to find child care.”

Yet even as the number of clinics has dropped nationally, about 80% of clinician-provided abortions are still done by brick-and-mortar clinics, according to the most recent #WeCount report, which looked at 2024 data from April to June.

And Hannah Harriman, a Marquette County Health Department nurse who previously spent 12 years working for Planned Parenthood of Marquette, is skeptical of any suggestion that telehealth can replace a rural brick-and-mortar clinic. “I say that those people have never spent any time in the U.P.,” she said, referring to the Upper Peninsula.

Some areas are “dark zones” for cell coverage, she said. And some residents “have to drive to McDonald’s to use their Wi-Fi. There are places here that don’t even have internet coverage. I mean, you can’t get it.”

Telehealth has its advantages, said Koskenoja, the emergency medicine physician who previously worked for Planned Parenthood in Marquette, “but for a lot of health problems, it’s just not a safe or realistic way to take care of people.”

She recently had a patient in the emergency room who was having a complication from a gynecological surgery. “She needed to see a gynecologist, and I called the local OB office,” Koskenoja said. “They told me they have 30 or 40 new referrals a month,” and simply don’t have enough clinicians to see all those patients. “So adding in the burden of all the patients that were being seen at Planned Parenthood is going to be impossible.”

Koskenoja, Harriman, and other local health care providers have been strategizing privately to figure out what to do next to help people access everything from Pap smears to IUDs. The local health department can provide Title X family planning services 1½ days a week, but that won’t be enough, Harriman said. And there are a few private “providers in town that offer medication abortion to their patients only — very, very quietly,” she said. But that won’t help patients who don’t have good insurance or are stuck on waitlists.

“It’s going to be a patchwork of trying to fill in those gaps,” Koskenoja said. “But we lost a very functional system for delivering this care to patients. And now, we’re just having to make it up as we go.”

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

NEW YORK — On a recent visit to Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan, some floors in the mammoth office building bustled with people seeking services or facing legal proceedings at federal agencies such as the Social Security Administration and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In the lobby, dozens of people took photos to celebrate becoming U.S. citizens. At the Department of Homeland Security, a man was led off the elevator in handcuffs.

But the area housing the regional office of the Department of Health and Human Services was eerily quiet.

In March, HHS announced it would close five of its 10 regional offices as part of a broad restructuring to consolidate the department’s work and reduce the number of staff by 20,000, to 62,000. The HHS Region 2 office in New York City, which has served New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, was among those getting the ax.

Public health experts and advocates say that HHS regional offices, like the one in New York City, form the connective tissue between the federal government and many locally based services. Whether ensuring local social service programs like Head Start get their federal grants, investigating Medicare claims complaints, or facilitating hospital and health system provider enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid programs, regional offices provide a key federal access point for people and organizations. Consolidating regional offices could have serious consequences for the nation’s public health system, they warn.

“All public health is local,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. “When you have relative proximity to the folks you’re liaising to, they have a sense of the needs of those communities, and they have a sense of the political issues that are going on in these communities.”

The other offices slated to close are in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle. Together, the five serve 22 states and a handful of U.S. territories. Services for the shuttered regional offices will be divvied up among the remaining regional offices in Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, and Philadelphia.

The elimination of regional HHS offices has already had an outsize impact on Head Start, a long-standing federal program that provides free child care and supportive services to children from many of the nation’s poorest families. It is among the examples cited in the lawsuit against the federal government challenging the HHS restructuring brought by New York, 18 other states, and the District of Columbia, which notes that, as a result, “many programs are at imminent risk of being forced to pause or cease operations.”

The HHS site included a regional Head Start office that was closed and laid off staff last month. The Trump administration had sought to wipe out funding for Head Start, according to a draft budget document that outlines dramatic cuts at HHS, which Congress would need to approve. Recent news reports indicate the administration may be stepping back from this plan; however, other childhood and early-development programs could still be on the chopping block.

Bonnie Eggenburg, president of the New Jersey Head Start Association, said her organization has long relied on the HHS regional office to be “our boots on the ground for the federal government.” During challenging times, such as the covid-19 pandemic or Hurricanes Sandy and Maria, the regional office helped Head Start programs design services to meet the needs of children and families. “They work with us to make sure we have all the support we can get,” she said.

In recent weeks, payroll and other operational payments have been delayed, and employees have been asked to justify why they need the money as part of a new “Defend the Spend” initiative instituted by the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, created by President Donald Trump through an executive order.

“Right now, most programs don’t have anyone to talk to and are unsure as to whether or not that notice of award is coming through as expected,” Eggenburg said.

HHS regional office employees who worked on Head Start helped providers fix technical issues, address budget questions, and discuss local issues, like the city’s growing population of migrant children, said Susan Stamler, executive director of United Neighborhood Houses. Based in New York City, the organization represents dozens of neighborhood settlement houses — community groups that provide services to local families such as language classes, housing assistance, and early-childhood support, including some Head Start programs.

“Today, the real problem is people weren’t given a human contact,” she said of the regional office closure. “They were given a website.”

To Stamler, closing the regional Head Start hub without a clear transition plan “demonstrates a lack of respect for the people who are running these programs and services,” while leaving families uncertain about their child care and other services.

“It’s astonishing to think that the federal government might be reexamining this investment that pays off so deeply with families and in their communities,” she said.

Without regional offices, HHS will be less informed about which health initiatives are needed locally, said Zach Hennessey, chief strategy officer of Public Health Solutions, a nonprofit provider of health services in New York City.

“Where it really matters is within HHS itself,” he said. “Those are the folks that are now blind — but their decisions will ultimately affect us.”

Dara Kass, an emergency physician who was the HHS Region 2 director under the Biden administration, described the job as being an ambassador.

“The office is really about ensuring that the community members and constituents had access to everything that was available to them from HHS,” Kass said.

At HHS Region 2, division offices for the Administration for Community Living, the FDA’s Office of Inspections and Investigations, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration have already closed or are slated to close, along with several other division offices.

HHS did not provide an on-the-record response to a request for comment but has maintained that shuttering regional offices will not hurt services.

Under the reorganization, many HHS agencies are either being eliminated or folded into other agencies, including the recently created Administration for a Healthy America, under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,” Kennedy said in a press release announcing the reorganization.

Regional office staffers were laid off at the beginning of April. Now there appears to be a skeleton crew shutting down the offices. On a recent day, an Administration for Children and Families worker who answered a visitor’s buzz at the entrance estimated that only about 15 people remained. When asked what’s next, the employee shrugged.

The Trump administration’s downsizing effort will also eliminate six of 10 regional outposts of the HHS Office of the General Counsel, a squad of lawyers supporting the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other agencies in beneficiary coverage disputes and issues related to provider enrollment and participation in federal programs.

Unlike private health insurance companies, Medicare is a federal health program governed by statutes and regulations, said Andrew Tsui, a partner at Arnall Golden Gregory who has co-written about the regional office closings.

“When you have the largest federal health insurance program on the planet, to the extent there could be ambiguity or appeals or grievances,” Tsui said, “resolving them necessarily requires the expertise of federal lawyers, trained in federal law.”

Overall, the loss of the regional HHS offices is just one more blow to public health efforts at the state and local levels.

State health officials are confronting the “total disorganization of the federal transition” and cuts to key federal partners like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CMS, and the FDA, said James McDonald, the New York state health commissioner.

“What I’m seeing is, right now, it’s not clear who our people ought to contact, what information we’re supposed to get,” he said. “We’re just not seeing the same partnership that we so relied on in the past.”

Healthbeat is a nonprofit newsroom covering public health published by Civic News Company and KFF Health News. Sign up for its newsletters here.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

OAKLAND, Calif. — With a Starbucks coffee cup in her hand and a half gallon of milk under her arm, Florence Owens let herself into Carol Crooks’ apartment on a Monday morning, announced herself with a cheery “hello,” walked through the book-filled living room, and got to work in the kitchen.

“I see you went popcorn-crazy this weekend,” Owens teased as she brushed kernels off the counter into a garbage can. Crooks, who relies on a walker or wheelchair, can steady herself against the counter while waiting for corn to pop. But back, knee, and foot problems have left the 77-year-old silver-haired retired teacher incapable of most food preparation and cleanup.

Like nearly 800,000 other Californians, Crooks depends on aides from In-Home Supportive Services, a program funded through Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid. Owens has worked as Crooks’ aide for almost three years. In addition to cooking and cleaning, she helps her shower, shops for groceries, drives her to medical appointments, and runs other errands.

For more than 50 years, low-income seniors and disabled people have been able to stay in their California homes — and out of more costly nursing facilities — with help from government-paid aides. But in their latest bid to renew President Donald Trump’s tax cuts, House Republicans released a plan on May 11 that would axe about $625 billion over 10 years from Medicaid, and could threaten funding for Owens and other In-Home Supportive Services workers.

While a major structural overhaul of Medicaid appears increasingly unlikely, Republicans continue to wrestle with how to cut the budget. Several proposals would disproportionately target California, according to Larry Levitt, KFF’s executive vice president for health policy. Federal cuts, coupled with the state’s existing budget woes, could inflict a “double whammy for California and trigger reductions in Medi-Cal and other state programs,” he said. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Although federal law compels states to offer certain services, such as nursing home care, they’re under no obligation to cover home-based care for low-income seniors and disabled people like Crooks, leaving the in-home services program particularly vulnerable to cuts, said Amber Christ, managing director of health advocacy for the nonprofit legal group Justice in Aging.

In the wake of the Great Recession, California made a series of funding cuts to in-home support aides. Lawsuits temporarily stopped the bulk of the cuts, but a court settlement led to an 8% reduction in 2013 and an additional 7% cut in 2014.

Further reducing these services would inevitably force more people to move into nursing homes, Christ said. “It would be an enormous setback from the progress we have made to provide care in the home and the community to support older adults and their families,” she said. “I think it will cost people’s lives.”

Owens supports herself and her teenage son with what she earns working 136 hours a month for Crooks. She’s confident she can figure out another way to make a living, so she’s less worried about losing her $20-an-hour income than she is about Crooks’ losing her independence.

“I absolutely adore Carol,” said Owens, 36, as she chopped onions for Crooks’ breakfast. “I look at her as a grandma.”

From a makeshift desk where she’d been scrolling through emails, Crooks affectionately eyed Owens and announced, “You’re adopted.”

In his May 14 budget proposal, Gov. Gavin Newsom trimmed funding for In-Home Supportive Services, most notably by putting weekly caps of 50 hours on provider overtime and travel, reinstating an asset limit, and eliminating the service for immigrant adults without legal status who aren’t already enrolled.

The proposed changes are unlikely to affect Crooks, but if congressional Republicans slash Medicaid spending, the Democratic governor warned May 14, California could not afford to backfill all the proposed federal cuts. Almost two-thirds of the $28.3 billion California has budgeted for the in-home support program is supposed to come from endangered federal Medicaid funding. The state legislature must pass a balanced budget by June 15, regardless of the status of federal funding negotiations.

Owens delivered an omelet and a mug of coffee to Crooks. “I know these are politicians,” she said, “but they still have to understand the elders are our roots. And I’m sure they have to have some kind of heart.”

Crooks is less certain, more anxious. “If they start messing with my programs,” she said, “I’m in trouble.”

Burt Conell, 64, is also worried. A paraplegic, he’s been confined to a wheelchair for 30 years, since, despondent after his girlfriend left him, he jumped in front of a train. He relies on in-home aides to help him bathe and clean his San Francisco apartment.

When he heard the government might cut his funding, he imagined being unable to shower, getting rashes and bedsores, and having to move into a nursing home. Again, he contemplated suicide.

“It made me feel like I was using so much resources that I shouldn’t exist,” he said.

At an April meeting of San Francisco’s Disability and Aging Services Commission, Commissioner Sascha Bittner asked about the fate of In-Home Supportive Services, on which she relies. “We don’t know what’s going to happen,” Executive Director Kelly Dearman replied, adding that Medicaid cuts could result in a decrease in the number of hours San Francisco beneficiaries, like Conell and Bittner, who is quadriplegic with a speech disability, receive. “It’ll be dire,” Dearman concluded.

Every day, around 30 people contact California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform seeking advice on how to get in-home help, said Maura Gibney, the nonprofit’s executive director. These days, the group frequently hears from recipients who have achieved a semblance of normalcy in the aftermath of a major setback, such as a stroke, but fear they’ll lose their benefits, she said.

“It’s hard to really give people reassurance at this time because I don’t think any of us know what will happen,” Gibney said.

Lately, when she hears from people looking for in-home help for the first time, Gibney wonders if their efforts will end up being pointless. “It feels a little bit like trying to show somebody how to get into the building as the top floor is on fire,” she said.

Paul Dunaway, who directs Sonoma County’s Adult and Aging Division, described the dearth of information he and his staff have to offer older and disabled people about future services as “anxiety-provoking.”

“There’s a lot of chaos happening and not much to really grab onto yet about the funding on the federal level,” Dunaway said.

Uncertainty and fear about service cuts, coupled with weaning off pain medicine from a back surgery, left Crooks — who retired from teaching after being diagnosed with bipolar disorder — unable to sleep, she said, and she spiraled into her first manic episode in more than a decade.

Owens was sweeping the living room but stopped to listen as Crooks talked about being tired, worried, and feeling out of control. “I told her, ‘Regardless, I’m gonna always be here for you, no matter what,’” Owens said.

Crooks, wearing a T-shirt picturing the Statue of Liberty with her hands covering her face, nodded. “It helped a lot,” she said.

Nonetheless, without an in-home aide, Crooks said, she would have no choice but to move into a nursing home — a fate she cannot bear to consider.

“It wouldn’t be a home,” she said. “It’s where people go to die.”

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

In the dim basement of a Salt Lake City pharmacy, hundreds of amber-colored plastic pill bottles sit stacked in rows, one man’s defensive wall in a tariff war.

Independent pharmacist Benjamin Jolley and his colleagues worry that the tariffs, aimed at bringing drug production to the United States, could instead drive companies out of business while raising prices and creating more of the drug shortages that have plagued American patients for several years.

Jolley bought six months’ worth of the most expensive large bottles, hoping to shield his business from the 10% across-the-board tariffs on imported goods that President Donald Trump announced April 2. Now with threats of additional tariffs targeting pharmaceuticals, Jolley worries that costs will soar for the medications that will fill those bottles.

In principle, Jolley said, using tariffs to push manufacturing from China and India to the U.S. makes sense. In the event of war, China could quickly stop all exports to the United States.

“I understand the rationale for tariffs. I’m not sure that we’re gonna do it the right way,” Jolley said. “And I am definitely sure that it’s going to raise the price that I pay my suppliers.”

