KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner discussed the impact of Medicaid cuts on WAMU’s “1A” on July 23.

• Click here to hear Rovner on “1A.”

KFF Health News correspondent Rachana Pradhan discussed cuts at the National Cancer Institute and the ensuing chaos on PBS’ “PBS News Weekend” on July 19.

• Click here to watch Pradhan on “PBS News Weekend.”
• Read Pradhan’s “World’s Premier Cancer Institute Faces Crippling Cuts and Chaos,” with reporting from Arthur Allen.

KFF Health News Southern correspondent Sam Whitehead discussed how Georgia and other states will be affected by President Donald Trump’s budget law on WUGA’s “The Georgia Health Report” on July 18.

• Click here to hear Whitehead on “The Georgia Health Report.”
• Read Whitehead’s “In a First, Trump and GOP-Led Congress Prepare To Swell Ranks of US Uninsured,” with reporting from Renuka Rayasam.

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).

RAPID CITY, S.D. — Native American tribes and health organizations are responding to concerns about low measles vaccination rates and patients’ difficulty getting care as an outbreak of the disease spreads around the country.

They’re hosting mobile vaccine clinics, running social media campaigns, making sure health providers are vaccinated, reaching out to the parents of unvaccinated children, and hosting online training sessions.

The push to ensure Native American communities are protected from the virus comes as the U.S. is experiencing its worst measles outbreak since 1992. The South Dakota health department announced in early June that the first case in the state was an adult from the Rapid City area.

Cassandra Palmier and her son, Makaito Cuny, have benefited from this outreach. Palmier jumped at the opportunity to get her 5-year-old vaccinated after learning that a mobile clinic would make a stop near her home in a predominately Native American neighborhood in Rapid City.

She had been meaning to get Makaito his second and final dose of the measles vaccine. But car problems made it difficult to get to the doctor.

“I was definitely concerned about the epidemic and the measles,” said Palmier, a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. “I wanted to do my part.”

Meghan O’Connell is the chief public health officer at the Great Plains Tribal Leaders’ Health Board, which organized the mobile clinic. She said data on Native Americans’ vaccination rates is imperfect but suggests that a smaller percentage have received measles shots than the overall U.S. population.

O’Connell said lower vaccination rates may stem from challenges in accessing shots and other health care. Native Americans on rural reservations may be an hour or more from a clinic. Or, like Palmier, they may not have reliable transportation.

Another reason, O’Connell said, is that some Native Americans distrust the Indian Health Service, which is chronically underfunded and understaffed. If the federal agency runs the only nearby health care facility, patients may delay or skip care, she said.

Mirroring a nationwide trend, vaccine skepticism and mistrust of the entire health care system are growing in Native American communities, O’Connell added.

During the mobile clinic’s stop in his Rapid City neighborhood, Makaito walked onto the bus and hopped into an exam chair.

“I’m not going to be scared,” he announced. Makaito sat still as a nurse gave him the shot and placed a bandage on his arm. “I did it!” he said while smiling at his mother.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

For two decades, Washington, D.C., pediatrician Lanre Falusi has counseled parents about vaccine safety, side effects, and timing. But this year, she said, the conversations have changed.

“For the first time, I’m having parents of newborns ask me if their baby will still be able to get vaccines,” Falusi said.

Throughout the country, pediatricians say anxious parents are concerned about access to routine childhood immunizations, especially those with children on Medicaid, the government insurance program for low-income families and people with disabilities. Medicaid covers 4 in 10 children in the U.S.

“It really became an issue when RFK Jr. stepped into the role of HHS secretary,” said Deborah Greenhouse, a pediatrician in South Carolina.

The concern accelerated after the shake-up of a key Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine advisory body in June, raising fears that millions of American families could soon have to pay out-of-pocket for shots now covered by their health insurance.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist, removed all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the panel responsible for recommending which shots are included in the nation’s adult and childhood immunization schedules.

Kennedy replaced the panelists with new members aligned with his views, prompting alarm among medical professionals and public health experts.

“People should be worried about what’s going to happen to the availability of vaccines for children,” said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at KFF, a national health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Under the Affordable Care Act, health insurers are required to cover all ACIP-recommended vaccines. States and other jurisdictions use the childhood vaccine schedule to set immunization requirements for schoolchildren. ACIP’s recommendations also determine which vaccines get covered by the Vaccines for Children Program, a CDC-funded initiative that provides free immunizations to low-income and uninsured children. Half of children in the U.S. are eligible for the VFC program.

If the new ACIP members withdraw support for a particular vaccine and the CDC director agrees, Tolbert said, the consequences would be immediate. “It would automatically affect what is covered and therefore which vaccines are available to children on Medicaid,” she said.

Health insurance companies have not yet said how they would alter coverage, but Tolbert said such a move would open the door for private insurers to refuse to cover the vaccine.

Pediatricians worry about a future where parents might have to choose — pay hundreds of dollars out-of-pocket for shots or leave their kids unprotected.

The health insurance industry group AHIP said that health plans “continue to follow federal requirements related to coverage of ACIP-recommended vaccines and will continue to support broad access to critical preventive services, including immunizations.”

Pediatricians say news about President Donald Trump’s new budget law, which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by about $1 trillion over the next decade, also prompted questions from parents.

While parents may be worried about losing their Medicaid, the law doesn’t mention vaccines or change eligibility or benefits for children’s Medicaid, Tolbert said. But less federal funding means states will have to make decisions about who is covered and which services are offered.

To raise the revenue needed to pay for Medicaid, states could raise taxes; move money earmarked for other spending, such as education or corrections; or, more likely, reduce Medicaid spending.

“And they may do that by cutting eligibility for optional populations or by cutting services that are optional, or by reducing payments to providers in the form of provider rates,” Tolbert said. “It’s unclear how this will play out, and it will likely look different across all states.”

In May, Kennedy announced in a post on X that the CDC is no longer recommending the covid-19 vaccine for healthy children and pregnant women. The move prompted a lawsuit by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other physician groups that seeks to freeze Kennedy’s directive.

In June, the new ACIP members appointed by Kennedy voted to recommend that adults and children no longer receive flu vaccines with thimerosal, a preservative rarely used in some flu vaccines. Anti-vaccine activists, including Kennedy, have rallied against thimerosal for decades, alleging links to autism despite no evidence of any association.

“There is no cause for concern,” Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in a statement. “As Secretary Kennedy has stated, no one will be denied access to a licensed vaccine if they choose to receive one.”

“When the ACIP committee met last month, they reaffirmed that flu vaccines will remain accessible and covered, and they emphasized safety by ensuring these vaccines are mercury-free,” Hilliard wrote. “The Vaccines for Children (VFC) program continues to provide COVID-19 vaccines at no cost for eligible children when the parent, provider, and patient decide vaccination is appropriate. Medicaid will continue to reimburse the administration fee.”

But the possibility that a vaccine could be restricted or no longer covered by insurance is already changing how parents approach immunization. In Falusi’s practice, parents are scheduling appointments to coincide precisely with their child’s eligibility, sometimes making appointments the same week as their birthdays.

Melissa Mason, a pediatrician in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has evaluated some patients who contracted measles during the multistate outbreak that started in neighboring Texas.

She’s concerned that any new limitations on access or reimbursement for childhood vaccines could lead to even more preventable illnesses and deaths.

Nationally, there have been more than 1,300 measles cases since January, including three deaths, according to the CDC. “We’re seeing this outbreak because vaccination rates are too low and it allows measles to spread in the community,” Mason said.

Children and teens account for 66% of national measles cases. Mason has begun offering the measles vaccine to infants as young as 6 months old, a full six months earlier than standard practice, though still within federal guidelines.

Last year, overall kindergarten vaccination rates fell in the U.S. At the same time, the number of children with a school vaccination exemption continued to rise.

Pertussis, or whooping cough — another disease that can be deadly to young children — is spreading. As of July 5, more than 15,100 cases had been identified in U.S. residents this year, according to the CDC.

Mason said pertussis is especially dangerous to babies too young to receive the vaccine.

For now, pediatricians are trying to maintain a sense of urgency without inciting panic.

In Columbia, South Carolina, Greenhouse used to offer families a flexible age range for routine vaccinations.

“I’m not saying that anymore,” the pediatrician said.

She now urges parents to get their children vaccinated as soon as they are eligible.

She described anxious parents asking whether the HPV vaccine, which helps prevent cervical cancer, can be administered to children younger than the recommended age of 9.

“I actually had two parents today ask if their 7- or 8-year-olds could get the HPV shot,” Greenhouse said. “I had to tell them it’s not allowed.”

With the vaccine requiring multiple doses months apart, Greenhouse fears time may run out for families to get the series covered by insurance. If they have to pay out-of-pocket, she’s afraid some families may choose not to get the second dose. A second dose could cost about $300 if no longer covered by insurance.

“I cannot be 100% sure what the future looks like for some of these vaccines,” Greenhouse said. “I can tell you it’s a very scary place to be.”

Kennedy’s newly appointed vaccine advisory committee is expected to hold its next public meeting as soon as August.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

President Donald Trump rode to reelection last fall on voter concerns about prices. But as his administration pares back federal rules and programs designed to protect patients from the high cost of health care, Trump risks pushing more Americans into debt, further straining family budgets already stressed by medical bills.

Millions of people are expected to lose health insurance in the coming years as a result of the tax cut legislation Trump signed this month, leaving them with fewer protections from large bills if they get sick or suffer an accident.

At the same time, significant increases in health plan premiums on state insurance marketplaces next year will likely push more Americans to either drop coverage or switch to higher-deductible plans that will require them to pay more out-of-pocket before their insurance kicks in.

Smaller changes to federal rules are poised to bump up patients’ bills, as well. New federal guidelines for covid-19 vaccines, for example, will allow health insurers to stop covering the shots for millions, so if patients want the protection, some may have to pay out-of-pocket.

The new tax cut legislation will also raise the cost of certain doctor visits, requiring copays of up to $35 for some Medicaid enrollees.

And for those who do end up in debt, there will be fewer protections. This month, the Trump administration secured permission from a federal court to roll back regulations that would have removed medical debt from consumer credit reports.

That puts Americans who cannot pay their medical bills at risk of lower credit scores, hindering their ability to get a loan or forcing them to pay higher interest rates.

“For tens of millions of Americans, balancing the budget is like walking a tightrope,” said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “The Trump administration is just throwing them off.”

White House spokesperson Kush Desai did not respond to questions about how the administration’s health care policies will affect Americans’ medical bills.

The president and his Republican congressional allies have brushed off the health care cuts, including hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid retrenchment in the mammoth tax law. “You won’t even notice it,” Trump said at the White House after the bill signing July 4. “Just waste, fraud, and abuse.”

But consumer and patient advocates around the country warn that the erosion of federal health care protections since Trump took office in January threatens to significantly undermine Americans’ financial security.

“These changes will hit our communities hard,” said Arika Sánchez, who oversees health care policy at the nonprofit New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty.

Sánchez predicted many more people the center works with will end up with medical debt. “When families get stuck with medical debt, it hurts their credit scores, makes it harder to get a car, a home, or even a job,” she said. “Medical debt wrecks people’s lives.”

For Americans with serious illnesses such as cancer, weakened federal protections from medical debt pose yet one more risk, said Elizabeth Darnall, senior director of federal advocacy at the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network. “People will not seek out the treatment they need,” she said.

Trump promised a rosier future while campaigning last year, pledging to “make America affordable again” and “expand access to new Affordable Healthcare.”

Polls suggest voters were looking for relief.

About 6 in 10 adults — Democrats and Republicans — say they are worried about being able to afford health care, according to one recent survey, outpacing concerns about the cost of food or housing. And medical debt remains a widespread problem: As many as 100 million adults in the U.S. are burdened by some kind of health care debt.

Despite this, key tools that have helped prevent even more Americans from sinking into debt are now on the chopping block.

Medicaid and other government health insurance programs, in particular, have proved to be a powerful economic backstop for low-income patients and their families, said Kyle Caswell, an economist at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C.

Caswell and other researchers found, for example, that Medicaid expansion made possible by the 2010 Affordable Care Act led to measurable declines in medical debt and improvements in consumers’ credit scores in states that implemented the expansion.

“We’ve seen that these programs have a meaningful impact on people’s financial well-being,” Caswell said.

Trump’s tax law — which will slash more than $1 trillion in federal health spending over the next decade, mostly through Medicaid cuts — is expected to leave 10 million more people without health coverage by 2034, according to the latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The tax cuts, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans, will add $3.4 trillion to U.S. deficits over a decade, the office calculated.

The number of uninsured could spike further if Trump and his congressional allies don’t renew additional federal subsidies for low- and moderate-income Americans who buy health coverage on state insurance marketplaces.

This aid — enacted under former President Joe Biden — lowers insurance premiums and reduces medical bills enrollees face when they go to the doctor or the hospital. But unless congressional Republicans act, those subsidies will expire later this year, leaving many with bigger bills.

Federal debt regulations developed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Biden administration would have protected these people and others if they couldn’t pay their medical bills.

The agency issued rules in January that would have removed medical debts from consumer credit reports. That would have helped an estimated 15 million people.

But the Trump administration chose not to defend the new regulations when they were challenged in court by debt collectors and the credit bureaus, who argued the federal agency had exceeded its authority in issuing the rules. A federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump ruled that the regulation should be scrapped.

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.

Much of the hubbub in health care this year has been focused on Medicaid, which faces dramatically reduced federal funding as the result of the huge budget bill signed by President Donald Trump earlier this month. But now the attention is turning to the Affordable Care Act, which is facing some big changes that could cost many consumers their health coverage as soon as 2026.

Meanwhile, changes to immigration policy under Trump could have an outsize impact on the nation’s health care system, both by exacerbating shortages of health workers and by eliminating insurance coverage that helps keep some hospitals and clinics afloat.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Julie Appleby of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists Julie Appleby KFF Health News @julie_appleby Read Julie's stories. Jessie Hellmann CQ Roll Call @jessiehellmann @jessiehellmann.bsky.social Read Jessie's stories. Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico @AliceOllstein @alicemiranda.bsky.social Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Many Americans can expect their health insurance premiums to rise next year, but those rate hikes could be even bigger for the millions who rely on ACA health plans. To afford such plans, most consumers rely on enhanced federal government subsidies, which are set to expire — and GOP lawmakers seem loath to extend them, even though many of their constituents could lose their insurance as a result.
• Congress included a $50 billion fund for rural health care in Trump’s new law, aiming to cushion the blow of Medicaid cuts. But the fund is expected to fall short, especially as many people lose their health insurance and clinics, hospitals, and health systems are left to cover their bills.
• Abortion opponents continue to claim the abortion pill mifepristone is unsafe, more recently by citing a problematic analysis — and some lawmakers are using it to pressure federal officials to take another look at the drug’s approval. Meanwhile, many Planned Parenthood clinics are bracing for an end to federal funding, stripping money not only from busy clinics where abortion is legal but also from clinics that provide only contraception, testing for sexually transmitted infections, and other non-abortion care in states where the procedure is banned.
• And as more states implement laws enabling doctors to opt out of treatments that violate their morals, a pregnant woman in Tennessee says her doctor refused to provide prenatal care, because she is unmarried.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Jonathan Oberlander, a Medicare historian and University of North Carolina health policy professor, to mark Medicare’s 60th anniversary later this month.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Republicans Call Medicaid Rife with Fraudsters. This Man Sees No Choice but To Break the Rules,” by Katheryn Houghton.  

Julie Appleby: NPR’s “Many Beauty Products Have Toxic Ingredients. Newly Proposed Bills Could Change That,” by Rachel Treisman.  