Squeezed by insurers and middlemen, independent pharmacists such as Jolley find themselves on the front lines of a tariff storm. Nearly everyone down the line — drugmakers, pharmacies, wholesalers, and middlemen — opposes most tariffs.

Slashing drug imports could trigger widespread shortages, experts said, because of America’s dependence on Chinese- and Indian-made chemical ingredients, which form the critical building blocks of many medicines. Industry officials caution that steep tariffs on raw materials and finished pharmaceuticals could make drugs more expensive.

“Big ships don’t change course overnight,” said Robin Feldman, a UC Law San Francisco professor who writes about prescription drug issues. “Even if companies pledge to bring manufacturing home, it will take time to get them up and running. The key will be to avoid damage to industry and pain to consumers in the process.”

Trump on April 8 said he would soon announce “a major tariff on pharmaceuticals,” which have been largely tariff-free in the U.S. for 30 years.

“When they hear that, they will leave China,” he said. The U.S. imported $213 billion worth of medicines in 2024 — from China but also India, Europe, and other areas.

Trump’s statement sent drugmakers scrambling to figure out whether he was serious, and whether some tariffs would be levied more narrowly, since many parts of the U.S. drug supply chain are fragile, drug shortages are common, and upheaval at the FDA leaves questions about whether its staffing is adequate to inspect factories, where quality problems can lead to supply chain crises.

On May 12, Trump signed an executive order asking drugmakers to bring down the prices Americans pay for prescriptions, to put them in line with prices in other countries.

Meanwhile, pharmacists predict even the 10% tariffs Trump has demanded will hurt: Jolley said a potential increase of up to 30 cents a vial is not a king’s ransom, but it adds up when you’re a small pharmacy that fills 50,000 prescriptions a year.

“The one word that I would say right now to describe tariffs is ‘uncertainty,’” said Scott Pace, a pharmacist and owner of Kavanaugh Pharmacy in Little Rock, Arkansas.

To weather price fluctuations, Pace stocked up on the drugs his pharmacy dispenses most.

“I’ve identified the top 200 generics in my store, and I have basically put 90 days’ worth of those on the shelf just as a starting point,” he said. “Those are the diabetes drugs, the blood pressure medicines, the antibiotics — those things that I know folks will be sicker without.”

Pace said tariffs could be the death knell for the many independent pharmacies that exist on “razor-thin margins” — unless reimbursements rise to keep up with higher costs.

Unlike other retailers, pharmacies can’t pass along such costs to patients. Their payments are set by health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers largely owned by insurance conglomerates, who act as middlemen between drug manufacturers and purchasers.

Neal Smoller, who employs 15 people at his Village Apothecary in Woodstock, New York, is not optimistic.

“It’s not like they’re gonna go back and say, well, here’s your 10% bump because of the 10% tariff,” he said. “Costs are gonna go up and then the sluggish responses from the PBMs — they’re going to lead us to lose more money at a faster rate than we already are.”

Smoller, who said he has built a niche selling vitamins and supplements, fears that FDA firings will mean fewer federal inspections and safety checks.

“I worry that our pharmaceutical industry becomes like our supplement industry, where it’s the wild West,” he said.

Narrowly focused tariffs might work in some cases, said Marta Wosińska, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy. For example, while drug manufacturing plants can cost $1 billion and take three to five years to set up, it would be relatively cheap to build a syringe factory — a business American manufacturers abandoned during the covid-19 pandemic because China was dumping its products here, Wosińska said.

It’s not surprising that giants such as Novartis and Eli Lilly have promised Trump they’ll invest billions in U.S. plants, she said, since much of their final drug product is made here or in Europe, where governments negotiate drug prices. The industry is using Trump’s tariff saber-rattling as leverage; in an April 11 letter, 32 drug companies demanded European governments pay them more or face an exodus to the United States.

Brandon Daniels, CEO of supply chain company Exiger, is bullish on tariffs. He thinks they could help bring some chemical manufacturing back to the U.S., which, when coupled with increased use of automation, would reduce the labor advantages of China and India.

“You’ve got real estate in North Texas that’s cheaper than real estate in Shenzhen,” he said at an economic conference April 25 in Washington, referring to a major Chinese chemical manufacturing center.

But Wosińska said no amount of tariffs will compel makers of generic drugs, responsible for 90% of U.S. prescriptions, to build new factories in the U.S. Payment structures and competition would make it economic suicide, she said.

Several U.S. generics firms have declared bankruptcy or closed U.S. factories over the past decade, said John Murphy, CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, the generics trade group. Reversing that trend won’t be easy and tariffs won’t do it, he said.

“There’s not a magic level of tariffs that magically incentivizes them to come into the U.S.,” he said. “There is no room to make a billion-dollar investment in a domestic facility if you’re going to lose money on every dose you sell in the U.S. market.”

His group has tried to explain these complexities to Trump officials, and hopes word is getting through. “We’re not PhRMA,” Murphy said, referring to the powerful trade group primarily representing makers of brand-name drugs. “I don’t have the resources to go to Mar-a-Lago to talk to the president myself.”

Many of the active ingredients in American drugs are imported. Fresenius Kabi, a German company with facilities in eight U.S. states to produce or distribute sterile injectables — vital hospital drugs for cancer and other conditions — complained in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer that tariffs on these raw materials could paradoxically lead some companies to move finished product manufacturing overseas.

Fresenius Kabi also makes biosimilars, the generic forms of expensive biologic drugs such as Humira and Stelara. The United States is typically the last developed country where biosimilars appear on the market because of patent laws.

Tariffs on biosimilars coming from overseas — where Fresenius makes such drugs — would further incentivize U.S. use of more expensive brand-name biologics, the March 11 letter said. Biosimilars, which can cost a tenth of the original drug’s price, launch on average 3-4 years later in the U.S. than in Canada or Europe.

In addition to getting cheaper knockoff drugs faster, European countries also pay far less than the United States for brand-name products. Paradoxically, Murphy said, those same countries pay more for generics.

European governments tend to establish more stable contracts with makers of generics, while in the United States, “rabid competition” drives down prices to the point at which a manufacturer “maybe scrimps on product quality,” said John Barkett, a White House Domestic Policy Council member in the Biden administration.

As a result, Wosińska said, “without exemptions or other measures put in place, I really worry about tariffs causing drug shortages.”

Smoller, the New York pharmacist, doesn’t see any upside to tariffs.

“How do I solve the problem of caring for my community,” he said, “but not being subject to the emotional roller coaster that is dispensing hundreds of prescriptions a day and watching every single one of them be a loss or 12 cents profit?”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

FDA launches stronger review process to boost transparency and ensure safety of food chemicals, focusing on those of highest consumer concern.

HHS agreement with Vision Upright MRI to resolve a HIPAA violation from an unsecured server containing the medical images of 21,778 individuals.

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.

After all-night markups, two key House committees approved GOP budget legislation that would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from federal health programs over the next decade, mostly from the Medicaid program for people with low incomes or disabilities. The legislation is far from a done deal, though, with at least one Republican senator voicing opposition to Medicaid cuts.

Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before Congress for the first time since taking office. In sometimes surprisingly combative exchanges with lawmakers in the House and Senate, Kennedy denied cutting programs despite evidence to the contrary and said at one point that he doesn’t think Americans “should be taking medical advice from me.”

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

Panelists Julie Appleby KFF Health News @Julie_appleby Read Julie's stories. 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.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• House Republicans this week released — then quickly ushered through committee — major legislation that would make deep cuts to federal spending while funding President Donald Trump’s domestic priorities, including renewing tax cuts and boosting border security. A preliminary estimate by the Congressional Budget Office found the bill would cut at least $715 billion from federal health spending over 10 years — with most of that money coming from the Medicaid program.
• Overall, the House GOP’s proposal would make it harder to enroll, and stay enrolled, in Medicaid and Affordable Care Act coverage. Among other changes, the bill would impose a requirement that nondisabled adults (with some exceptions) work, volunteer, or study at least 80 hours per month to be eligible for coverage. But Democrats and patient advocates point to evidence that, rather than encouraging employment, such a mandate results in more people losing or dropping coverage under burdensome paperwork requirements.
• Republicans also declined to extend the enhanced tax credits introduced during the covid-19 pandemic that help many people afford ACA marketplace coverage. Those tax credits expire at the end of the year, and premiums are expected to balloon, which could prompt many people not to renew their coverage.
• And Kennedy’s appearances on Capitol Hill this week provided Congress the first opportunity to question the health secretary since he assumed his post. He was grilled by Democrats about vaccines, congressionally appropriated funds, agency firings, and much more.

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’ “Elizabeth Holmes’s Partner Has a New Blood-Testing Start-Up,” by Rob Copeland.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: ProPublica’s “He Became the Face of Georgia’s Medicaid Work Requirement. Now He’s Fed Up With It.” by Margaret Coker, The Current.

Julie Appleby: Scientific American’s “How Trump’s National Weather Service Cuts Could Cost Lives,” by Andrea Thompson.  

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “Now Is Not the Time To Eat Bagged Lettuce,” by Nicholas Florko.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Politico’s “‘Rolling Thunder’: Inside Conservatives’ Strategy To Curb Abortion Pill Access,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.
• The New York Times’ “Josh Hawley: Don’t Cut Medicaid,” by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.).
• NPR’s “FDA Moves To Ban Fluoride Supplements for Kids, Removing a Key Tool for Dentists,” by Pien Huang.

click to open the transcript Transcript: GOP Poised To Cut Billions in Health Benefits

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 15, at 9:30 a.m. As always, and particularly this week, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via videoconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And my KFF Health News colleague Julie Appleby. 

Julie Appleby: Hi. 

Rovner: No interview this week because so much news, so we will get straight to it. So, quiet week, huh? Just kidding. The House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees completed all-nighter markups on their portions of President [Donald] Trump’s “one big, beautiful” reconciliation bill. And in fact, Ways and Means is officially calling it the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” in its summary of the measure. 

We will start with Energy and Commerce, which after a 26-hour marathon, one hour short of the record it set in 2017, voted out its part of the bill Wednesday afternoon, including an estimated $715 billion in reductions to health programs, mostly Medicaid, over the next 10 years. Now, the final committee bill does not include the threatened cuts to the 90% match for the Affordable Care Act expansion population, nor does it include the per capita cap for that population. 

Nonetheless, it would represent the biggest cut to Medicaid in the program’s 60-year history. Guys, tell us some of the things that it would do instead to get to that $715 billion amount. 

Kenen: The 715 includes some ACA cuts as well. It’s not 100% Medicaid, but it’s largely Medicaid. The biggest one is the one that we knew was almost inevitable given the current Congress, which is work requirements. It is something the Republicans have wanted a long time. In the prior administration, a few states did pass them. Arkansas got going with them. The courts stopped it. 

The Medicaid statute is pretty clear that it’s about health, not about health for working people. The courts today are different. If I had to guess, I would guess there will be a legal battle and that the courts are likely to uphold work requirements. 

Rovner: We’ll talk more about work requirements in a minute. But what else is in the bill? 

Kenen: There’s lots of extra layers of verification. Supposedly, it’s about fraud. We can get to the Kennedy testimony later, but there were some assertions that did not add up for me. The biggest thing is work requirements, and there’s other things that will make it harder to maintain coverage, that it’s not that tou’re getting kicked off, per se. And there are also some copays. There are some copays for the upper rank. There’s been a lot of information this week. And if I get any details wrong, because we’ve all had to absorb a lot in 48 hours, someone correct me. But my recollection was a $35 copay for certain treatments for the people who are on the higher end of the income. 

Rovner: Right, meaning over 100% of poverty— 

Kenen: Right. 

Rovner: —but still under the level required to qualify for Medicaid. 

Appleby: Right. It would require states actually to impose these cost sharings of up to $35 per service. Although they’re excluding some things like primary care, emergency stuff, that kind of thing, for people in that 100% of poverty to 138% of poverty, and there’s also an upper limit of 5% of the family’s income. But that’s a lot for people in that category. 

Rovner: And we know, there is an enormous body of research that says when you put copays on services, people get fewer of them. And it’s not like people who are just scraping by have a lot of extra money to spend. So we know that one of the ways that they’ll save money is that people won’t get services, presumably needed services. 

Kenen: Although the primary care exemption is important, because primary care, which also usually includes pediatricians, are considered primary care, can deal with a lot of diseases that you don’t always need to see a specialist. I’m not saying it’s a good idea. I’m just saying in terms of an incentive to get basic care, keeping primary care free is an important distinction. 

Rovner: Well, I do want to talk a little bit about that work requirement, which Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Jake Auchincloss called not a work requirement but a paperwork requirement. Once more, for those who haven’t heard us explain this 100 times, it’s not just people who don’t work who lose coverage because of this. I see you nodding, Alice. Please explain this again. 

Ollstein: Yes. So Democrats really hammered over the course of this 26-hour hearing that the only states that have made a foray in this direction so far, Arkansas and Georgia, have seen that these work requirements do not boost employment. They kick people off who should have been eligible because they can’t navigate, like you said, the paperwork. And so it was really striking, over this hearing, where — I watched from 8 a.m. Wednesday to 2 p.m. Wednesday — and during that whole time, every single amendment vote was party-line. Nobody crossed in either direction. So this was really a political exercise in Democrats because they were not able to convince Republicans to change or soften the bill at all. They really focused on branding it, branding it as punishing the poor and threatening their health care. 

And so they were pointing to what happened in Arkansas, what happened in Georgia, where the work requirements really were successful in only that they cut people from the rolls and saved the states money, not successful in helping people find work or helping people get coverage. They also made an effort to brand the copays issue. I heard Democrats calling it a “sick tax.” We’ll see if that phrase sticks around throughout this process. 

Rovner: So kind of in an interesting twist, the work requirements in the bill don’t become mandatory until the year 2029. That suggests to me that those who voted for this don’t really want it to take effect, but they do want to be able to count the savings to pay for other things in the bill. And then, cherry on top of the sundae, if Democrats want to repeal the work requirements later, they would have to find a way to pay for them, because the savings would get built into the budget baseline. Or is that just me being cynical because I’ve only had like five hours of sleep this week? 

Kenen: Well, there are two important dates between now and 2029. One is the 2026 off-year elections, the House elections and some Senate, and then 2028 is the presidential. So there’s several things that have changed politically about Medicaid in recent years, which we can talk to and which I’ve written about quite extensively. One of them is that a lot of people who are Trump’s base are now on Medicaid and particularly that expansion population, and nobody likes having their health care taken away from them, particularly if it’s free or very, very heavily subsidized in the lower ranks of the exchanges. 

So if you’re going to kick your own voters off of their health care, you’re probably more likely to want to do it after they voted for you again. It is not uniquely cynical. We have seen both parties do similar things over the years, either for budgetary game-playing or for political things. It’s quite notable that this goes into effect in 2029. 