Jessie Hellmann: Roll Call’s “Kennedy’s Mental Health Drug Skepticism Lands at FDA Panel,” by Ariel Cohen.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Associated Press’ “RFK Jr. Promoted a Food Company He Says Will Make Americans Healthy. Their Meals Are Ultraprocessed,” by Amanda Seitz and Jonel Aleccia.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• KFF Health News’ “Insurers and Customers Brace for Double Whammy to Obamacare Premiums,” by Julie Appleby.
• The Congressional Budget Office’s “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline.”
• The CBO’s “How Changes to Funding for the NIH and Changes in the FDA’s Review Times Would Affect the Development of New Drugs.”
• KFF’s “KFF Health Tracking Poll: Public Views on Recent Tax and Budget Legislation,” by Grace Sparks, Shannon Schumacher, Julian Montalvo III, Ashley Kirzinger, and Liz Hamel.
• The Washington Post’s “Digging Into the Math of a Study Attacking the Safety of the Abortion Pill,” by Glenn Kessler.

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).

RAPID CITY, S.D. — Cassandra Palmier had been meaning to get her son the second and final dose of the measles vaccine. But car problems made it difficult to get to the doctor.

So she pounced on the opportunity to get him vaccinated after learning that a mobile clinic would be visiting her neighborhood.

“I was definitely concerned about the epidemic and the measles,” Palmier, a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, said at the June event. “I wanted to do my part.”

So did her son, Makaito Cuny.

“I’m not going to be scared,” the 5-year-old announced as he walked onto the bus containing the clinic and hopped into an exam chair.

Makaito sat still as a nurse gave him the shot in his arm. “I did it!” he said while smiling at his mother.

The vaccine clinic was hosted by the Great Plains Tribal Leaders’ Health Board, which serves tribes across Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. It’s one way Native American tribes and organizations are responding to concerns about low measles vaccination rates and patients’ difficulty accessing health care as the disease spreads across the country.

Meghan O’Connell, the board’s chief public health officer, said it is also working with tribes that want to host vaccine clinics.

Elsewhere, tribal health organizations have launched social media campaigns, are making sure health providers are vaccinated, and are reaching out to the parents of unvaccinated children.

This spring, Project ECHO at the University of New Mexico hosted an online video series about measles aimed at health care professionals and organizations that serve Native American communities. The presenters outlined the basics of measles diagnosis and treatment, discussed culturally relevant communication strategies, and shared how tribes are responding to the outbreak.

Participants also strategized about ways to improve vaccination rates, said Harry Brown, a physician and an epidemiologist for the United South and Eastern Tribes, a nonprofit that works with 33 tribes in the Atlantic Coast and Southeast regions.

“It’s a pretty hot topic right now in Indian Country and I think a lot of people are being proactive,” he said.

Measles can survive for up to two hours in the air in a space where an infected person has been, sickening up to 90% of people who aren’t vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The U.S. has had 1,319 confirmed cases of measles this year as of July 23, according to the CDC. It’s the largest outbreak in the U.S. since 1992. Ninety-two percent of the 2025 cases involve unvaccinated patients or people with an unknown vaccination status. Three people had died in the U.S. and 165 had been hospitalized as of July 23.

O’Connell said data on Native Americans’ vaccination rates is imperfect but that it suggests a lower percentage of them have received measles shots than the overall U.S. population.

The limited national data on measles vaccination rates for Native Americans is based on small surveys of people who self-identify as Native American. Some show that Native Americans have slightly lower measles vaccination rates, while others show significant gaps.

Data from some states, including South Dakota and Montana, shows that Native Americans are less likely than white children to be vaccinated on schedule.

The national measles vaccination rate is significantly lower for Native Americans who use the mostly rural Indian Health Service. About 76% of children 16 to 27 months old had gotten the first shot, according to data collected by the agency during recent patient visits at 156 clinics. That’s a 10-percentage-point drop from 10 years ago.

But the IHS data shows that its patients are at least as likely as other children to have received both recommended measles shots by the time they’re 17. O’Connell said it’s unclear if currently unvaccinated patients will continue the trend of eventually getting up to date on their shots or if they will remain unvaccinated.

The immunization rate is probably higher for older children since schools require students to get vaccinated unless they have an exemption, Brown said. He said it’s important that parents get their children vaccinated on time, when they’re young and more at risk of being hospitalized or dying from the disease.

Native Americans may have lower vaccination rates due to the challenges they face in accessing shots and other health care, O’Connell said. Those on rural reservations may be an hour or more from a clinic. Or, like Palmier, they may not have reliable transportation.

Another reason, O’Connell said, is that some Native Americans distrust the Indian Health Service, which is chronically underfunded and understaffed. If the only nearby health care facility is run by the agency, patients may delay or skip care.

O’Connell and Brown said vaccine skepticism and mistrust of the entire health care system are growing in Native American communities, as has occurred elsewhere nationwide.

“Prior to social media, I think our population was pretty trustful of childhood vaccination. And American Indians have a long history of being severely impacted by infectious disease,” he said.

European colonizers’ arrival in the late 1400s brought new diseases, including measles, that killed tens of millions of Indigenous people in North and South America by the early 1600s. Native Americans have also had high mortality rates in modern pandemics, including the 1918-20 Spanish flu and covid-19.

The Great Plains Tribal Leaders’ Health Board reacted quickly when measles cases began showing up near its headquarters in South Dakota this year. Nebraska health officials announced in late May that a child had measles in a rural part of the state, close to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Then, four people from the Rapid City area got sick later that month and into the middle of June.

“Our phones really rang off the hook” once that news came out, said Darren Crowe, a vice president at the board’s Oyate Health Center in Rapid City. He said parents wanted to know if their children were up to date on their measles vaccines.

Crowe said the health board ordered extra masks, created a measles command team that meets daily, and called parents when its online database showed their children needed a shot.

Brown praised that approach.

“It takes a concerted outreach effort that goes individual to individual,” he said, adding that his organization helped the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas with similar efforts.

Brown said reaching specific families can be a challenge in some low-income Native American communities, where many people’s phone numbers frequently change since they use temporary prepaid plans.

Once a health worker reaches a parent, Brown said, they should listen and ask questions before sharing the importance of the vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella.

“Rather than trying to preach to somebody and beat them over the head with data or whatever to convince them that this is what they need to do, you start out by finding out where they are,” he said. “So, ‘Tell me about your experience with vaccination. Tell me what you know about vaccination.’”

Most people agree to immunize their children when presented with helpful information in a nonjudgmental way, Brown said.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

President Donald Trump signed legislation that mandates some Medicaid recipients prove they’re working, volunteering, or completing other qualifying activities at least 80 hours a month to maintain coverage. This applies to 40 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that have expanded Medicaid to a broader pool of low-income adults. Those states will share $200 million to prepare eligibility systems by the end of next year.

KFF Health News’ Renuka Rayasam breaks down what you need to know about Medicaid work requirements.

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).

U.S. Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture are accelerating federal efforts to address the growing concerns around ultra-processed foods

HIPAA settlement marks OCR’s 14th ransomware enforcement action

Secretary Kennedy, took action Tuesday signing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations

More states are passing laws to protect information generated by a person’s brain and nervous system as technology improves the ability to unlock the sensitive details of a person’s health, mental states, emotions, and cognitive functioning.

Colorado, California, and Montana are among the states that have recently required safeguarding brain data collected by devices outside of medical settings. That includes headphones, earbuds, and other wearable consumer products that aim to improve sleep, focus, and aging by measuring electrical activity and sending the data to an app on users’ phones.

A report by the Neurorights Foundation, an advocacy group that aims to protect people from the misuse of neurotechnology, found that 29 of 30 companies with neurotechnology products that can be purchased online have access to brain data and “provide no meaningful limitations to this access.” Almost all of them can share data with third parties.

In June, the American Medical Association called for greater regulation of neural data. In April, several Democratic members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether companies are exploiting consumers’ brain data. Juliana Gruenwald Henderson, a deputy director of the FTC’s Office of Public Affairs, said the agency had received the letter but had no additional comment.

Although current devices gather relatively basic information like sleep states, advocates for brain data protection caution that future technologies, including artificial intelligence, could extract more personal and sensitive information about people’s medical conditions or innermost thoughts.

“If you collect the data today, what can you read from it five years from now because the technology is advancing so quickly?” said Democratic state Sen. Cathy Kipp, who sponsored Colorado’s 2024 neural data protection bill when she was in the state House of Representatives.

As both excitement and trepidation about AI build, at least 28 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands have enacted some type of AI regulation separate from the privacy bills protecting neural data. President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” included a 10-year halt on states passing laws to regulate AI, but the Senate stripped that provision out of the budget reconciliation bill before voting to approve it on July 1.

The spirit of laws in Colorado, California, and Montana is to protect the neural data itself, not to regulate any algorithm or AI that might use it, said Sean Pauzauskie, medical director for the Neurorights Foundation.

But neurotechnology and AI go hand in hand, Pauzauskie said. “A lot of what these devices promise is based on pattern recognition. AI is really driving the usability and significance of the patterns in the brain data.”

Cristin Welle, a professor of neurosurgery at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, said that AI’s ability to identify patterns is a game changer in her field. “But contribution of a person’s neural data on an AI training set should be voluntary. It should be an opt-in, not a given.”

Chile in 2021 became the first country to adopt a constitutional amendment for neurorights, which prioritize human rights in the development of neurotechnology and collection of neural data, and UNESCO has said that neurotechnology and artificial intelligence could together pose a threat to human identity and autonomy.

Neurotechnology can sound like science fiction. Researchers used a cap with 128 electrodes and an AI model to decode the brain’s electric signals from thoughts into speech. And two years ago, a study described how neuroscientists reconstructed the Pink Floyd song “Another Brick in the Wall” by analyzing the brain signals of 29 epilepsy patients who listened to the song with electrodes implanted in their brains.

The aim is to use neurotechnology to help those with paralysis or speech disabilities, as well as treat or diagnose traumatic brain injuries and brain disorders such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s. Elon Musk’s Neuralink and Synchron, funded by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, are among the companies with clinical trials underway for devices implanted in the brain.

Pauzauskie, a hospital neurologist, started worrying four years ago about the blurring of the line between clinical and consumer use of neural data. He noted that the devices used by his epilepsy patients were also available for purchase online, but without protections afforded by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in medical settings.

Pauzauskie approached Kipp two years ago at a constituent meetup in his hometown of Fort Collins to propose a law to protect brain data in Colorado. “The first words out of her mouth that I’ll never forget were, ‘Who would be against people owning their own brain data?’” he said.

Brain data protection is one of the rare issues that unite lawmakers across the political aisle. The bills in California, Montana, and Colorado passed unanimously or nearly unanimously. Montana’s law will go into effect in October.

Neural data protection laws in Colorado and California amend each state’s general consumer privacy act, while Montana’s law adds to its existing genetic information privacy act. Colorado and Montana require initial express consent to collect or use neural data and separate consent or the ability to opt out before disclosing that data to a third party. A business must provide a way for consumers to delete their data when operating in all three states.

“I want a very hard line in the sand that says, you own this completely,” said Montana state Republican Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, who sponsored his state’s neural data bill and other privacy laws. “You have to give consent. You have the right to have it deleted. You have complete rights over this information.”

For Zolnikov, Montana’s bill is a blueprint for a national neural data protection law, and Pauzauskie said support of regulatory efforts by groups like the AMA pave the way for further federal and state efforts.

Welle agreed that federal regulations are needed in addition to these new state laws. “I absolutely hope that we can come up with something on a national level that can enshrine people’s neural rights into law, because I think this is going to be more important than we can even imagine at this time.”

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).

MISSOULA, Mont. — As congressional Republicans finalized Medicaid work requirements in President Donald Trump’s budget bill, one man who relies on that government-subsidized health coverage was trying to coax his old car to start after an eight-hour shift making sandwiches.

James asked that only his middle name be used to tell his story so that he wouldn’t lose health coverage or be accused of Medicaid fraud. He found his food service gig a few weeks into an addiction treatment program. The man in his late 30s said his boss “hasn’t been disappointed.”

“I’m a good worker,” he said with a grin.

James can get the prescription drugs that help him stabilize his life and hold down that job through Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program that covers people with low incomes or disabilities. Those drugs curb his desire for alcohol and treat long-standing conditions that exacerbate his addiction, including bipolar and insomnia disorders.

But he hasn’t qualified for the program in months, ever since his work hours increased and he received a raise of about $1 an hour. He exceeds his income eligibility limit of about $21,000 per year by roughly $50 a week.

James said that despite his raise, he’s struggling to cover routine expenses, such as keeping his car running and paying his phone bill. He said he can’t afford the care he needs even on the cheapest insurance plan available to him through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace or through his job’s health insurance plan. Even paying $60 a month for his sleep medications — one of six prescriptions he takes daily — is too expensive.

“I only saw one option,” James said. “Fudge the numbers.”

James hasn’t reported his new income to the state. That puts him at odds with congressional Republicans who justified adding hurdles to Medicaid by claiming the system is rife with waste, fraud, and abuse. But James isn’t someone sitting on his couch playing video games, the type of person House Speaker Mike Johnson and other people said they would target as they sought work requirements.

Medicaid provides health coverage and long-term care to more than 70 million people in the United States. Those who study safety-net systems say it’s extremely rare for enrollees to commit fraud to tap into that coverage. In fact, research shows swaths of eligible people aren’t enrolled in Medicaid, likely because the system is so confusing. And nearly two-thirds of people on Medicaid in 2023 had jobs, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Those transitioning off Medicaid may qualify for other subsidized or low-priced health plans through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace. But, as in James’ case, such plans can have gaps in what care is covered, and more comprehensive private plans may be too expensive. So James and an unknown number of other people find themselves caught between working too much to qualify for Medicaid but earning too little to pay for their own health care.

James considers himself to be a patriot and said that people shouldn’t “use government funding to just be lazy.” He agrees with the Republican argument that, if able, people should work if they receive Medicaid. Hiding his hours on the job from the government bothers him, especially since he feels he must lie to access the medical care that enables him to work.

“I don’t want to be a fraud. I don’t want to die,” James said. “Those shouldn’t be the only two options.”

On July 4, Trump signed into law the major tax and spending bill that makes it harder for low-income workers to get Medicaid. That includes requiring beneficiaries to work or go to school and adding paperwork to prove every six months they meet a minimum number of hours on the job.

“It’s going to hurt people, whether they’re playing by the rules or not,” said Ben Sommers, a health economist at Harvard University. “We see this vilification of mostly very hard-working people who are really struggling and are benefiting from a program that helps them stay alive.”

James said he initially declined his raise because he worried about losing Medicaid. He had previously been kicked off the coverage about a month into his rehab program after finding work. To stay in the sober-living program he otherwise couldn’t afford, James said, he dropped just enough hours at work to requalify for Medicaid and then soon picked up hours again. If he didn’t earn more, he said, he had no chance of saving enough money to find housing after graduating from the treatment program.

“They’ll give you a bone if you stay in the mud,” James said. “But you have to stay there.”

That problem — becoming just successful enough to suddenly lose Medicaid — is common. It’s called a benefit cliff, said Pamela Herd, who researches government aid at the University of Michigan.

“It just doesn’t make any sense that someone gets a dollar pay raise and all of a sudden they lose all access to their health insurance,” Herd said.

She said a partial fix exists called continuous eligibility, which guarantees an individual’s Medicaid coverage for a specific period, such as a year or longer. The goal is to give people time to adjust when they do earn more money. Continuous eligibility also helps maintain coverage for low-income workers with unpredictable hours and whose pay changes month to month.