Ollstein: It’s just interesting that this is getting criticized from both sides. So Democrats are upset that Republicans want to reap the nominal savings but not have to look like the bad guy. And conservative Republicans are upset that this doesn’t kick in sooner, because they want stricter work requirements even sooner to cut the program even more. So it’s pleasing few. 

Rovner: Well, as Joanne alluded to, it’s not just Medicaid. This bill is also a bit of a stealth assault on the Affordable Care Act, too. Right, Julie? We haven’t talked about it a lot, but this administration seems to be working very hard to make the ACA a lot less effective. And the combination of reductions in Medicaid and changes to the ACA will mean lots more people will be uninsured if this bill becomes law in its current form. Yes? 

Appleby: There are a lot of moving parts to this. So yeah, let’s back up just briefly and look at March, when the Trump administration did propose their first major rule affecting the Affordable Care Act, and it’s called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Marketplace Integrity … it’s a long-name rule. Anyway, it does a bunch of things. For one, it shortens the open enrollment period by about a month. So open enrollment would end on Dec. 15. And notably, this would apply to all states that run their own state-based marketplaces, as well as the federal marketplace. So there’s 16 plus D.C. that do that. So they would all also be tied to this. So that’s one of the things that the rule would do if it’s finalized in its form. 

It would also end a special enrollment period that allows low-income people to essentially enroll anytime during the year. And people who are automatically reenrolled in a zero-premium plan would instead be charged a $5 premium for reenrollment in that same plan until they confirm their eligibility. Now, the Trump administration says that a lot of these rules are in part to try to combat what they say is fraud and waste, and they point to situations where people are being enrolled without their permission or switched to different plans, generally these zero-premium plans, by unscrupulous brokers who are trying to get commissions. 

We’ve written a lot about that over the past year. So they’re saying that, Oh, we need to do this so that people know they’ve been enrolled. The special enrollment period for low-income people they thought was part of that. That’s disputed by a number of places. And some of the states have pushed back on this, too, and said, Hey, we don’t have this problem with fraud, so why would this now apply to us? Why would the special enrollment period, the shortened enrollment period, etc., etc.? 

So those are things in the proposed rule. And the proposed rule acknowledges that it would reduce enrollment by about up to 2 million people in 2026, with coverage losses concentrated in a bunch of states like Alabama, Florida, Georgia, etc. So that’s the proposed rule. And then if you look at the House bill, like, for example, Energy and Commerce, these would codify some of those proposals from that ACA rule. So it would make it harder for a future president to change the rule and that kind of thing. 

So those things that are codified would be — there’d be more hoops to jump through to verify income, for one thing. That special enrollment period based on income would be barred, and the shorter enrollment period would be in it. And if this goes through, these changes are set to go into effect next year. So a lot of insurers and states would have to scramble to try to get this put in place by then. So that’s just a short thing about what some of the ACA effects would be. 

Rovner: So, it feels like there’s kind of a theme here that’s going to make it harder for people to get on and stay on both the ACA and Medicaid. Is that sort of a fair way to describe this? 

Appleby: Yeah, that’s fair. In the House bills, there are also a lot of things that would bar automatic reenrollment, which a lot of people rely on. People just don’t go back in and sign up for their coverage. They’re automatically reenrolled. The bills differ a little bit. The harshest one would require everybody to sort of verify their income before they can reenroll. There would be a lot more of that. So it would essentially bar reenrollment. And we haven’t even talked about the enhanced tax credits, because that’s also sort of fitting here. 

Rovner: Which was my, yes, my next question. So there’s been a lot of fighting this week about how many people would lose coverage as a result of this bill, and a lot of it is sort of philosophical fighting. We don’t have final CBO [Congressional Budget Office] numbers yet. We may not have them for another week, I am told. But what we do know is one of the things this bill could do but doesn’t do is re-up those additional subsidies that were installed during the Biden administration, during covid, that basically effectively doubled the number of people who enrolled under the marketplaces, right? 

Appleby: It certainly added a lot. Most people who get a subsidy are benefiting from the enhanced subsidies. And remember, these sort of expanded at the lower end and it cut off that cliff at 400% of the poverty level that used to exist where you wouldn’t get a subsidy if you made more than that. So it smoothed all that out. So a lot of people are getting these extra subsidies. 

And a lot of the data I’ve seen have said — I’m looking at an Oliver Wyman report earlier — something like, if these enhanced subsidies are allowed to expire at the end of this year, which they’re poised to do unless Congress acts, that, on average, premiums would go up by about 90%. That will be enough to cause a lot of people not to reenroll. So that’s where we’ve seen some of these estimates of I think it’s around 5 million people may not reenroll as a result of that over time. 

That’s a pretty big number. But like you said, there’s a lot of numbers in the mix, but the enhanced premium subsidies do cost taxpayers. It’s not inexpensive. So if they’re looking for savings, which they are, Congress may decide not to extend them. But at the same time, many people and in a lot of states that are dominated by the GOP and others, people are getting these subsidies, and it would suddenly be a huge hit to many people to have a 90% increase in their premiums, for example. 

Rovner: Yeah, as Joanne said. Which you’re about to say again, right? These are Republican voters now, right? 

Kenen: I think that’s more mixed, the upper income within the ACA. We’ve expected that to go away, because there’s a difference between Congress having to yank something away versus something in the law that expires and they have to proactively renew it. We have always anticipated that enhanced subsidies would decline this year. But I just sort of want to point out, during the first Trump administration, without all this coverage, the uninsurance rate rose in the country. 

And that even before ’29, there are all sorts of things, with shortened enrollment periods, how much outreach they do, there’s lots of things even before 2029 that we can expect a fairly significant erosion of health coverage. Not to what it was in pre-ACA levels — it’s not going to be that extreme, and not all the benefits that those of us with employer-sponsored insurance also get, some things through the ACA. 

So this is not repeal — it’s damage. And it’s more damage than they did in the first Trump administration. All of us would be extremely surprised if there was not a significant drop in the number of insured Americans one, two years from now. 

Rovner: One of the ways conservatives hope to secure the votes for this bill in the House is a provision that would bar Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program. This would certainly be popular in the House. But when it was in the Affordable Care Act repeal bill in 2017, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it couldn’t be included in budget reconciliation, because it is not primarily budgetary. Alice, are House leaders just hoping no one will remember that? 

Ollstein: If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Yes, I think so. And especially because we just got a new CBO estimate of what the budgetary impact of cutting these funds would be. And it’s, like they have found before, it does not save money. It actually costs the government money because people lose access to contraception and don’t have other sources that they can afford to obtain contraception. And it’s a lot more expensive to have a baby on Medicaid than to access contraception. So I think that also contributes to the parliamentarian problem. 

Rovner: Yes. You can put stuff in reconciliation that costs money, but that was sort of not the intent here. Joanne, you wanted to say something. 

Kenen: And we should point out that this is still at the committee level, right? Is it going to get through the House in this exact form? We can’t be sure yet. Is something going to get through the House at the end of the day? Yes. Yes. But is all of this going to get in? Is this the final draft? Probably not. You have moderates who are still, don’t like some of the things in here, and you have conservatives who think it doesn’t go far enough. 

As we said at the beginning, as far as it does go, it does not go anywhere near as far as the initial, of some of the things that were being discussed, which really would have ended Medicaid as an entitlement. These are big changes. They’re not existential in the same way that a per capita cap or a block grant or blowing up the ACA expansion by changing the rates. There are things they could have done that were far more radical that they don’t have the votes for. And— 

Rovner: But they still can only lose, what, three or four votes and get something through the House. 

Kenen: Right. Right. Because Medicaid is actually quite popular, and people in both parties are covered by it. We still don’t know the pathway, what gets through the House at the end of the day. Something does, right? We all think that they will, somehow or other. Not necessarily by Memorial Day, right? But something at some point will get through the House, and we don’t know exactly what it looks like. 

Rovner: For the record, I’m still shrugging. I think something gets— 

Kenen: And it is a bigger question mark, you know? 

Rovner: Which is my next question. What are the prospects for this bill in the Senate? Do we really believe that the very conservative Missouri Republican Josh Hawley would vote against this? He had a piece in The New York Times this week saying, “Don’t Cut Medicaid.” 

Kenen: He’s been really consistent. Have we seen politicians do huge flip-flops in our years of covering Congress and politics? Yes. He’s really out there on this. It’s sort of hard to see how he just says, Whoops, I didn’t really mean it. But right now in terms of who’s out there in public, we don’t have a critical mass of people who’ve said they can’t vote for this. But we do know there are provisions in this very extensive bill that some people don’t like. It will go through changes in the Senate. 

I don’t have a grasp and I don’t think any of us have a grasp on exactly what’s going to change. I think work requirements, depending on what bells and whistles are attached, could get through the Senate. There might be changes like making it a state option or redefining certain things with it. I think there probably are 51 votes for a work requirement of some type in the Senate. 

That doesn’t mean the way this has been written survives. And there’s just — these are big cuts. And there’s also, remember, we’re only talking about the health stuff. There’s a lot. There’s energy. There’s all sorts of — this is a big bill. This is a big, historic bill. There’s lots and lots of hurdles. We all remember that the ACA repeal, it took several tries. It was really harder than expected. It finally got through the House, and it did die in the Senate. So this is not the last word. We don’t have to shut the podcast. 

Rovner: Yes, long way to go. All right, moving on. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before not one but two committees on Wednesday: the House labor, HHS Appropriations subcommittee in the morning and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in the afternoon. And shall we say it didn’t all go swimmingly. Right off the bat, this was the greeting he got from House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut. DeLauro basically saying, Everything you’re doing is illegal. 

Rep. Rosa DeLauro: Mr. Secretary, this administration is recklessly and unlawfully freezing and stealing congressionally appropriated funds from a wide swath of agencies, programs, and services across the government that serve the American people. And recall that this is a violation of the Constitution. 

The power of the purse resides with the Congress. It’s Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7. Yourself and President Trump and Elon Musk are attacking health programs to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. And by promoting quackery, we are endangering the health of the American people with pseudoscience, fearmongering, and misinformation. 

Rovner: If you want to hear more, we did a live recap of the hearings yesterday afternoon. You can find that on KFF’s YouTube page. But I want to know what you all took away from the hearings. Joanne, you watched most of them, right? 

Kenen: I watched a lot of it. I did not watch every minute of both hearings, but I watched enough. And I thought that very first exchange with DeLauro was really striking because she kept saying, over and over and over again she kept saying: Congress appropriated this money. You don’t have the right to not spend it. And he kept saying, If you appropriate the money, I will spend it. And she said, We have appropriated the money, and you’re not spending it. And he said, If you appropriate the money … 

And she explained. What a continuing wrestle. It was like this endless — well, it wasn’t endless, but it was repeated when she kept saying, We appropriated it, and he kept saying, Huh? And she actually said the first time sort of under her breath, but the mic picked it up, and then she said it again. She said, “Unbelievable.” She’s not known for understatement, but she said, “Unbelievable.” And then she said it again. “Unbelievable.” So that was sort of — the rest of the day was sort of there. 

Rovner: Yeah. I personally found it refreshing that someone finally called out HHS, saying: You know, there was an appropriations bill that got signed by the president, and you are withholding this money. And this is our province. We get to decide how the money is spent. You don’t get to decide how the money is spent. The other big headline that came out of this hearing was when Kennedy said that, after being raked over the coals again about his vaccine comments, he said, Well, you shouldn’t be taking medical advice from me. And I’m like, isn’t that the job of the HHS secretary? 

Ollstein: It was very clear that, like in the markups of the bill, Democrats, unless Republicans are willing to cross the aisle and join them, are just left sort of railing against what’s happening and not really having any power to impact it. We did see some Republicans expressing some concern about the cuts that have happened. But unless that turns into real oversight action, real legislative action, I just imagine we’re set up for this to happen again where Congress appropriates and the cuts happen anyway. 

Rovner: I was surprised at how much Sen. Cassidy, Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the HELP Committee, didn’t say. He basically said when he voted for Kennedy’s nomination that he was torn. He believes in vaccines. He’s a practicing doctor. He, Cassidy. And he made Kennedy promise that he wasn’t going to change any of these vaccine rules, which he’s already done. And he’s installed anti-vax people at many levels of HHS. And yet Cassidy was incredibly conciliatory in his opening statement. 

And it was left to Chris Murphy of all people, the firebrand Democrat from Connecticut, to basically be Cassidy’s anger manager. And sort of, he said, “If I were the chairman … my head would be exploding,” which I believe is a line that I’ve been saying for the last several months. What’s happening with Cassidy? Do we know? He can’t be happy with what’s happening here. 

Ollstein: This was well previewed by everything Cassidy has sort of put out publicly since the confirmation hearing. If you track his press releases, they’ve been sort of selectively praising HHS for doing certain things and being silent on the things that we imagine he might not like on the vaccine front. And so that dynamic carried forward right into this hearing, which was the first opportunity for Congress to really grill Kennedy since he’s taken office. 

And so many people have pointed out that Cassidy is up for reelection. He is facing a primary challenge from the right. He wants to align himself with the Trump administration and with the sort of “MAGA [Make America great Again]” movement. And he has pushed back on accusations that his treatment of Kennedy is influenced by that, but people can draw their own conclusions. 

Kenen: I also wanted to point out that Kennedy insisted that he hadn’t fired any scientists, and he made that assertion a few times, which I think the Democrats, their jaws collectively dropped in unison. The cuts to NIH [the National Institutes of Health] have been extreme, in the billions. And in addition to the NIH scientists, there are also the ripple effect of training the next generation of scientists, because of the cuts to universities. 

And also Kennedy, I sort of noticed at one point he was saying something about some universities don’t need this money, but then he mentioned specifically but Maine, where Susan Collins is the chair of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, and Alabama, where Katie Britt has been, Sen. Katie Britt, has been sort of vocal about this, which is also, people don’t think of or may not realize that University of Alabama is a huge scientific center. 

It is a powerhouse, but it is a state-funded university without such a big environment. Kennedy said: You know what? We’re going to make these cuts. But maybe not Maine and Alabama. It was like — talk about politics. But I think that they were really floored when he said over and over again that no scientists have been let go. 

Rovner: You were right. There was also a lot of sort of ad hoc, If you have a particular problem, why don’t you— 

Kenen: Call my office. 

Rovner: —call my office. Yeah. And we can take care of it. Which seemed just sort of mind-blowing to me. It’s like, this is how we’re making policy now. And somebody, I meant to go back and look at who, somebody in the morning at the House hearing, one of the Democrats, said, Is there a special phone number for Democrats to call your office to see if we can get some of these cuts restored? That literally seems to be how HHS is being run right now. 