But Congress has moved in the other direction. Under the new law, policymakers limited windows of eligibility for able-bodied adults to every six months. That will put more people on the program’s eligibility cliff, Herd said, in which they must decide between losing access to coverage or dropping hours at work.

“It is going to be a nightmare,” Herd said.

Those federal changes will be especially difficult for people with chronic conditions, such as James in Montana.

Not that long ago, James wouldn’t have been breaking the rules to access Medicaid because his state had 12-month continuous eligibility. But in 2023, Montana began requiring enrollees to report any change in their income within 10 days.

James is proud of how far he’s come. About a year ago, his body was breaking down. He couldn’t hold a spoon to eat breakfast without whiskey — his hands shook too hard. He had alcohol-induced seizures. He said his memories from his unhealthiest times come in flashes: being put on a stretcher, the face of a worried landlord, ambulance lights in the background.

James recently graduated from his treatment program. He’s staying with a relative to save money as he and his girlfriend try to find an affordable place to rent — though even with Medicaid, finding housing feels like a stretch to him. He’s taking classes part-time to become a licensed addiction counselor. His dream is to help others survive addiction, and he also sees that career as a way out of poverty.

To James, all his progress rides on keeping Medicaid a bit longer.

“Every time I get a piece of mail, I am terrified that I’m gonna open it up and it’s gonna say I don’t have Medicaid anymore,” he said. “I’m constantly in fear that it’s gonna go away.”

As of mid-July, officials hadn’t noticed the extra $50 he makes each week.

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).

Consumer Brands Association pledged on behalf of the makers of the nation’s food and beverage products to remove certified Food, Drug & Cosmetic (FD&C) petroleum-based colors from America’s food supply.

ALBANY, Ga. — Belinda McLoyd has been thinking about peanut butter.

McLoyd, 64, receives a small monthly payment through the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, previously known as food stamps.

“They don’t give you that much to work with,” she said. To fit her tight budget, she eats ramen noodles — high on sodium and low on nutrition — multiple times a week.

If she had more money, said McLoyd, who has been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and heart problems, she’d buy more grapes, melons, chuck roast, ground turkey, cabbage, and turnip greens. That’s what she did when lawmakers nearly doubled her SNAP benefit during the pandemic.

But now that a GOP-led Congress has approved $186 billion in cuts to the food assistance program through 2034, McLoyd, who worked in retail until she retired in 2016, isn’t sure how she will be able to eat any healthy food if her benefits get reduced again.

McLoyd said her only hope for healthy eating might be to resort to peanut butter, which she heard “has everything” in it.

“I get whatever I can get,” said McLoyd, who uses a walker to get around her senior community in southwestern Georgia. “I try to eat healthy, but some things I can’t, because I don’t have enough money to take care of that.”

The second Trump administration has said that healthy eating is a priority. It released a “Make America Healthy Again” report citing poor diet as a cause of childhood illnesses and chronic diseases. And it’s allowing states — including Arkansas, Idaho, and Utah — to limit purchases of unhealthy food with federal SNAP benefits for the first time in the history of the century-old anti-hunger program.

President Donald Trump also signed a tax and spending law on July 4 that will shift costs to states and make it harder for people to qualify for SNAP by expanding existing work requirements. The bill cuts about 20% of SNAP’s budget, the deepest cut the program has faced. About 40 million people now receive SNAP payments, but 3 million of them will lose their nutrition assistance completely, and millions more will see their benefits reduced, according to an analysis of an earlier version of the bill by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Researchers say SNAP cuts run counter to efforts to help people prevent chronic illness through healthy food.

“People are going to have to rely on cheaper food, which we know is more likely to be processed, less healthy,” said Kate Bauer, an associate professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

“It’s, ‘Oh, we care about health — but for the rich people,’” she said.

About 47 million people lived in households with limited or uncertain access to food in 2023, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The agency’s research shows that people living in food-insecure households are more likely to develop hypertension, arthritis, diabetes, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The Trump administration counters that the funding cuts would not harm people who receive benefits.

“This is total fearmongering,” said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly in an email. “The bill will ultimately strengthen SNAP for those who need it by implementing cost-sharing measures with states and commonsense work requirements.”

McLoyd and other residents in Georgia’s Dougherty County, where Albany is located, already face steep barriers to accessing healthy food, from tight budgets and high rates of poverty to a lack of grocery stores and transportation, said Tiffany Terrell, who founded A Better Way Grocers in 2017 to bring fresh food to people who can’t travel to a grocery store.

More than a third of residents receive SNAP benefits in the rural, majority-Black county that W.E.B. Du Bois described as “the heart of the Black Belt” and a place “of curiously mingled hope and pain,” where people struggled to get ahead in a land of former cotton plantations, in his 1903 book, “The Souls of Black Folk.”

Terrell said that a healthier diet could mitigate many of the illnesses she sees in her community. In 2017, she replaced school bus seats with shelves stocked with fruits, vegetables, meats, and eggs and drove her mobile grocery store around to senior communities, public housing developments, and rural areas.

But cuts to food assistance will devastate the region, setting back efforts to help residents boost their diet with fruits, vegetables, and other nutritious food and tackle chronic disease, she said.

Terrell saw how SNAP recipients like McLoyd ate healthier when food assistance rose during the pandemic. They got eggs, instead of ramen noodles, and fresh meat and produce, instead of canned sausages.

Starting in 2020, SNAP recipients received extra pandemic assistance, which corresponded to a 9% decrease in people saying there was sometimes or often not enough food to eat, according to the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University. Once those payments ended in 2023, more families had trouble purchasing enough food, according to a study published in Health Affairs in October. Non-Hispanic Black families, in particular, saw an increase in anxiety, the study found.

“We know that even short periods of food insecurity for kids can really significantly harm their long-term health and cognitive development,” said Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst on the food assistance team at the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities. Cuts to SNAP “will put a healthy diet even farther out of reach for these families.”

The Trump administration said it’s boosting healthy eating for low-income Americans through restrictions on what they can buy with SNAP benefits. It has begun approving state requests to limit the purchase of soda and candy with SNAP benefits.

“Thank you to the governors of Indiana, Arkansas, Idaho, Utah, Iowa, and Nebraska for their bold leadership and unwavering commitment to Make America Healthy Again,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in a press release about the requests. “I call on every governor in the nation to submit a SNAP waiver to eliminate sugary drinks — taxpayer dollars should never bankroll products that fuel the chronic disease epidemic.”

Although states have asked for such restrictions in the past, previous administrations, including the first Trump administration, never approved them.

Research shows that programs encouraging people to buy healthy food are more effective than regulating what they can buy. Such limits increase stigma on families that receive benefits, are burdensome to retailers, and often difficult to implement, researchers say.

“People make incredibly tough choices to survive,” said Gina Plata-Nino, the deputy director of SNAP at the Food Research & Action Center, a nonprofit advocacy group, and a former senior policy adviser in the Biden administration.

“It’s not about soda and candy,” she said. “It’s about access.”

Terrell said she is unsure how people will survive if their food benefits are further trimmed.

“What are we thinking people are going to do?” said Terrell of A Better Way Grocers, who also opened a bustling community market last year that sells fresh juices, smoothies, and wellness shots in downtown Albany. “We’ll have people choosing between food and bills.”

That’s true for Stephen Harrison, 22, whose monthly SNAP benefit supports him, along with his parents and younger brother. During the pandemic, he used the extra assistance to buy strawberries and grapes, but now he comes into A Better Way Grocers to buy an orange when he can.

Harrison, who is studying culinary arts at Albany Technical College, said his family budgets carefully to afford meals like pork chops with cornbread and collard greens, but he said that, if his benefits are cut, the family will have to resort to cheaper foods.

“I’d buy hot dogs,” he said with a shrug.

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).