Ollstein: And I think it’s reflected across the government. When Elon Musk was more involved directly with the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] stuff, he was reportedly telling Republican senators the same. Oh, if you have an issue, you know, just text me, just call me. And folks who study government pointed out that this smacks of the kind of personalism that has defined some authoritarian governments in the past where things happen more through favors than through normal government processes that are more transparent. 

Kenen: And a phone call from your senator is not how you should be able to get back into a clinical trial. There was also a lot of exchanges about what’s happening to clinical trials and harm to patients, which he was — there was some gaps there. And you’re watching him saying, Oh yeah, I can get her in. Just, you call me tomorrow. Call my office, to Sen. [Patty] Murray. And the state of him asserting that not much has changed and anything we got wrong we’ll fix versus the fact that huge numbers of things have changed that have affected both patients and future patients. 

One of the Democrats said: What’s wrong with researching cancer and Alzheimer’s, particularly if you’re trying to deal with chronic diseases? These are chronic conditions, and we’re gutting research into them. So there was a lot of disconnects. There was some, also— 

Rovner: It’s not just cuts. They are pushing the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. Just this week the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] is moving to ban fluoride supplements for kids. These are generally drops, tablets, and lozenges prescribed to kids who live in places that don’t have fluoridated water. 

This move contradicts recommendations from both the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and the U.S. Preventive Health Services Task Force. And RFK was taken to task at the House hearing by Congressman Mike Simpson of Idaho, who’s one of a handful of dentists in the chamber. I have to say I didn’t have eliminating fluoride on my 2025 public health bingo card. 

Ollstein: Yes. And I think that this is raising concerns for a few reasons. One, the public health impact. This goes against decades of research and evidence and the medical community’s consensus. But this also is moving sort of beyond the personal-choice, medical freedom kind of framing that has been used to argue about fluoridating public water. This is taking away a parent’s choice, potentially. If they want these supplements for their kids, they’re not going to be available any longer. And this is exactly what people fear could extend into the vaccine space. It’s not just that it’s going to not have mandates for schools or rules around that, that it won’t even be an option for the people who want it. 

Rovner: All right, well, moving on to abortion, the one piece of potential news out of the Kennedy hearings came in response to a question from the aforementioned Sen. Josh Hawley from Missouri about a new study claiming that the abortion pill mifepristone has way more complications than numerous studies over the past 40 years it’s been in use have found. Alice, tell us about this particular study, which RFK Jr. suggested might prompt the FDA to change the status of the abortion pill. 

Ollstein: So, one, it’s not a study. Even its supporters admit in private that it’s not a study. I obtained a private conversation that a lot of these groups pushing this held recently to talk about how they hoped to use this information to influence government policy. And they noted that because this is something that a conservative think tank just put out themselves, they did not submit it to a medical journal. It did not go through peer review. 

So they said directly that it is not a study in the traditional sense. Still, you have senators and now the secretary of health and human services referring to it as a study and calling for policy changes based on it. So I want people to keep that in mind as this is discussed going forward. These drugs have been available for 25 years now. There have been lots of more rigorous, peer-reviewed studies that have found them to be overwhelmingly safe and effective. 

Some of this new data actually aligns with some of the findings from those previous, more rigorous studies, but their own unique definitions of certain things, calling some things adverse events when the FDA does not consider that to be so, and so medical experts told me, including some from KFF, that this has so many red flags that they think it could never have been published in a credible medical journal. 

Rovner: And just to clarify, while we’re talking about different time periods: It’s been available in the U.S. for 25 years. 

Ollstein: Yes. 

Rovner: It’s been available internationally since the 1980s. 

Ollstein: Right. Right. 

Rovner: So, it has been well studied for quite a long time. Well, in other abortion news this week, the Texas Legislature is moving forward with a new piece of anti-abortion legislation that can’t be challenged in court, this one aimed at the abortion pill. Alice, this is like Chapter 2 in Texas trying to figure out how they can ban abortion-related things without anybody challenging the law, right? 

Ollstein: There’s a lot of different moving parts right now. There’s that. There’s the new case that’s also pending in Texas, brought by three GOP states seeking to impose national restrictions on abortion pills. There’s this new review that the FDA is allegedly going to undertake around dispensing rules. And so this has been an overwhelming focus of the anti-abortion movement since even before Dobbs, but especially now. 

They know that the ability of people to get these pills prescribed online, sent by mail, is the primary way that people are getting around state bans, other than travel, which is not always possible for folks. And so there are just efforts going on in state legislatures, in Congress, in the FDA, in state courts and federal courts, all to impose restrictions. 

And so it’s a very throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach. But that has proven very effective for them over the decades. Arguably that’s how we got to where we are now, where abortion is banned in much of the country. So it’s something to take seriously and watch carefully. 

Rovner: And this is Texas trying again with this. Individuals can sue other individuals who they think have used the abortion pill. It does not require the involvement of the state to prosecute, which has not, I don’t think, spread beyond Texas at this point, but it would be Texas’ second bite at this apple. 

Kenen: But the proposed language in that bill is extraordinary. We at the state legislature of Texas is passing a bill and no court has the right to review whether it is constitutional, etc. It seems pretty extreme, right? 

Rovner: Well, this was how Texas did their first ban. 

Kenen: Right. 

Rovner: Remember that the Supreme Court allowed it to stand because they weren’t quite sure what to do with it. 

Kenen: But that was also because they did unique legal things in terms of, they sort of created a legal structure. This, the language is in the bill — and no court can double-check us. 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Kenen: So, and then what else can they use that for, right? And apparently there are even some Republicans who are a little concerned about that language. And I’m not up on the exact makeup of constitutional views of the entire Texas Legislature. 

Rovner: Yes. We should point out, it hasn’t passed the full legislature yet. 

Kenen: No. It’s proposed. 

Rovner: Just the Texas Senate. It’s passed the Senate. We’re awaiting to see if it will pass the Texas House. All right, well, finally in this incredibly newsy week, just before he left for his overseas trip, President Trump unveiled what he touted as an enormous announcement that turned out to be an executive order basically wishing down drug prices by tying them to other countries’ price-controlled prices. Except this isn’t really going to happen anytime soon. Right, Julie? 

Appleby: Well, it is interesting. It’s this “most favored nations” idea that we would tie drug prices in the United States to what’s paid by other countries where they have much stronger drug negotiation issues. And it’s not clear how it works. So yeah, it’s not clear what the path forward is with that. 

Ollstein: The problem with saying drug prices are coming down is if they do not come down, people might be mad at you for saying they’re coming down. 

Rovner: I would say he did wish down the price of eggs. He said that egg prices were coming down when they weren’t, except now they are, because he had nothing to do with them going up or coming down. It had to do with the bird flu. And so now he can say, See, I got egg prices down. 

Kenen: But they’re still higher than they were when he— 

Rovner: They are still higher than they were. 

Kenen: But they have come down. 

Rovner: But I will say, I was going to say, this is super-clever marketing. This is the one thing that President Trump is really, really good at. He hyped this announcement ahead of time. He actually got headlines insisting that this will really do something. I have had people tell me that they’ve had sort of their grown kids and stuff saying: Oh look, drug prices. He’s going to reduce drug prices. When in fact this is one of those executive orders that just doesn’t really do anything. 

Kenen: We don’t know what’s going to happen to drug prices over the next four years. There’s a law on the books from the Biden administration. In his first administration, I think it might’ve even been a day or two before inauguration, he went on a tear against the drug companies. Remember, he called them killers or something like that. And he also came up with a list of something like 40-odd steps that he could take. And I think half of them had a question mark after them. So he’s been mad at drug prices for a while now. He did not achieve that in the first administration. That’s bipartisan. There’s no Americans who want to pay higher prices for drugs, unless maybe they work for a drug company. People want more— 

Rovner: Right. It’s an 80/20 issue — 80% of people want drug prices down. 

Kenen: Right. 

Rovner: That’s probably more than an 80/20 issue. 

Kenen: There could be some room for bipartisanship on drugs. There’s not a lot of room for bipartisanship, but that’s particularly if he’s not trying to repeal what [President Joe] Biden did, if that stays or gets built on. We don’t know what’s going to happen. But no, you can’t just sign an executive order. It’s not a magic wand. 

Rovner: And I don’t think we’re going to be importing other countries’ price controls anytime soon. I’m going to go on a limb on that one. All right, that is this week’s news. Now it is 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’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Alice, I want you to go first this week because you have a story that’s directly relevant to something that we talked about in the Medicaid discussion. 

Ollstein: Yeah. So I have this great story from ProPublica [“He Became the Face of Georgia’s Medicaid Work Requirement. Now He’s Fed Up With It.”] about Medicaid work requirements and about how the small-business owner that Georgia decided to make the face of its program, and they filmed a video of him praising it, even he multiple times lost his coverage, even though he tried to do everything right. He logged his work hours. He signed up for alerts. And just because of bureaucratic things and falling through the cracks, two times he lost his coverage and he had to plead for someone to intervene to get him his benefits back. And he has really soured on all of this, even though he was the face of selling it that the governor used. So I think this is a great example of what could happen as this is debated as a national policy. 

Rovner: And I will say, I learned about this ProPublica story from the markup, where a number of members brought it up. He’s now the poster child for what happens when you have work requirements, even if people are working. Joanne. 

Kenen: There’s a great piece in The Atlantic by Nick Florko called “Now Is Not the Time To Eat Bagged Lettuce.” And although it is not in the headline, it’s particularly romaine, which has periodically been in the news as being a source of harmful bacteria. And if you think you can just buy bagged lettuce and wash it yourself and it’ll be safe — no, that doesn’t work, either. 

Basically it goes through like the equivalent of a salad woodchopper and there are all this different lettuce. All this lettuce goes through it. And once one blade gets contaminated, it all gets contaminated. So also, if you are a part of a marriage or one of you likes romaine and the other one would rather have red leaf, this is pretty good ammunition, right? But we should be going back to buying heads of lettuce, washing them yourself. 

And they’re not as safe and sanitary as it sounds, particularly as some issues are going on right now. And of course, we have less public notification and less monitoring and there’s less, less, less of food safety kinds of things coming down the pike at FDA. So it’s even more timely. 

Rovner: It’s a pretty vivid story. Julie. 

Appleby: Thanks. Mine is also, the story I’ve picked is also along the same lines of cuts and what the perhaps unintended consequences were, but the consequences nonetheless. And it’s from the Scientific American. It’s by Andrea Thompson. The headline is “How Trump’s National Weather Service Cuts Could Cost Lives.” 

And it just talks about the National Weather Service with a lot of interesting facts that I didn’t know for sure, that how the improvements have been made in forecasting, why this is important, and how it’s understaffed, and how these cuts are going to just make things worse. And it talks about it costs the average American, it says, about $4 a year for the National Weather Service. “It’s a cup of coffee,” said one person that’s being quoted. 

And it said the National Weather Service provides an overall benefit of $100 billion to the economy. Aside from the fact that you might want a tornado warning ahead of time, that kind of thing, this is also just really important to quantify the overall value at a time when we are seeing a lot of hurricanes and tornadoes and other climate issues going on. So that would be my pick. 

Kenen: But the Sharpie can just make it move. 

Rovner: Yeah, that’s true. All right, my extra credit this week is what Joanne has dubbed “Theranos for Pets,” though the actual headline in The New York Times is “Elizabeth Holmes’s Partner Has a New Blood-Testing Start-Up.” And it’s kind of a scary history-repeats-itself story. Even as Elizabeth Holmes herself remains in jail, having been convicted of fraud over her novel blood-testing company that was really cool but also didn’t work, her partner and the father of her two children, Billy Evans, is raising money for a new blood-testing company. 

He’s called it Haemanthus — I hope I’ve said that right — which is a flower also called the blood lily. And unlike his incarcerated partner, Evans plans to start out by testing the blood of pets, then move to humans. As they say, what could possibly go wrong? 

All right, that is this week’s show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer, Francis Yang. 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 guys hanging these days? Julie Appleby. 

Appleby: I’m still on X, @Julie_appleby. 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: I’m only a little on X. I’m more on Bluesky and LinkedIn, @joannekenen. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: Mostly on Bluesky, @alicemiranda, and still on X, @AliceOllstein. 

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

Credits Francis Ying Audio producer Emmarie Huetteman Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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.

After all-night markups, two key House committees approved GOP budget legislation that would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from federal health programs over the next decade, mostly from the Medicaid program for people with low incomes or disabilities. The legislation is far from a done deal, though, with at least one Republican senator voicing opposition to Medicaid cuts.

Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before Congress for the first time since taking office. In sometimes surprisingly combative exchanges with lawmakers in the House and Senate, Kennedy denied cutting programs despite evidence to the contrary and said at one point that he doesn’t think Americans “should be taking medical advice from me.”

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

Panelists Julie Appleby KFF Health News @Julie_appleby Read Julie's stories. 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.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• House Republicans this week released — then quickly ushered through committee — major legislation that would make deep cuts to federal spending while funding President Donald Trump’s domestic priorities, including renewing tax cuts and boosting border security. A preliminary estimate by the Congressional Budget Office found the bill would cut at least $715 billion from federal health spending over 10 years — with most of that money coming from the Medicaid program.
• Overall, the House GOP’s proposal would make it harder to enroll, and stay enrolled, in Medicaid and Affordable Care Act coverage. Among other changes, the bill would impose a requirement that nondisabled adults (with some exceptions) work, volunteer, or study at least 80 hours per month to be eligible for coverage. But Democrats and patient advocates point to evidence that, rather than encouraging employment, such a mandate results in more people losing or dropping coverage under burdensome paperwork requirements.
• Republicans also declined to extend the enhanced tax credits introduced during the covid-19 pandemic that help many people afford ACA marketplace coverage. Those tax credits expire at the end of the year, and premiums are expected to balloon, which could prompt many people not to renew their coverage.
• And Kennedy’s appearances on Capitol Hill this week provided Congress the first opportunity to question the health secretary since he assumed his post. He was grilled by Democrats about vaccines, congressionally appropriated funds, agency firings, and much more.

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’ “Elizabeth Holmes’s Partner Has a New Blood-Testing Start-Up,” by Rob Copeland.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: ProPublica’s “He Became the Face of Georgia’s Medicaid Work Requirement. Now He’s Fed Up With It.” by Margaret Coker, The Current.

Julie Appleby: Scientific American’s “How Trump’s National Weather Service Cuts Could Cost Lives,” by Andrea Thompson.  

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “Now Is Not the Time To Eat Bagged Lettuce,” by Nicholas Florko.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Politico’s “‘Rolling Thunder’: Inside Conservatives’ Strategy To Curb Abortion Pill Access,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.
• The New York Times’ “Josh Hawley: Don’t Cut Medicaid,” by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.).
• NPR’s “FDA Moves To Ban Fluoride Supplements for Kids, Removing a Key Tool for Dentists,” by Pien Huang.

Credits Francis Ying Audio producer Emmarie Huetteman Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Federal prosecutors sought a maximum prison sentence of nearly 20 years for the CEO of Pain MD, a company found to have given hundreds of thousands of questionable injections to patients, many reliant on opioids. It would have been among the longest sentences for a health care executive convicted of fraud in recent years.

Instead, he got 18 months.

Michael Kestner, 73, who was convicted of 13 fraud felonies last year, faced at least a decade behind bars based on federal sentencing guidelines. He was granted the substantially lightened sentence due to his age and health Wednesday during a federal court hearing in Nashville.

U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger described Kestner as a “ruthless businessman” who funded a “lavish lifestyle” by turning medical professionals into “puppets” who pressured patients into injections that did not help their pain and sometimes made it worse.

“In the court’s eyes, he knew it was wrong, and he didn’t really care if it was doing anyone any good,” Trauger said.

But Trauger also said she was swayed by defense arguments that Kestner would struggle in federal prison due to his age and medical conditions, including the blood disorder hemochromatosis. Trauger said she had concerns about prison health care after considering about 200 requests for compassionate release in other court cases.

“The medical care at these facilities,” defense attorney Peter Strianse said, “has always been dodgy and suspect.”

Kestner did not speak at the court hearing, other than to detail his medical conditions. He did not respond to questions as he left the courthouse.

Pain MD ran as many as 20 clinics in Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina throughout much of the 2010s. While many doctors were scaling back their use of prescription painkillers due to the opioid crisis, Pain MD paired opioids with monthly injections into patients’ backs, claiming the shots could ease pain and potentially lessen reliance on pills, according to federal court documents.

During Kestner’s October trial, the Department of Justice proved that the injections were part of a decade-long scheme that defrauded Medicare and other insurance programs of millions of dollars by capitalizing on patients’ dependence on opioids.

The DOJ successfully argued at trial that Pain MD’s “unnecessary and expensive injections” were largely ineffective because they targeted the wrong body part, contained short-lived numbing medications but no steroids, and appeared to be based on test shots given to cadavers — people who felt neither pain nor relief because they were dead. During closing arguments, the DOJ argued Pain MD had turned some patients into “human pin cushions.”

“They were leaned over a table and repeatedly injected in their spine,” federal prosecutor Katherine Payerle said during the May 14 sentencing hearing. “Over and over, month after month, at the direction of Mr. Kestner.”

At last year’s trial, witnesses testified that Kestner was the driving force behind the injections, which amounted to roughly 700,000 shots over about eight years, with some patients receiving up to 24 at once.

Four former patients testified that they tolerated the shots out of fear that Pain MD otherwise would have cut off their painkiller prescriptions, without which they might have spiraled into withdrawal.

One of those patients, Michelle Shaw, told KFF Health News that the injections sometimes left her in so much pain she had to use a wheelchair. She was outraged by Kestner’s sentence.

“I’m disgusted that all they got was a slap on the wrist as far as I’m concerned,” Shaw said May 14. “I hope karma comes back to him. That he suffers to his last breath.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Brian Rigsby was lying with his right wrist shackled to a hospital bed in Montgomery, Alabama, when he learned he didn’t have long to live.

It was September 2023, and Rigsby, 46, had been brought to Jackson Hospital from an Alabama state prison 10 days earlier after complaining of pain and swelling in his abdomen. Doctors found that untreated hepatitis C had caused irreversible damage to Rigsby’s liver, according to his medical records.

Rigsby decided to stop efforts to treat his illness and to decline lifesaving care, a decision he made with his parents. And Rigsby’s mother, Pamela Moser, tried to get her son released to hospice care through Alabama’s medical furlough policy, so that their family could manage his end-of-life care as they saw fit.

But there wasn’t enough time for the furlough request to be considered.

After learning that Rigsby was on palliative care, the staff at YesCare, a private prison health company that has a $1 billion contract with the Alabama Department of Corrections, told the hospital it would stop paying for his stay and then transferred him back to Staton Correctional Facility in Elmore, according to the hospital record his mom provided to KFF Health News.

Moser never saw or spoke to her son again.

“The last day I went to see him in the hospital, I was hoping he would take his last breath,” said Moser, a former hospice nurse. “That is how bad I didn’t want him to go to the infirmary” at the prison.

A week later, Rigsby died of liver failure in the infirmary, according to his autopsy report.

Officials at the corrections department and YesCare did not respond to requests for comment.

As the country’s incarcerated population ages rapidly, thousands die behind bars each year. For some researchers, medical providers, and families of terminally ill people in custody, Rigsby’s situation — and Moser’s frustration — are familiar: Incarcerated people typically have little say over the care they receive at the end of their lives.

That’s despite a broad consensus among standards boards, policymakers, and health care providers that terminally ill people in custody should receive treatment that minimizes suffering and allows them to be actively involved in care planning.

But such guidelines aren’t binding. State policies on end-of-life care vary widely, and they generally give much leeway to correctional officers, according to a 2021 study led by Georgia State University. The result is that correctional officers and medical contractors make the decisions, and they focus more on security concerns than easing the emotional, spiritual, and physical pain of the dying, say researchers and families.

People in jails and prisons often die while shackled to beds, separated from loved ones, and with minimal pain medication, said Nicole Mushero, a geriatrician at Boston University’s Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine who studies and works with incarcerated patients.

“When you’re coming at this from a health care perspective, it’s kind of shocking,” Mushero said.

Security vs. Autonomy

Patients are often suspended or dropped from their health coverage, including commercial insurance or Medicaid, when incarcerated. Jails and prisons have their own systems for providing health care, often funded by state and local budgets, and therefore aren’t subject to the same oversight as other public or private systems.

The National Commission on Correctional Health Care, which accredits programs at correctional facilities across the country, says terminally ill people in custody should be allowed to make decisions about treatment options, such as whether to accept life-sustaining care, and appoint a person who can make medical decisions for them.

Jails and prisons should also provide patients with pain medication that wouldn’t otherwise be available to them, allow extra visits with loved ones, and consider them for medical release programs that let them receive hospice care in their communities, said Amy Panagopoulos, vice president of accreditation at the commission. That approach is often at odds with security and safety rules of jails and prisons, so facility leaders may be heavily involved in care decisions, she said.

As a result, the commission plans to release updated standards this summer to provide more details on how facilities should handle end-of-life care to ensure incarcerated patients are more involved in the process.

State laws on medical decision-making, informed consent, and patient privacy apply even to incarcerated patients, said Gregory Dober, who teaches biomedical ethics and is a prison monitor with the Pennsylvania Prison Society, a nonprofit that supports incarcerated patients and their families.

But correctional officers and their medical contractors often prioritize security instead, Dober said.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons allows guards to override do-not-resuscitate orders if they interfere with the security and orderly operation of the institution, according to the agency’s patient care guide.

“This is a wildly understudied area,” said Ben Parks, who teaches medical ethics at Mercy College of Ohio. “In the end, it’s all about the state control of a prisoner’s life.”

About a third of all people who died in federal custody between 2004 and 2022 had a do-not-resuscitate order, according to Bureau of Prisons data obtained by KFF Health News through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The prison bureau’s policy of forcing CPR on patients is cruel, Parks said. CPR can break ribs and bruise organs, with a low likelihood of success. That is why people sign do-not-resuscitate orders refusing the treatment, he said.

“This is the inversion of the death penalty,” Parks said. “Resuscitation against your will.”

Cut Off From Family

In addition, corrections officials decide whether and when to reach out to a patient’s friends or relatives, said Erin Kitt-Lewis, a Penn State College of Nursing associate research professor who has studied the care of older adults in prisons. As a result, terminally ill people in custody often can’t involve their families in end-of-life care decisions.

That was the case for Adam Spurgeon, who was incarcerated in a state prison in Tennessee, his mother said. One morning in November 2018, Kathy Spurgeon got a call from hospital officials in Nashville saying her son had only hours to live, she said.

About a month earlier, she had learned from her son that he had had heart surgery and developed an infection, she said. But she didn’t know much about his treatment.

Around noon, she arrived at the hospital, about a three-hour drive west of where she lives. Adam, 32, died that evening.

Dorinda Carter, communications director at the Tennessee Department of Correction, declined to comment on Spurgeon’s case. “It is our policy to not comment on an individual inmate’s medical care,” she said in an email.

Kathy Spurgeon said providers who treated Adam outside of prison were too deferential to guards.

And physicians who work with incarcerated patients say that can be the case: Even when terminally ill people in custody are treated at hospitals, correctional officers still end up dictating the terms of care.

Hospital staff members often don’t understand the rights of incarcerated patients and are unsure about state laws and hospital policies, said Pria Anand, a neurologist who has treated incarcerated patients in hospitals. “The biggest problem is uncertainty,” she said.

Correctional officers sometimes tell hospital staffers they can’t contact next of kin for security reasons, or they won’t tell a patient about discharge plans because of worries they might escape, Anand said.

And care frequently takes place within prisons, which often are not equipped to handle the complexities of hospice decision-making, including types of treatment, when to stop treatment, and who can make those decisions, said Laura Musselman, director of communications at the Humane Prison Hospice Project, which provides training and education to improve end-of-life care for incarcerated patients.

“Our prison system was not designed to provide care for anyone, especially not people who are chronically ill, terminally ill, older, actively dying,” said Musselman, who noted that her group’s training has 15 modules to cover all aspects of end-of-life care, including grief support, hands-on caregiving, and paperwork.

Rigsby struggled with mental health and addiction for most of his adult life, including a stint in prison for a drug-related robbery. A parole violation in 2018 landed him back in prison.

At Jackson Hospital, Rigsby was given hydromorphone, a powerful pain medication, as well as the anxiety drug lorazepam. Before he was transferred back to prison, a nurse with YesCare — one of the country’s biggest prison health care providers, which has been sued over substandard care —assured hospital staffers he would be provided with the same level of pain medication and oxygen he had received at the hospital, his medical records show.

But Moser said she doesn’t know whether he spent his last days in pain or peace. The state wouldn’t provide Moser with Rigsby’s medical records from the prison, she said. She said she wasn’t allowed to visit her son in the infirmary — and wasn’t told why.

Moser called the infirmary to comfort her son before his death, but staffers told her he couldn’t make it to the phone and they couldn’t take one to him, she said.

Instead, Moser said, she left messages for prison officials to tell her son she loved him.

“It breaks my heart that he could not talk with his mother during his last days,” said Moser, whose son died on Oct. 4, 2023.

Two weeks later, she drove to Woodstock, Alabama, to collect his remains from a crematorium.

KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday proposed that California roll back health care for immigrants without legal status, saying the state needed to cut benefits for some to maintain core services across the board.

It’s a striking reversal for the Democrat, who had promised universal health care and called health coverage for immigrants the moral and ethical thing to do. But a $12 billion state budget deficit, potential federal spending cuts, and larger-than-expected Medi-Cal enrollment have forced him to dial back.

Newsom said he had no other choice but to call for major cost-cutting measures affecting how some immigrants are covered by Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, which covers about 15 million Californians.

“The challenge that we face this year and the challenge we will face for many years is on growth of our Medicaid system, Medi-Cal,” Newsom told reporters at his budget presentation. “Instead of rolling back the program, cutting people off for basic care, we have to adjust the comprehensive nature of the care.”

California is one of seven states that offer health coverage to low-income adults regardless of immigration status, and that has put the program in the political crosshairs of national Republicans. The latest U.S. House proposal would cut Medicaid funding by 10 percentage points for states that provide coverage for immigrants without legal status — an approach Newsom on Wednesday described as legally questionable. Meanwhile, the Trump administration cited California’s health coverage of noncitizens as an example of states “gaming the system” when it issued a proposed rule Monday to overhaul Medicaid provider taxes.

Some 1.6 million immigrants — most without legal status — are enrolled in Medi-Cal. Federal law prohibits Medicaid dollars from being used to cover unauthorized residents, meaning California must foot the bill for the vast majority of their health care. And those costs have ballooned.

Newsom cautioned that California, like other states, could soon be in a more dire budget situation if Republicans advance their proposal to cut Medicaid. That plan includes work requirements and would cap taxes levied on providers that help states draw additional federal money. However, the governor’s budget proposal was silent on potential federal cuts.

The $321.9 billion budget proposes a freeze in Medi-Cal enrollment for immigrants 19 and older without legal status, starting Jan. 1. Beginning in 2027, immigrants 19 and older in the country illegally, as well as those with legal residency for less than five years, would be required to pay $100 monthly premiums to maintain coverage.

The Newsom administration estimated those two moves would save the state $5.4 billion by the 2028-29 fiscal year. The governor also called for eliminating dental and long-term care benefits for those without legal status and for legal residents who arrived in the U.S. less than five years ago, according to California Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer.

The changes would not apply to the roughly 217,000 children and young adults without legal status covered by Medi-Cal. Those 18 and under were the first to receive Medi-Cal coverage, in 2016. Children are generally healthier and require less care, and a KFF Health News analysis showed that, in many cases, children lacking legal status were cheaper to cover than citizens.

Maria, a street vendor from Los Angeles, said the monthly premium alone would force her and others to forgo care.

“They say they are one of the largest economies, but they don’t want to help us,” said Maria, who didn’t want to give her full name, out of fear of retaliation from immigration authorities. “We are contributing to the state. It’s not fair that we, the poor, have to pay what we don’t have.”

“Where am I going to get the $100?” Maria asked.

Federal law prohibits charging the poorest Medicaid enrollees a premium, and Newsom’s $100 monthly payment would be considered unaffordable for current beneficiaries, said Laurel Lucia, director of the health care program at the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center.

Newsom is proposing a $194.5 billion Medi-Cal budget for 2025-26. Lawmakers have until June 15 to pass the budget. Democratic leaders signaled their intent to protect health care for the state’s poorest residents.

The governor and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas blamed fiscal headwinds brought on by President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which they said had led to a massive $16 billion dip in state tax revenue forecasts since April. But Medi-Cal spending surged well before the tariffs took effect. State costs to cover Californians with “unsatisfactory immigration status” — those without status and legal residents who have been here less than five years — is roughly $10.8 billion per year, up from the $6.4 billion officials projected in November. The federal government pays $1.2 billion of that to cover mandated emergency and pregnancy care.

“It’s laughable that he’s trying to blame Trump for anything,” Republican Assembly member Joe Patterson, who sits on the Assembly Budget Committee, said of Newsom. “He overpromised to them, and he’s pulling the carpet out from underneath them.”

Other states that have extended coverage to immigrants are also struggling with escalating costs. Minnesota, for example, originally projected that 5,700 residents without legal status would sign up for the state Medicaid program, known as MinnesotaCare, at a cost of $200 million. Both figures have increased roughly threefold.