When Lawrence and Penny Higgins of Fairfield, Maine, first learned in 2020 that high levels of toxic chemicals called PFAS taint their home’s well water, they wondered how their health might suffer. They had consumed the water for decades, given it to their pets and farm animals, and used it to irrigate their vegetable garden and fruit trees.

“We wanted to find out just what it’s going to do to us,” Penny Higgins said. They contacted a couple of doctors, but “we were met with a brick wall. Nobody knew anything.”

Worse still, she added, they “really didn’t want to hear about it.”

Many clinicians remain unaware of the health risks linked to PFAS, short for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, despite rising medical and public awareness of the chemicals and their toxicity. PFAS can affect nearly every organ system and linger in bodies for decades, raising risks of cancer, immune deficiencies, and pregnancy complications.

These “forever chemicals” have been widely used since the 1950s in products including cosmetics, cookware, clothing, carpeting, food packaging, and firefighting foam. Researchers say they permeate water systems and soils nationwide, with a federal study estimating that at least 45% of U.S. tap water is contaminated. PFAS can be detected in the blood of nearly all Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Maine was among the first states to begin extensive water and soil testing and to try to limit further public exposure to PFAS through policy action, after discovering that farms and residences — like the Higgins’ property — had been contaminated by land-spreading of wastewater sludge containing PFAS. Exposure can also be high for people living near military bases, fire training areas, landfills, or manufacturing facilities.

In regions where testing reveals PFAS hot spots, medical providers can be caught flat-footed and patients left adrift.

Rachel Criswell, a family practice doctor and environmental health researcher, is working to change that. She was completing her residency in Central Maine around the time that the Higginses and others there began discovering the extent of the contamination. Her medical training at Columbia University included more than a year in Norway researching the effects of PFAS and other chemicals on maternal and infant health.

When patients began asking about PFAS, Criswell and the state toxicologist offered primary care providers lunchtime presentations on how to respond. Since then, she has fielded frequent PFAS questions from doctors and patients throughout the state.

Even knowledgeable providers can find it challenging to stay current given rapidly evolving scientific information and few established protocols. “The work I do is exhausting and time-consuming and sometimes frustrating,” Criswell said, “but it’s exactly what I should be doing.”

Phil Brown, a Northeastern University sociology professor and a co-director of the PFAS Project Lab, said the medical community “doesn’t know a lot about occupational and environmental health,” adding that “it’s a very minimal part of the medical school curriculum” and continuing education.

Courtney Carignan, an environmental epidemiologist at Michigan State University, said learning of PFAS exposure, whether from their drinking water or occupational sources, “is a sensitive and upsetting situation for people” and “it’s helpful if their doctors can take it seriously.”

Clinical guidance concerning PFAS improved after the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released a report on PFAS in 2022. It found strong evidence associating PFAS with kidney cancer, high cholesterol, reduced birth weights, and lower antibody responses to vaccines, and some evidence linking PFAS to breast and testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid and liver dysfunction, and pregnancy-induced hypertension.

That guidance “revolutionized my practice,” Criswell said. “Instead of being this hand-wavey thing where we don’t know how to apply the research, it brought a degree of concreteness to PFAS exposure that was kind of missing before.”

The national academies affirmed what Criswell had already been recommending: Doctors should order blood tests for patients with known PFAS exposures.

Testing for PFAS in blood — and for related medical conditions if needed — can help ease patients’ anxiety.

“There isn’t a day that goes by,” Lawrence Higgins said, “that we don’t think and wonder when our bodies are going to shut down on us.”

‘Devastating but Incredibly Helpful’

After finding out in 2021 that his family was exposed to PFAS through sludge spread on their Unity, Maine, farm decades earlier, Adam Nordell discovered that “it was exceedingly difficult” to get tested. “Our family doctor had not heard of PFAS and didn’t know what the test was,” he said. A lab technician needed coaching from an outside expert to source the test. The lab analyzing the samples had a backlog that left the family waiting three months.

“The results were devastating but incredibly helpful,” Nordell said. Their blood serum levels for PFAS were at roughly the 99th percentile nationally, far higher than their well-water levels would have predicted — indicating that additional exposure was probably coming from other sources such as soil contact, dust, and food.

Blood levels of PFAS between 2 and 20 nanograms per milliliter may be problematic, the national academies reported. In highly contaminated settings, blood levels can run upward of 150 times the 20-ng/mL risk threshold.

Nordell and his family had been planning to remain on the farm and grow crops less affected by PFAS, but the test results persuaded them to leave. “Knowledge is power,” Nordell said, and having the blood data “gave us agency.”

Related Articles

• Future of Cancer Coverage for Women Federal Firefighters Uncertain Under Trump Feb 28, 2025
• ‘Forever Chemicals’ Found in Freshwater Fish, Yet Most States Don’t Warn Residents Dec 1, 2023
• Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ Taint Rural California Drinking Water, Far From Known Sources Dec 11, 2024

The national academies’ guidance paved the way for more clinicians to order PFAS blood tests. The cost, typically $400 to $600, can be prohibitive if not picked up by insurance, and not all insurers cover the testing. Deductibles and copays can also limit patients’ capacity to get tested. Less costly finger-prick tests, administered at home, appear to capture some of the more commonly found PFAS as accurately as blood serum tests, Carignan and colleagues found.

Maine legislators recently passed, with overwhelming support, a bill — modeled after one in New Hampshire — that would require insurers to consider PFAS blood testing part of preventive care, but it was carried over to the next legislative session.

“In my mind, it’s a no-brainer that the PFAS blood serum test should be universally offered — at no cost to the patient,” said Nordell, who now works as a campaign manager for the nonprofit Defend Our Health. Early screening for the diseases associated with PFAS, he said, is “a humane policy that’s in the best interests of everyone involved” — patients, providers, and insurance companies.

Criswell tells colleagues in family practice that they can view elevated PFAS blood levels as a risk factor, akin to smoking. “What’s challenging as a primary care doctor is the nitty-gritty” of the testing and screening logistics, she said.

In trainings, she shares a handout summarizing the national academies’ guidance — including associated heath conditions, blood testing, clinical follow-up, and exposure reduction — to which she has added details about lab test order codes, insurance costs and coverage, and water filtration.

Criswell served on an advisory committee tasked with allocating $60 million in state funds to address PFAS contamination from past sludge-spreading in Maine. The group recommended that labs analyzing PFAS blood tests should report the results to state public health authorities.

That change, slated to take effect this summer, will allow Maine health officials to follow up with people who have high PFAS blood levels to better determine potential sources and to share information on health risks and medical screening. As with many earlier PFAS policies, Maine is among the first states to adopt this measure.

Screening for PFAS is falling short in many places nationwide, said Kyle Horton, an internist in Wilmington, North Carolina, and founder of the nonprofit On Your Side Health. She estimates that only about 1 in 100 people facing high PFAS exposure are getting adequate medical guidance.

Even in her highly contaminated community, “I’m not aware of anyone who is routinely screening or discussing PFAS mitigation with their patients,” Horton said. Knowledge of local PFAS threats, she added, “hasn’t translated over to folks managing patients differently or trying to get through to that next phase of medical monitoring.”

Patients as Advocates

In heavily affected communities — including in Michigan, Maine, and Massachusetts — patients are pushing the medical field to better understand PFAS.

More doctors are speaking out as well. Testifying before a Maine legislative committee this year in support of a bill that would limit occupational PFAS exposure, Criswell said, “We, as physicians, who are sworn to protect the health of our patients, must pay attention to the underlying causes of the illnesses we treat and stand up for policy solutions that reduce these causes.”

Even where policy changes are instituted, the physical and psychological toll of “forever chemicals” will extend far into the future. Criswell and other Maine doctors have observed chronic stress among patients.

Nordell, the former farmer, described his family’s contamination as “deeply, deeply jarring,” an ordeal that has at times left him “unmoored from a sense of security.”

To assess the mental health consequences of PFAS exposure in rural residents, Criswell and Abby Fleisch, a pediatric endocrinologist at the MaineHealth Institute for Research, teamed up on a study. In its first phase, winding up this summer, they collected blood samples and detailed lifestyle information from 147 people.

Nordell, the Higginses, and other Central Maine residents sit on an advisory board for the study, a step Criswell said was critical to ensuring that their research helps those most affected by PFAS.

“The urgency from the community is really needed,” she said. “I don’t think I would be as fired up if my patients weren’t such good advocates.”

Criswell has faced what she calls “cognitive dissonance,” caught between the deliberate pace of peer-reviewed medical research and the immediate needs of patients eager to lower their PFAS body burden. Initially she considered inviting residents to participate in a clinical trial to test therapies that are considered safe and may help reduce PFAS levels in the body, such as high-fiber diets and a drug designed to reduce cholesterol called cholestyramine. But the clinical trial process could take years.

Criswell and Fleisch are instead planning to produce a case series on PFAS blood-level changes in patients taking cholestyramine. “We can validate the research results and share those,” Criswell said, potentially helping other patients.

Alan Ducatman, an internist and occupational physician who helped design the largest PFAS cohort study to date, said providers should convey that “there is no risk-benefit analysis” for any of the current treatments, although they’re generally well known and low-risk.

“Some people want to be treated, and they should be allowed to be treated,” he said, because knowing they have high PFAS levels in their bodies “preys on them.”

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).

“Almost 5 million able-bodied Medicaid recipients ‘simply choose not to work’ and ‘spend six hours a day socializing and watching television.’”

Scott Jennings on “CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip” on July 1

Republicans defended the GOP megabill’s Medicaid changes as targeting a group of people they believe shouldn’t qualify: people who can work but instead choose to stay home and chill.

Several Republican politicians and pundits, including CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings, pegged that group’s size at about 5 million people.

“There are like almost 5 million able-bodied people on Medicaid who simply choose not to work,” Jennings said July 1 on “CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip.” “They spend six hours a day socializing and watching television. And if you can’t get off grandma’s couch and work, I don’t want to pay for your welfare.”

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz picked up on some of these points during a July 14 appearance on Fox News. “When the program was created 60 years ago, it never dawned on anyone that you would take able-bodied individuals who could work and put them on Medicaid. Today the average able-bodied person on Medicaid who doesn’t work, they watch 6.1 hours of television or just hang out,” Oz said.

Medicaid is a federal-state health insurance program that covers medical care for lower-income people.

Jennings cited two pieces of data: an estimate of how many fewer people would have coverage because of the work requirement and an analysis of how nonworking Medicaid recipients spend their time. But he made assumptions that the data doesn’t support.

Jennings Misrepresents CBO Estimate

The 4.8 million figure stems from a June 24 Congressional Budget Office analysis of a preliminary House version of the massive tax and spending package. The office, Congress’ nonpartisan research arm, projected that provisions of the bill would cause 7.8 million fewer people to have health coverage by 2034. They would include 4.8 million people previously eligible for Medicaid described as “able-bodied” adults 19 to 64 years old who have no dependents and who “do not meet the community engagement requirement” of doing “work-related activities” at least 80 hours a month.

Apart from working, doing community service and attending school also fulfill the community engagement requirement.

Jennings paired that statistic with a separate analysis of how nondisabled adult Medicaid recipients without dependent children spend their time.

But the CBO estimate was a projection — it doesn’t represent the current number of nondisabled Medicaid recipients, nor does it say 4.8 million people in this group “choose not to work.” The figure represented how many fewer people would have coverage because of the bill’s community engagement requirement.

“The challenge with Jennings’ comments — and they’ve been echoed elsewhere by elected Republicans — is that CBO never said that 4.8 million people were out of compliance with the proposed work requirements; they said that 4.8 million people would lose coverage because of the work requirements,” said Adrianna McIntyre, an assistant professor of health policy and politics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Among the Medicaid expansion population, the law requires most adults without dependent children and parents of children older than 13 to work or participate in other qualifying activities 80 hours every month. States will need to verify that applicants met the work requirement for one to three months before they applied. States will also be required to verify that existing enrollees met the work requirement for at least a month between eligibility determinations, which will be required at least twice a year.

Research into Medicaid work requirements imposed at the state level has shown that people found it difficult to fulfill them and submit documentation, contributing to coverage losses.

In Arkansas, which added a work requirement to Medicaid in 2018, a study based on nearly 6,000 respondents found that about 95% of the target population were already working or qualified for an exemption, but a third of them did not hear about the work requirements. As a result, nearly 17,000 Medicaid recipients subject to work requirements lost coverage.

KFF found that adults ages 50 to 64 are more at risk of losing Medicaid coverage because of the new work requirements. More than 1 in 10 in that age group said they had retired, and among them, 28% reported being disabled, said KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Benjamin Sommers, a health care economics professor at the Harvard Chan school, said many of the 4.8 million “able-bodied” people in the CBO estimate “will actually be engaged in the activities they are supposed to be doing, and lose coverage because they are not able to navigate the reporting requirements with the state and lose coverage from red tape.”

When Recipients Don’t Work, It’s Rarely From Lack of Interest

There is no universal definition for “able-bodied”; disability can be assessed in different ways. But other studies offer much smaller estimates than 4.8 million Medicaid recipients without dependents who can work but choose not to.

Millions of working-age, nondisabled adults joined the Medicaid ranks in states that expanded eligibility under the Affordable Care Act. There were about 34 million working-age nondisabled Medicaid enrollees in 2024, according to the CBO, 15 million of whom enrolled through the ACA.

A KFF analysis found a smaller figure of 26 million Medicaid-covered adults, ages 19 to 64, who don’t receive Supplemental Security Income, Social Security Disability Insurance, or Medicare benefits.

Among this group, KFF estimated, 64% were working either full time or part time. The reasons the rest were not working included caregiving (12%); illness or disability (10%); retirement, inability to find work, or other reason (8%); and school attendance (7%).

Few people cited lack of interest in working as the reason for their unemployment. An Urban Institute study found 2% of Medicaid expansion enrollees without dependents who neither worked nor attended school — or 300,000 people out of a projected 15 million subject to work requirements — cited a lack of interest in working as the reason they were unemployed.

This was consistent with the Brookings Institution’s June 5 analysis that found that, of 4.3 million adult enrollees who worked fewer than 80 hours a month and did not have any activity limitations or illnesses, about 300,000 reported that they “did not work because they did not want to.”

Mostly Women, Mostly With a High School Degree or Less

When Republicans have described nondisabled adult Medicaid recipients, they have often portrayed them as men in their 30s “playing video games” in their parents’ basement or who “smoke weed all day.” Research paints a different picture.

Jane Tavares and Marc Cohen, of the University of Massachusetts-Boston Gerontology Department, researched Medicaid recipients who are not disabled or working, have no dependent children under 18, and are not in school. They cited 2023 census data from the American Community Survey.

They found:

• The average age of this population is 41, and 26% are older than 50.
• Almost 80% are female.
• Most, 80%, have a high school education or less.
• Their median individual income is $0, and their median household income is $44,800.
• About 56% worked in the past five years, and 23% worked in the prior year. About 30% are looking or available for work.

“They are not healthy young adults just hanging out,” the authors, along with health law experts Sara Rosenbaum and Alison Barkoff, wrote April 30.

“It’s clear based on their prior work history and family size/income that they are exceptionally poor and have likely left the workforce to care for adult children or older adults,” Tavares told PolitiFact. “Even if these individuals could work, they would have very few job opportunities and it would come at the cost of the people they are providing care for.”

AEI Study Not Definitively Linked to CBO Estimate

On the social platform X, Jennings posted the CBO letter and a May 29 analysis by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, about “how nondisabled Medicaid recipients without children spend their time.” PolitiFact contacted CNN to reach Jennings but did not receive a reply.