Illinois is ending services for adult immigrants, except seniors, on July 1, citing higher-than-anticipated enrollment. The mostly state-funded health plan will stop covering around 30,000 noncitizens ages 42 to 64, including those living in the country without authorization.

Newsom said Wednesday that without a suite of his proposed changes to Medi-Cal, program costs could grow by an additional $10 billion through June 2026 and would “contribute significantly to the structural imbalance in future years.”

But consumer advocates and lawmakers said the move is a betrayal of the governor’s commitment to bring California closer to universal health care and warned it would push immigrants into costly emergency room care. Sen. María Elena Durazo, a Democrat who championed the Medi-Cal expansion, said California shouldn’t single out immigrants to solve its budget deficit.

“I don’t agree that we should be isolating and abandoning and separating a particular group of Californians, as if they are responsible for the problem,” Durazo said. “I don’t care what you call them, they work, they contribute.”

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

More Californians are talking to their therapists through a video screen or by phone than in person, marking a profound shift in how mental health care is delivered as record-setting numbers seek help.

While patients and providers say teletherapy is effective and easier to get than in-person services, experts in the field noted that teletherapy often requires a skilled mental health practitioner trained to pick up subtle communication cues.

Almost half of the roughly 4.8 million adults who visited a medical professional for mental health or substance use disorders in 2023 did so exclusively through teletherapy, according to a KFF Health News analysis of the latest data from UCLA’s California Health Interview Survey.

About 24% of adults used a combination of face-to-face and teletherapy in 2023, while roughly 23% got help exclusively in person, according to the survey of about 20,000 California households.

A recent national study of patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system found a similar pattern: Fifty-five percent of mental health care continued to be provided via telemedicine, a figure that spiked after patients shifted to teletherapy by necessity during the covid-19 pandemic.

Teletherapy is certainly more convenient, allowing patients to see their therapists from the comfort of home.

“It’s actually really effective,” said Joshua Heitzmann, president of the California Psychological Association. “I think part of that is that it just allows more comfortability — people are willing to work a little bit more when they’re comfortable.”

Studies back that up: Teletherapy patients report getting better at rates similar to those receiving in-person therapy.

“Research has basically shown that there's no difference between teletherapy versus in-person therapy — so, basically, as effective as in-person therapy,” said Tao Lin, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety, who recently conducted an analysis of several studies comparing teletherapy and face-to-face therapy.

But Lin said it can be difficult for a therapist to see hand motions or read body language during a video call, which could lead to therapists missing nonverbal cues about their patients’ emotional states. Lin’s most recent research, yet to be published, suggests therapy over the telephone “is less effective than video conferences” due to “more loss of information.”

And some people have trouble emotionally connecting with a therapist without seeing them in person, Lin said. Technical difficulties, not uncommon, can also interfere with clients building a therapeutic relationship.

Sacramento resident David Bain relies on teletherapy to treat his depression because mobility issues make it difficult for him to visit a therapist in person.

“It's almost to the point where I wouldn't be able to get the service if I wasn't able to get it through telehealth,” said Bain, executive director of NAMI Sacramento, a nonprofit that provides support and advocacy to people with mental illness.

Bain said that his one-on-one teletherapy sessions have helped but that he’s had less success with online group therapy. He recently participated in a 10-week dialectical behavior therapy class, but he didn’t get the connection and support he received in past in-person group settings, he said.

“There was probably me and two or three other people that were actually showing ourselves on screen,” he said. “Everyone else had their screens off.”

Teletherapy is increasingly offered through cellphone applications like BetterHelp and Talkspace. Patients using these applications often pay a subscription fee, which insurance may partly cover, in exchange for regular sessions and contact with therapists.

Eunkyung Jo, a researcher at the University of California-Irvine, co-authored a study published in 2023 that looked at patient reviews of eight of the most popular teletherapy apps. Many patients expressed satisfaction with their therapists, but the team also uncovered negative patterns.

Some patients did not get the therapy they paid for, often due to technical difficulties. Other patients reported their therapists acted disinterested or unprofessional, a finding Jo said could be tied to the relatively low pay therapists earn on some apps.

And several users mentioned in reviews that their therapist suddenly disappeared from the app without explanation. She said therapists in more traditional “pay-as-you-go” arrangements rarely discontinue treatment without warning.

Nikole Benders-Hadi, chief medical officer of Talkspace, said patients often can use their insurance to get therapy on the platform, at a typical cost of a $10 copay. Separately, Talkspace spokesperson Jeannine Feyen said salary for therapists has increased since Jo’s study was conducted, and that full-time Talkspace therapists make between $65,000 and $90,000 a year.

At BetterHelp, therapists earn up to $91,000 and the average patient rating last year for a live session on the platform was 4.9 out of 5, spokesperson Megan Garner said. A significant majority of patients reported reliable symptom improvement or remission, she added.

The number of Californians visiting a medical professional for mental health issues rose by about 434,000, or 10%, from 2019 to 2023, UCLA data shows. It jumped by nearly 2 million, or 69%, from 2009 through 2023.

Even so, the transition from in-person therapy to teletherapy has left some behind.

The UCLA data shows that Californians living within 200% of the federal poverty level — for example, a family of four with a household income of about $60,000 or under in 2023 — were less likely to use teletherapy.

The data also shows that residents in rural areas, where access to telehealth should provide a boon, weren’t using it as much as residents of urban areas.

For example, about 81% of Bay Area residents who visited a medical professional for mental health care in 2023 did so either fully or partially via teletherapy. About 62% of residents in the state’s rural, mountainous counties did the same.

Those disparities are suggestive of gaps seen in remote-work patterns: Wealthier, urban Californians are more likely to work from home than lower-income, rural residents. By extension, Californians of greater means have more opportunities to arrange online appointments and may be more comfortable with them.

By comparison, low-income folks tend to go into the office for doctor visits, Heitzmann said.

Lower-income and rural Californians may also lack the reliable internet service necessary for good telehealth. A recent KFF Health News analysis found millions of Americans live in places with doctor shortages and poor internet access.

Lower-income Californians also are more likely to live in tight quarters, making privacy for an intimate therapy session difficult.

Regardless, teletherapy is now dominant. And it’s not just patients who enjoy the convenience. Many therapists have ditched expensive office rents to work from home.

“Covid allowed that,” Heitzmann said. “A lot of folks really just got rid of their offices and were perfectly happy converting their home into some kind of office and doing it all day long.”

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

It has been nearly eight years since Sen. John McCain’s middle-of-the-night thumbs-down vote torpedoed Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and make drastic cuts to Medicaid.

With Donald Trump back in the White House and the GOP back in control of Congress, Republicans again have their eyes on Medicaid, the government health program for those with low incomes or disabilities. A GOP proposal unveiled this week would require many enrollees to prove they are working, volunteering, or studying, and to shoulder more of the costs of their care. It would also curtail taxes levied on providers that help states draw down billions in additional federal money.

Changes are needed, conservative lawmakers say, because the program is broken and costs too much. Medicaid’s annual price tag has soared from about $590 billion in 2017 to nearly $900 billion today.

If this script sounds familiar, it’s because Republicans made the same proposals and arguments in 2017, when they last had narrow control of Congress and Trump in the White House.

But while the 2025 Medicaid debate on Capitol Hill feels like a 2017 replay, the GOP’s latest effort toward a massive transformation could be more of a long shot, several health policy experts say. In the past eight years, Medicaid enrollment has surged to a record high, with the covid-19 pandemic driving numbers up and nine more states expanding the program to cover more low-income Americans, including six controlled by Republicans.

More enrollees, particularly in red states, means more constituents who rely on Medicaid to cover their health costs — making it harder for lawmakers to approve cuts.

“More red states have more skin in the game,” said Christine Eibner, a senior economist at Rand Corp., a nonprofit research organization.

More than three-quarters of the public opposes major cuts to Medicaid, including 55% of Republicans, according to a recent poll from KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

With the expansion of coverage to more Americans, Medicaid has grown more popular and important, said Krista Drobac, a health policy consultant who formerly worked for the National Governors Association. “Cutting it is not as politically palatable, even though Congress has moved further to the right.”

After months of saying little beyond citing a need to cut “waste, fraud, and abuse,” Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee released legislation May 11 outlining their plans.

The bill does not include some of the most controversial proposals the GOP considered, such as eliminating the extra federal funding that allowed states to dramatically expand the program. Nonetheless, the changes it does propose amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid spending cuts and could cause at least 8.6 million Americans to lose their health coverage, according to a preliminary estimate by the Congressional Budget Office released by the committee’s Democrats.

Some of the proposals are more targeted, such as a new financial penalty on states such as California that use their own money to cover people living in the country without legal permission.

Others would have widespread implications. In addition to requiring low-income people to prove their eligibility every six months, the GOP proposal would mandate that nondisabled enrollees younger than 65, with some exceptions, show that they work, volunteer, or attend school at least 80 hours per month.

A work requirement is an easier sell politically because it is not seen as cutting benefits, Billy Wynne, a Colorado-based health consultant, said in an interview before the legislation was unveiled.

But unlike in 2017, when the GOP also proposed implementing work requirements, such a policy is no longer just a theory: Arkansas’ program, which was suspended by a federal judge in 2019 after less than a year, left 18,000 people without coverage — with no indication the policy led to more people working. And Georgia’s program has been plagued by administrative burdens and cost overruns.

In fact, most Medicaid enrollees are already employed — just 8% of those who would be required to work are not already doing so, according to KFF.

Awareness about Medicaid and its beneficiaries has improved since 2017, Wynne said. “These are working families, and they vote.”

During a marathon House committee debate on the legislation that started Tuesday afternoon and continued through Wednesday morning, Rep. Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, a Democrat, voiced concern that burdensome new paperwork requirements would lead to many low-income people dropping or losing their coverage.

“These aren’t work requirements,” he said. “They’re paperwork requirements.”

Another complication for the GOP’s current effort is that the focus is not fixing the health system, as it was with the past push to repeal Obamacare. This time, Republicans’ main goal is offsetting the cost of extending $4 trillion in tax cuts passed under Trump in 2017 — separately from the repeal effort — that will otherwise expire at the end of this year.

Enrollment in Medicaid and its related Children’s Health Insurance Program swelled to over 93 million during the pandemic, a record high. Enrollment had fallen below 79 million as of December, but that was still about 5 million more people than were covered during the repeal debate in the summer of 2017.

Medicaid and CHIP cover more than 1 in 5 Americans, as well as 40% of children, 41% of births, and long-term care for 62% of nursing home residents.

Congressional Republicans for decades have sought to rein in Medicaid costs by capping federal spending but have faced resistance from Democrats, states, and the health industry.

The 2010 Affordable Care Act provided billions in federal Medicaid funding that enabled 40 states and the District of Columbia to expand the program to over 21 million nondisabled adults. But the law passed with no Republican votes, leaving Medicaid expansion open to partisan squabbling.

The new GOP proposal would require Medicaid enrollees making poverty-level wages or higher to pay copayments of as much as $35 per health care service.

Medicaid usually doesn’t require copays, and advocates for low-income people say any out-of-pocket charge at the doctor’s office could discourage them from seeking care.

Republican members of Congress face more pressure to avoid coverage cuts for their constituents, with many now representing expansion states, including key Senate leaders from South Dakota (Majority Leader John Thune) and Idaho (Finance Committee Chairman Michael Crapo).

There’s also pressure coming from an unusual source: Trump voters.

Last fall, Trump attracted more low-income voters than usual for a GOP presidential candidate.

Those voters are more likely to depend on Medicaid for health coverage. Matt Salo, a Washington, D.C.-based health consultant who was formerly executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, said Trump voters have been telling Republicans at town hall meetings that they did not vote for benefit cuts.

“MAGA voters and people on Medicaid and their family members overlap in ways that have never been true before,” Salo said, referring to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement.

Republicans also face unfavorable odds of curtailing a long-standing practice by nearly every state — known as provider taxes — through which states pay some of their share of Medicaid costs by taxing hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers. Those funds then help states collect more matching dollars from the federal government.

For decades, Republicans have sought to limit Medicaid provider taxes, and their latest proposal would effectively freeze the taxes at current rates, squeezing state programs as costs continue to rise. Since 2017, such taxes have become more commonplace, and some states now rely on the funding for nearly a third of their Medicaid budgets.

Conservative groups and some GOP lawmakers have begun referring to these taxes as “money-laundering” schemes, even though they are legal and the taxes are approved by the federal government before states implement them.

One thing that hasn’t changed since 2017 is the strong defense of Medicaid from Democrats, hospital executives, and consumer groups, who argue the GOP’s plan will leave more people uninsured or unable to pay their bills, and force hospitals to close, worsening access to care.

Yet the Trump White House is better staffed to work with Congress than it was in 2017, and more members of the party, whether out of fear or loyalty, are likely to side with the president. So far this year, the Republican caucus has had just enough votes to confirm Trump’s Cabinet and pass a budget framework to tee up legislation to extend his tax cuts.

While the House GOP’s plan would amount to major changes for Medicaid, its legislation left out some of the more ground-shifting ideas like capping federal funding per enrollee or nixing extra expansion funding altogether — and it still needs to earn the approval of Senate Republicans.

Medicaid’s chief backers could end up breathing a sigh of relief, just as they did in summer 2017.

KFF Health News’ Julie Rovner contributed to this report.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

BRANCHLAND, W.Va. — Ada Carol Adkins lives with her two dogs in a trailer tucked into the timbers off Upper Mud River Road.

“I’m comfortable here, but I’m having health issues,” said the 68-year-old, who retired from her job as a school cook several years ago after having a stroke. “Things are failing me.”

Her trailer sits halfway up a ridge miles from town and the local health clinic. Her phone and internet are “wacky sometimes,” she said. Adkins — who is fiercely independent and calls herself a “Mountain Momma” — worries she won’t be able to call for help if service goes out, which happens often.

To Frontier Communications, the telecommunications company that owns the line to her home, Adkins says: “Please come and hook me right.”

But she might be waiting years for better service, frustrated by her internet provider and left behind by troubled federal grant programs.

A quarter of West Virginia counties — including Lincoln, where the Mud River bends its way through hollows and past cattle farms — face two barriers to health care: They lack high-speed internet and have a shortage of primary care providers and behavioral health specialists, according to a KFF Health News analysis.

Years of Republican and Democratic administrations have tried to fix the nation’s broadband woes, through flawed attempts. Bad mapping, weak standards, and flimsy oversight have left Adkins and nearly 3 million other rural Americans in dead zones — with eroded health care services and where telehealth doesn’t reach.

Blair Levin, a former executive director of the Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan, called one rural program rollout during the first Trump administration “a disaster.”

It was launched before it was ready, he said, using unreliable federal maps and a reverse-auction process to select internet carriers. Locations went to the lowest bidder, but the agency failed to ensure winners had the knowledge and resources to build networks, said Levin, who is now an equity analyst with New Street Research.

The fund initially announced awards of $9.2 billion to build infrastructure in 49 states. By 2025, $3.3 billion of those awards were in default and, as a result, the program won’t connect 1.9 million homes and businesses, according to a recent study.

A $42 billion Biden-era initiative still may not help Adkins and many others shortchanged by earlier federal broadband grants. The new wave of funding, the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program, or BEAD, has an anti-waste provision and won’t provide service in places where previous grants were awarded — even if companies haven’t delivered on their commitments.

The use of federal money to get people connected is “really essential” for rural areas, said Ross DeVol, CEO and chairman of the board of Heartland Forward, a nonpartisan think tank based in Bentonville, Arkansas, that specializes in state and local economic development.

“Internet service providers look at the economics of trying to go into some of these communities and there just isn’t enough purchasing power in their minds,” DeVol said, adding that broadband expansion is analogous to rural electrification. Without high-speed internet, “you’re simply at a distinct disadvantage,” he added. “I’ll call it economic discrimination.”

‘I Got Books Full’

Adkins keeps spiral-bound notebooks and calendars filled with handwritten records of phone and internet outages.

In January, while bean soup warmed on the stove, she opened a notebook: “I got books full. Hang on.”

Her finger traced the page as she recounted outages that occurred about once a month last year. Adkins said she lost connectivity twice in November, again in October, and in July, May, and March. Each time she went for days without service.

Adkins pays Frontier Communications $102.13 a month for a “bundle” that includes a connection for her house phone and wireless internet access on her cellphone. Frontier did not respond to requests for comment on Adkins’ and other customers’ service.

Adkins, a widow, spends most of her time at home and said she would do video calls with her doctors if she could. She said she still has numbness on one side of her body after the stroke. She also has high blood pressure and arthritis and uses over-the-counter pain patches when needed, such as after she carries 30-pound dog food bags into the house.

She does not own a four-wheel-drive truck and, for three weeks in January, the snow and ice were so severe she couldn’t leave. “I’m stranded up here,” she said, adding that neighbors check in: “‘Do you have electric? Have you got water? Are you OK?’”

The neighbors have all seen Adkins’ line. The pale-yellow cord was tied off with green plastic ties around a pole outside her trailer. As it ran down the hill, it was knotted around tree trunks and branches, frayed in places, and, finally, collapsed on the ground under gravel, snow, and ice at the bottom of the hill.

Adkins said a deer stepping on the line has interrupted her phone service.

David and Billi Belcher’s double-wide modular home sits near the top of the ridge past Adkins’ home. Inside, an old hunting dog sleeps on the floor. Belcher pointed out a window toward where he said Frontier’s cable has remained unrepaired for years: “It’s laying on the ground in the woods,” he said.

Frontier is West Virginia’s legacy carrier, controlling most of the state’s old landlines since buying them from Verizon Communications in 2010. Twelve years later, the company won nearly $248 million to install high-speed internet to West Virginia through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, an initiative launched during President Donald Trump’s first term.

“Big Daddy,” as local transit driver Bruce Perry called Trump, is popular with the people of Lincoln County. About 80% of the county’s voters picked the Republican in the last election.

The Trump administration awarded Frontier money to build high-speed internet to Upper Mud River Road residents, like Adkins, according to state mapping. Frontier has until Dec. 31, 2028, to build.

But the Belchers needed better internet access for work and could afford to pay $700 for a Starlink satellite internet kit and insurance, they said. Their monthly Starlink bill is $120 — a price many cannot manage, especially since Congress sunset an earlier program that helped offset the cost of high-speed plans for consumers.

Meanwhile, the latest broadband program to connect rural Americans is ensnared in Trump administration policy shifts.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which administers the program, in April announced a 90-day extension for states to finalize their plans during a “comprehensive review” of the program.

West Viriginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, announced his state would take an extension. The move, though, doesn’t make a lot of sense, said Evan Feinman, who left the agency in March after directing the broadband program for the past three years.

Calling the work already done in West Virginia an “incredible triumph,” Feinman said the state had completed the planning, mapping, and the initial selection of companies. The plan that was in place would have brought high-speed fiber lines to homes ahead of schedule and under budget, he said.

“They could be building today, and it’s just deeply disappointing that they’re not,” Feinman said.

When Feinman resigned in March, he sent a lengthy email stating that the new administration wants to take fiber away from homes and businesses and substitute it with satellite connections. The move, he said, would be more expensive for consumers and hurt rural and small-town America.

Morrisey, whose office declined to respond to requests for comment, said in his announcement that he wants to ensure West Virginia spends the money in a manner “consistent with program changes being proposed by the Trump Administration” and “evaluate a broader range of technology options.”

Commissioners from Grant County responded with a letter supporting fiber-optic cables rather than satellite-based connections like those provided by Elon Musk’s Starlink. Nationwide, 115 lawmakers from 28 states sent a letter to federal leaders stating that changes could “delay broadband deployment by a year or more.”

For Adkins and others, the wait has been long enough.

While legislators in Washington and across the country bickered over the broadband program, Adkins went without phone and internet. By late March, she said, her 42-year-old son was increasingly worried, noting “you’re getting up in age.” He told her: “Mom, move out, get off of that hill.”

Worst-Case Scenario

A few miles from Upper Mud River Road, past the McDonald’s and across the road from the local library, Brian Vance sat in his downtown Hamlin, West Virginia, office. He said his company has been trying to “build up there for a while.”

Vance is a general manager for Armstrong Telephone and Cable, a regional telecommunications provider that competes with Frontier. He grew up in the community, and parents of a high school friend live off Upper Mud River. But he said “it’s very difficult” to build fiber along the rocky terrain to homes where “you are hoping that people will hook up, and if they don’t, well, you’ve lost a lot of money.”

A 2022 countywide broadband assessment found that stringing fiber-optic lines along telephone poles would cost more than $5,000 per connection in some areas — work that would need big federal subsidies to be feasible.

Yet Vance said Armstrong cannot apply for the latest BEAD funding to help finance connections. And while he likes that the federal government is “being responsible” by not handing out two federal grants for the same area, Vance said, “we want to see people deliver on the grants they have.”

If Frontier hadn’t already gotten federal funds from the earlier Trump program, “we definitely would have applied to that area,” Vance said.

The 2022 assessment noted the community’s economy would not be sustainable without “ubiquitous broadband.”

High-speed internet brings more jobs and less poverty, said Claudia Persico, an associate professor at American University. Persico, who is also a research associate with the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a recent paper that found increased broadband internet leads to a reduction in the number of suicides as well as improvements in self-reported mental and physical health.

More than 30% of Lincoln County’s population reports cases of depression, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate of opioid prescriptions dispensed in Lincoln County is down about 60% from 2014 to 2024 — but still higher than the state average, according to the West Virginia Board of Pharmacy.

Twenty percent of the county’s population lives below the poverty line, and residents are also more likely than the national average to experience heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.

Lincoln Primary Care Center offers telehealth services such as electronic medical records on a patient portal and a pharmacy app, said Jill Adkins, chief quality and risk officer at Southern West Virginia Health System, which operates the clinic.

But because of limited access, only about 7% of patients use telehealth, she said.

Della Vance was a patient at the clinic but said she has never used a patient portal. If she could, Vance said, she would check records on the baby she is expecting.

“You can’t really get on if you don’t have good service and no internet,” she said. “It makes me angry, honestly.”

Vance and her husband, Isaiah, live off a gravel road that veers from Upper Mud River. There is a tall pole with black wires dangling across the road from their small home. Pointing to the cables, Isaiah Vance said he couldn’t get phone service anymore.

Verizon announced plans last year to buy Frontier for an estimated $20 billion. The deal, which must be approved by federal and state regulators, is expected to be completed in early 2026, according to an investor’s press release.

In its federal merger application, Frontier stated that it had taken on too much debt after emerging from bankruptcy and that debt would make it difficult to finish the work of installing fiber to customers in 25 states.

In West Virginia, Frontier’s Allison Ellis wrote in March 3 testimony, seeking approval for the merger from state regulators, that Verizon will honor the rural program commitments. The previous month, in February, Frontier filed a motion with the state public service commission to keep the number of customers using copper lines and the faster fiber-optic lines confidential.

Kelly Workman, West Virginia’s broadband director, said during a November interview that her office has asked federal regulators for “greater visibility” into Frontier’s rural program construction, particularly because those locations cannot win the Biden-era infrastructure money when it's available.

“The worst-case scenario would be for any of these locations to be left behind,” Workman said.

‘Money Cow’

Frontier’s progress installing fiber-optic lines and its unreliable service have frustrated West Virginians for years. In a 2020 letter to the FCC, U.S. Sen. Shelley Capito (R-W.Va.) cited “the failure of Frontier to deliver on promises to federal partners” and its “mismanagement” of federal dollars, which forced the state to pay back $4.7 million because of improper use and missed deadlines.

Michael Holstine, a longtime member of the West Virginia Broadband Enhancement Council, said the company has “just used West Virginia as a money cow.” Holstine has been fighting for the construction of fiber-optic lines in Pocahontas County for years. “I really just hope I get it before I die.”

Across the state, people like Holstine and Adkins are eager for updated networks, according to interviews as well as letters released under a public records request.

Chrissy Murray, vice president of Frontier’s external communications, acknowledged that the company was “building back our community efforts” in West Virginia after a bankruptcy filing and reorganization. She said there has been a “notable decline” in consumer complaints, though she did not provide specific numbers.

Murray said Frontier built fiber-optic cables to 20% of its designated rural funds locations as of the end of 2024. It has also invested in other infrastructure projects across the state, she said in a January email, adding that the company donated high-speed fiber internet to West Virginia University’s rural Jackson’s Mill campus.

According to data tracked by a federal agency, Frontier has connected 6,100 — or fewer than 10% — of the more than 79,000 locations it was awarded in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund program.

The FCC oversees the rural fund. The agency did not respond to a request for comment. Frontier expects to receive $37 million annually from the agency through 2032, according to a federal filing.

In April, a new batch of letters from West Virginia residents filed as “support” for Frontier’s merger with Verizon appeared in the state regulatory docket:

“My support for this case depends on whether Verizon plans to upgrade or replace the existing Frontier infrastructure,” wrote one customer in Summers County, in the far southern corner of the state, adding, “West Virginians in my neck of the woods have been held hostage by Frontier for a generation now because no other providers exist.”

A customer from Hardy County, in the state’s northeastern corner, wrote: “This is [a] move by frontier to to [sic] escape its responsibility to continue services.”

‘Deep-Rooted’

Adkins moved to Upper Mud River with her husband, Bobby, decades ago.

For years, Bobby and Ada Carol Adkins ran a “carry-out” on Upper Mud River Road. The old building is still at the rock quarry just down the hill and around the curve from where her trailer sits.

It was the type of store where locals kept a tab — which Bobby treated too much like a “charity,” Adkins said. They sold cigarettes, beer, bread, bags of chips, and some food items like potatoes and rice. “Whatever the community would want,” she said.

Then, Bobby Adkins’ “health started deteriorating and money got tighter,” Adkins said. He died at 62 years old.

Now, Adkins said, “I’m having kidney problems. I got arthritis, they’re treating me for high blood pressure.”

Her doctor has begun sending notes over the internet to refill her blood pressure medicine and, Adkins said, “I love that!”

But Adkins’ internet was out again in early April, and she can’t afford Starlink like her neighbors. Even as Adkins said she is “deep-rooted,” her son’s request is on her mind.

“I’m having health problems,” Adkins said. “He makes a lot of sense.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

OAK FLAT, Ariz. — Carrying eagle feathers and chanting prayers, Western Apache runners hit the road on a roughly 80-mile journey this month to try to save their sacred land from being fast-tracked by President Donald Trump into a copper mine. This nationally watched battle, which hinges on religious freedom, awaits the U.S. Supreme Court.

The prayer run aimed to defend a 6-square-mile piece of land in rural Arizona outside of Phoenix called Chi’chil Biłdagoteel, or Oak Flat, where tribes have held ceremonies for centuries. The U.S. Forest Service, which owns the site, plans to trade a portion of it to a foreign-owned mining company, Resolution Copper, in exchange for other environmentally sensitive properties.

The battle over Oak Flat traces back 30 years, when prospectors found a massive copper deposit beneath the ground. The proposed land swap, which Congress approved in 2014 through a defense spending bill, has been stalled by three lawsuits.

But on April 17, the Trump administration pushed the project forward without waiting for the courts. The Forest Service announced it would issue an environmental review as soon as June 16, which would pave the way for the land transfer. Trump issued an executive order to expedite the Resolution Copper mine project, as part of a broader push to open more public lands to drilling and mining.

The copper mine would be the largest in North America, producing up to a quarter of U.S. copper demand, the company projects. But it also would destroy most of Oak Flat, leaving behind a sinkhole nearly 2 miles wide and as deep as the Eiffel Tower.

Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit that aims to protect sacred lands including Oak Flat, won a reprieve on May 9, when U.S. District Judge Steven Logan granted an injunction blocking the land swap while the Supreme Court considers its case. The high court is expected to decide whether to take it by early July.

“The federal government and Resolution Copper have put Oak Flat on death row — they are racing to destroy our spiritual lifeblood and erase our religious traditions forever,” Wendsler Nosie Sr., founder of Apache Stronghold, said in a statement. “We are grateful the judge stopped this land grab in its tracks so that the Supreme Court has time to protect Oak Flat from destruction.”

Apache Stronghold’s temporary victory came after the four-day journey from Oak Flat to the federal courthouse in Phoenix ahead of the injunction hearing. The prayer run drew 60 runners, running in segments. Eighty-five faith groups and 44 tribal nations are supporting Apache Stronghold’s Supreme Court appeal.

The fight over Oak Flat offers a glimpse into environmental, public health, and religious battles that may intensify as Trump prioritizes tapping into domestic sources of minerals such as copper, a key ingredient for electronics and renewable energy projects. The case also could set a legal precedent for whether religious freedom grants tribes the right to pray on ancestral lands outside of their reservations.

The Oak Flat case highlights some of the health concerns that arise when ancestral Native American lands owned by the federal government are opened to mining, from physical illness — due to water and air pollution — to psychological, spiritual, and existential distress.

In roadside prayers and rallies along the run, members of various tribes offered visceral accounts of the harm they’ve experienced after sacred lands were tapped for minerals, fossil fuels, and heavy metals. They described attacks on health, identity, religion, and culture that many referred to as ongoing genocide.

At Oak Flat Campground, Apache Stronghold supporters gathered for a ceremony before the prayer run began. Runners were blessed with ashes to protect them on a route that would traverse vast fields of cacti, narrow mountain passes, and even two combative drivers on city streets.

Among those lacing up running shoes was Nizhoni Pike, 24, one of Nosie’s granddaughters. Pike has a deep connection to Oak Flat, where her family holds ceremonies and gathers medicinal plants and food. For Pike, her distress is visceral, immediate.

“This fight means so much,” she said.

Oak Flat is where Pike had her sunrise ceremony, a coming-of-age ritual, at age 13. During the ceremony, she built her own wickiup, a traditional Apache dome-shaped dwelling made of wood and thatch from the land. Her body was painted with white clay, embodying the White Painted Woman, a revered cultural figure. At the end of a four-day ceremony involving dancing from morning to night, Pike walked to a spring to wash off the clay and return it to the land. Butterflies filled the air, she recalled. Her family named the area Nizhoni’s Butterfly Canyon.

The sunrise ceremony creates a cord by which women are forever connected to the land where they came of age, she said. Tribal elders have told her that women may suffer illness if the cords are cut.

“I’m really worried for me and the other girls that had their sunrise dances there,” she said.

She already had anxiety, she said, and it has grown worse because of the drying up and pending destruction of Oak Flat. Pike said when she returned to her butterfly canyon a few years after her sunrise ceremony, the spring was dry and a dead turtle floated in a nearby pool. She said she has seen large cracks in the earth there and old oak trees starting to die.

“I’ve never felt so much pain in my heart or spirit before,” she said.

She and other Apache members attribute the dryness to Resolution Copper, which has been pumping water out of a 7,000-foot-deep mining shaft on its adjacent property for years.

In a statement, company spokesperson Tyson Nansel denied that extracting water at that depth affects the surface water. He said the company treats the removed water then gives it away to farmers to grow crops so they can “pump less fresh groundwater themselves.” He said the company has made significant changes to its proposed mine to “reduce potential impacts on Tribal, social, and cultural interests.”

Along the run, supporters gathered for blessings from various faith leaders, some of whom sprinkled them with holy water.

They first stopped in the nearby town of Superior, part of the Copper Triangle, which has a long history of mining. The mayor there supports the new mine, which the company has said will create 1,500 jobs during its projected 60-year lifespan. But opponents in Superior warned that mining has left the area with high cancer rates, toxic dumps, and ghost towns.

In the city of Mesa, runners stopped at an ancestral site of the O’odham people to receive support from two Native leaders with roots there.

Su:k Chu:vak Fulwilder, a council member of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, said loss of land and identity is taking a toll on her people. Fulwilder said her tribe suffers from high suicide rates, and her own son took his life in 2022.

“These sacred lands being disturbed — our spirits feel that pain and that anger,” she said.

Other supporters raised concerns about water quantity and quality in a time of long-term drought. Resolution Copper’s plans to conduct block-cave mining would require nearly 250 billion gallons of water and the natural water systems would be “altered forever and, in many cases, destroyed in perpetuity,” according to a federal environmental impact statement and hydrology report.

Henry Muñoz, 69, who worked in mines for nearly 24 years and is now chair of the Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition in Superior, noted that the mine would require scarce water to pipe away toxic waste and copper concentrate. The toxic slurry would be sent to a tailings site, he said, where it would require more water so that dust laden with arsenic and sulfur doesn’t blow away. He noted that Resolution Copper is owned by foreign mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP, so much of the profit would go overseas.

With cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency and mine and worker safety agencies, Muñoz added, “the company is going to have free rein to do as they please with the environment, and the public won’t have any recourse.”

The prayer run concluded in downtown Phoenix, merging into a march to the courthouse.

Cadence Hardy, 16, who is Diné, said she grew up in Black Mesa, Arizona, where intensive coal mining depleted an aquifer and its springs, deeply affecting Hopi and Diné communities. Her great-grandfather worked in a coal mine there and got lung disease and cancer, she said.

She said she’s inspired to support Apache Stronghold “to stop what happened to my family from happening to their family.”

In the May 7 federal court hearing, Victoria Peacey, president of Resolution Copper, took the stand, facing a courtroom packed with Apache Stronghold supporters, and testified that it would be at least 16 years until Oak Flat would begin to sink.

Nizhoni Pike later said she felt overwhelmed. Sixteen years is a short time, and the consequence would be huge, she said. “My ancestors’ history could literally be wiped.”

In the courtroom, Pike said, she looked Peacey in the eye.

“Look at me,” Pike recalled thinking. “You are going to destroy me if you destroy Oak Flat.”

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

OCR Acts Swiftly to Investigate Serious and Systemic Allegations of Discrimination Against Jewish Students.

FDA announced that it is initiating action to remove concentrated ingestible fluoride prescription drug products for children from the market

SACRAMENTO, California — El gobernador Gavin Newsom no esperaba enfrentarse a otra crisis sanitaria.

En marzo, mientras el presidente Donald Trump y los republicanos del Congreso intensificaban el debate nacional sobre la posibilidad de recortar la atención médica para los estadounidenses pobres y con discapacidades, el gobernador demócrata tuvo que informar a los legisladores estatales que los costos de la atención de salud en California se habían descontrolado.

Esto debido a las grandes iniciativas de Medicaid que él apoyaba, incluyendo la mayor expansión del país de la atención médica financiada con fondos públicos para inmigrantes que viven en Estados Unidos sin papeles.

Sus altos funcionarios del Departamento de Finanzas estatal revelaron con discreción a los legisladores californianos en una carta que el estado había solicitado un préstamo de $3.400 millones para pagar a las aseguradoras, médicos y hospitales que atendían a los pacientes inscritos en el programa estatal del Medicaid, conocido como Medi-Cal.

Ante el aumento de los costos de la atención en medio de una crisis presupuestaria estatal cada vez más profunda, Newsom ahora debe considerar la posibilidad de reducir la cobertura y los beneficios.

El gobernador, en su segundo mandato, se enfrenta a una difícil decisión política: no cumplir su promesa de lograr una atención médica universal y retirar la cobertura a millones de inmigrantes sin estatus legal, o buscar recortes presupuestarios en otros lugares.

Con casi 15 millones de residentes inscritos en Medi-Cal, California tiene más que perder en materia de atención médica que cualquier otro estado. Sin embargo, aunque Newsom ha condenado la estrategia de Trump sobre los aranceles y las políticas ambientales, se ha mantenido hermético en materia de política de salud.

Para complicar su situación política, las encuestas muestran que brindar cobertura médica a inmigrantes sin papeles cuenta con escaso apoyo. Y cualquier problema presupuestario resultante podría perjudicar su legado político si se postulara a la presidencia en 2028.

“Todos sabemos que los recortes definitivamente se avecinan”, dijo Carlos Alarcón, analista de salud y beneficios públicos del California Immigrant Policy Center, que ha ayudado a impulsar una campaña de una década en el estado para expandir Medicaid a los inmigrantes elegibles sin documentos.

“El gobernador debe cumplir su compromiso; nos decepcionaremos mucho si vemos recortes y reducciones. En tiempos difíciles, siempre son nuestras comunidades marginadas y desatendidas las que salen perdiendo”, agregó.

California permite a cualquier adulto de bajos ingresos inscribirse en Medi-Cal si gana el 138% del nivel federal de pobreza, o $21.597 al año o menos, independientemente de su estatus migratorio. Sin embargo, los costos han sido mucho más altos de lo esperado.

El gobernador demócrata Jerry Brown amplió Medi-Cal a las personas de 19 años o menos sin estatus legal, pero expresó su reticencia a extenderlo más allá de ese grupo debido a los posibles costos.

Newsom promulgó leyes que incluyen a las personas de 20 años o más. Se estima que 1.6 millones de inmigrantes sin estatus legal ahora están cubiertos, y los costos se han disparado a $9.500 millones al año, en comparación con los $6.400 millones estimados en noviembre. El gobierno federal aporta aproximadamente $1.1 mil millones de ese total para atención médica del embarazo y emergencias.

“Podemos expandirnos por pura generosidad a todas partes, pero en cuanto estos recursos se agoten, todos perdemos. Estamos llegando a un punto crítico”, dijo el asambleísta de California David Tangipa (republicano de Fresno). “O asumimos la responsabilidad fiscal, o no habrá servicios para nadie, incluyendo a los californianos y a los inmigrantes indocumentados”.

Los líderes demócratas responsables de aprobar el presupuesto estatal no aceptaron entrevistas. En un comunicado, la senadora estatal María Elena Durazo (demócrata de Los Ángeles) quien defendió la expansión en la Legislatura, declaró: “Revertir este progreso sería una decisión perjudicial y obtusa”.

Los legisladores están considerando congelar la inscripción de inmigrantes sin estatus legal, imponer medidas de costos compartidos como copagos o primas sobre ls medicamentos, o restringir los beneficios, según personas familiarizadas con el tema, que pidieron no ser identificadas para proteger sus relaciones en el Capitolio estatal.

Sin embargo, es poco probable que Newsom recorte drásticamente los fondos en su revisión presupuestaria, publicada el 14 de mayo. En cambio, los recortes se producirían si los republicanos del Congreso aprueban un acuerdo presupuestario con importantes reducciones en el gasto federal en Medicaid.

“Esto va a ser muy problemático para el gobernador. Los recortes del presupuesto afectarán la vida de millones de inmigrantes que recién comienzan a tener atención médica, pero el gobernador tiene que hacer algo, porque esto no es sostenible”, dijo Mark Peterson, experto en atención médica y política nacional de la UCLA. “La posibilidad de recortar otros gastos para apoyar a los inmigrantes que viven en el país sin autorización sería una estrategia política difícil; no creo que eso suceda”.

Si Newsom, junto con la Legislatura controlada por los demócratas, se viera obligado a realizar recortes, podría argumentar que no tenía otra opción. Trump y los republicanos del Congreso han amenazado a estados como California con la última propuesta de la Cámara de Representantes de EE.UU. de recortar la financiación de Medicaid en 10 puntos porcentuales para los estados que ofrecen coberturas a inmigrantes sin papeles.

Para Newsom, Trump podría ser un chivo expiatorio fácil, dicen analistas.

“Puede culpar a Trump; el dinero disponible es limitado”, dijo Mike Madrid, analista político republicano anti-Trump en California, especializado en temas latinos. “Esto está haciendo que la gente vea la atención médica que no puede pagar y se pregunte: ‘¿Por qué demonios se la damos gratis a quienes están aquí sin documentos?’”.

El costo exorbitante ha sido una sorpresa.

En la primera propuesta presupuestaria de Newsom como gobernador, en la que propuso ampliar Medi-Cal a los adultos jóvenes sin documentos, su administración estimó que extender los beneficios a todas las personas elegibles, independientemente de su estatus, costaría aproximadamente $2.4 mil millones anuales. Pero la última cifra reportada a los legisladores fue casi cuatro veces mayor.

Newsom se negó a responder preguntas de KFF Health News, y en su lugar hizo referencia a comentarios anteriores que dejan la puerta abierta a la posibilidad de reducir Medi-Cal. El gobernador destacó las conversaciones “serias” con los legisladores y afirmó que recortar el programa es una “pregunta abierta” en la que el presidente influirá considerablemente.

“¿Cuál es el impacto de Donald Trump en muchos de estos temas? ¿Cuál es el impacto del vandalismo federal en muchos de estos programas?”, se preguntó Newsom retóricamente en diciembre, sugiriendo que no está claro si podrá sostener la expansión para los inmigrantes sin papeles en los próximos años.

Newsom expandió Medi-Cal en tres fases, comenzando con los inmigrantes de 19 a 25 años, quienes se volvieron elegibles en 2020, resistiendo la presión de los defensores de la atención médica para una expansión grande y costosa. Argumentó que hacerlo de forma gradual, en última instancia, ahorraría dinero a California.

“Es lo correcto moral y éticamente”, dijo Newsom en 2020. “También es lo financieramente responsable”.

Los superávits presupuestarios récord de los últimos años permitieron que los demócratas continuaran. Los adultos mayores de 50 a 64 años comenzaron a ser elegibles en 2022, y Newsom cerró la brecha al año siguiente, aprobando la cobertura para el grupo más numeroso, el de 26 a 49 años a partir de 2024.

Sin embargo, los costos han aumentado muchísimo, mientras que el panorama presupuestario se ha deteriorado, según un análisis de KFF de los registros más recientes de 2023 disponibles del Departamento de Servicios de Atención Médica del estado, que administra Medi-Cal.

Por fuera de los niños, fue más caro brindar cobertura de Medicaid a los inmigrantes sin estatus legal que a los residentes legales. Por ejemplo, Medi-Cal pagó a L.A. Care, una gran aseguradora de salud en Los Ángeles, un promedio de $495.32 mensuales por brindar atención a un adulto sin hijos sin papeles, y $266.77 por un residente legal sin hijos.

No solo fue más caro para los inmigrantes sin estatus legal, sino que California asumió la mayor parte del costo.

El estado pagó aproximadamente entre el 60% y el 70% de los costos de atención médica para un inmigrante adulto sin hijos cubierto por L.A. Care, y alrededor del 10% para un residente legal sin hijos. Estos costos no abarcan el costo total de la atención, que puede variar según en donde viven los pacientes de Medi-Cal, y aumentar al surtir recetas, ir al dentista o buscar atención de salud mental.

Estos pagos también varían según la aseguradora, pero la tendencia se mantiene en todos los planes de Medi-Cal. En la mayor parte del estado, los pacientes pueden elegir entre más de un plan de salud.

En muchos casos, la cobertura para los niños sin estatus legal fue más económica que la de los niños con residencia legal. Generalmente, los niños son más saludables y necesitan menos atención.

Mike Genest, quien se desempeñó como director de finanzas durante el gobierno del ex gobernador republicano Arnold Schwarzenegger, argumentó que el estado debería haber previsto el enorme costo.

“La idea de que a largo plazo podamos pagar la atención médica para todas estas personas indocumentadas es insostenible”, dijo Genest.

Si bien ahora los costos son altos, la expansión de Medi-Cal generará ahorros a largo plazo para los contribuyentes y el sistema de salud, afirmó Anthony Wright, quien anteriormente presionó a favor de la expansión como director de la organización sin fines de lucro Health Access y ahora lucha contra los recortes a Medicaid como director ejecutivo de Families USA, con sede en Washington, D.C.

“De todas formas, seguirán acudiendo a nuestro sistema de salud”, afirmó Wright. “Dejarlos sin seguro médico solo resultará en salas de emergencia más congestionadas y costará aún más. No tiene sentido económico que no tengan seguro; eso les quita ingresos cruciales a clínicas y hospitales, lo que solo causa más problemas”.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).