The author of that study, American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Kevin Corinth, analyzed survey data and found that Medicaid recipients who do not report working spend on average 6.1 hours a day “on all socializing, relaxing and leisure activities (including television and video games).”

But it’s uncertain whether the people in the survey population he analyzed overlap with the people included in the CBO analysis, said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

Corinth told PolitiFact “it is difficult to say” how the population he analyzed differs from the CBO’s. Tavares, Cohen, Rosenbaum, and Barkoff said Corinth’s dataset defined disability narrowly, leading to a “serious underestimation of disability” among the population of Medicaid recipients he looked into. It focused on Medicaid recipients who receive Supplemental Security Income or have a health condition that prevents them from working. The researchers said this approach is too narrow because the SSI program accounts for only those “most deeply impoverished adults with severe disabilities.”

The group gave a hypothetical example of a 54-year-old woman with a serious heart condition who can work only a few hours a week. She may not be considered disabled under the SSI program, but she may be limited in the work she can do and may need time to rest.

“Using her ‘leisure time’ to justify a work requirement grossly misrepresents her reality,” the group wrote.

Corinth’s analysis also shows that nonworking Medicaid recipients spend less time socializing, relaxing, or engaged in leisure activities than nonworking people who aren’t covered by Medicaid. Nonworking Medicaid recipients also spend more time looking for work and doing housework and errands, it found.

Our Ruling

Jennings said almost 5 million nondisabled Medicaid recipients “simply choose not to work” and “spend six hours a day socializing and watching television.”

The 5 million figure stems from a CBO projection that 4.8 million people would go without coverage by 2034 as a result of not fulfilling the community engagement requirements. It is not descriptive of current enrollees and does not specify that these people choose not to work.

Jennings cited an American Enterprise Institute analysis on how nondisabled Medicaid recipients with no dependents spend their time, but it is uncertain if the population in that analysis overlaps with that in the CBO estimate.

Current snapshots of the population Jennings described produce a smaller number. A survey by the Urban Institute found that 2% of Medicaid expansion enrollees without dependents who were neither working nor attending school — about 300,000 people — cited a lack of interest in working. Other research has found reasons this group doesn’t work include caregiving, illness or disability, retirement, and inability to find work.

Studies of nonworking Medicaid recipients have found the majority are women and have a high school education or less. Their average age is 41, and more than half have a work history in the past five years.

We rate Jennings’ statement False.

Our Sources

Email interview, Jane Tavares, University of Massachusetts-Boston adjunct instructor in gerontology, July 2, 2025

Email interview, Marc Cohen, University of Massachusetts-Boston professor of gerontology, July 2, 2025

Email interview, Sara Rosenbaum, George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health professor emerita of health law and policy, July 2, 2025

Email interview, Alison Barkoff, George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health associate professor of health law and policy, July 2, 2025

Email interview, Edwin Park, Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy Center for Children and Families research professor, July 2, 2025

Email interview, Benjamin Sommers, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health professor of health care economics, July 2, 2025

Phone interview, Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, July 2, 2025

Email interview, Adrianna McIntyre, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health assistant professor of health policy and politics, July 2, 2025

Phone interview, Michael Karpman, Urban Institute Health Policy Division principal research associate, July 3, 2025

Email exchange, Congressional Budget Office spokesperson, July 2, 2025

Email interview, Kevin Corinth, American Enterprise Institute senior fellow, July 3, 2025

X post by Rapid Response 47, June 30, 2025

Transcript of “CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip,” July 1, 2025

Congressional Budget Office, “Re: Information Concerning Medicaid-Related Provisions in Title IV of H.R. 1,” June 24, 2025

Benjamin D. Sommers, M.D., Ph.D., Anna L. Goldman, M.D., M.P.A., M.P.H., Robert J. Blendon, Sc.D., E. John Orav, Ph.D., and Arnold M. Epstein, M.D., “Medicaid Work Requirements — Results From the First Year in Arkansas,” June 19, 2019

Congressional Budget Office, Baseline Projections, Medicaid, June 2024

KFF, “Understanding the Intersection of Medicaid and Work: An Update,” May 30, 2025

Urban Institute, “Many Working People Would Be Shut Out of Medicaid Under Proposed Work Requirements,” June 11, 2025

Wisconsin Watch, “Have Millions of Nondisabled, Working-Age Adults Been Added to Medicaid?” July 2, 2025

CBS News, “Too Sick To Work, Some Americans Worry Trump’s Bill Will Strip Their Health Insurance,” June 26, 2025

Brookings Institution, “Any Way You Look at It You Lose: Medicaid Work Requirements Will Either Fall Short of Anticipating Savings or Harm Vulnerable Beneficiaries,” June 5, 2025

X post by Scott Jennings, July 2, 2025

American Enterprise Institute, “How Nondisabled Medicaid Recipients Without Children Spend Their Time,” May 29, 2025

Congressional Budget Office, “Estimated Budgetary Effects of an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline,” June 29, 2025

Geiger Gibson Program in Community Health, George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, “The Fundamental Flaw in ‘How Workers Spend Their Time’,” June 4, 2025

X post by Aaron Rupar, July 1, 2025

X post by Congressman Brandon Gill, July 2, 2025

LeadingAge LTSS Center @UMass Boston, “Profile of Medicaid Population Age 18-64, Working and Non-Working Medicaid Beneficiaries, and ‘Able-Bodied’ Non-Working Medicaid Beneficiaries,” May 2025

The Milbank Quarterly, “Who’s Affected by Medicaid Work Requirements? It’s Not Who You Think,” April 30, 2025

KFF, “Different Data Source, but Same Results: Most Adults Subject to Medicaid Work Requirements Are Working or Face Barriers to Work,” June 25, 2025

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

HHS under the leadership of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced a major initiative to begin reforming the organ transplant system

SHREVEPORT, La. — When Robert Smith met his future girlfriend in 2010, he wanted to take things slowly. For Smith, no relationship had been easy in the years since he was diagnosed with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV. People often became afraid when they learned his status, even running away when he coughed.

The couple waited months to have sex until Smith felt he could share his medical status. To prepare her, Smith said, he took his girlfriend to his job in HIV prevention at the Philadelphia Center, a northwestern Louisiana nonprofit that offers resources to people with HIV, which also provided him housing at the time.

Finally, he revealed the news: Smith was diagnosed with HIV in 1994 and started taking daily antiviral pills in 2006. The virus could no longer be detected in his blood, and he couldn’t transmit it to a sexual partner.

Smith said his girlfriend seemed comfortable knowing his status. When it came to sex, there was no hesitation, he said. But a couple of years later, when Smith wanted to break up, he said, her tone shifted.

“She was like, ‘If you try to leave me, I’m gonna put you in jail,’” recalled Smith, now 68. “At the time, I really didn’t know the sincerity of it.”

After they broke up, she reported him to the police, accusing him of violating a little-known law in Louisiana — a felony called “intentional exposure to HIV.” He disputed the allegations, but in 2013 accepted a plea deal to spend six months in prison on the charge. He had a few months left on parole from a past conviction on different charges, and Smith thought this option would let him move past the relationship faster. He didn’t realize the conviction would also land him on the state’s sex offender registry.

For nearly two decades, Smith had dealt with the stigma associated with having HIV; the registry added another layer of exclusion, severely restricting where he could live and work to avoid minors. Not many people want to hire a sex offender, he said. Smith has been told by the local sheriff’s office he’s not allowed to do simple things, like go to a public park or a high school football game, since the conviction.

“I’ve been undetectable for 15 years, but that law still punishes us,” Smith said.

Louisiana is one of 30 states with criminal penalties related to exposing or transmitting HIV. Most of the laws were passed in the 1980s during the emergence of the AIDS epidemic. Since then, several states have amended their laws to make them less punitive or repealed them outright, including Maryland and North Dakota this year.

But Louisiana’s law remains among the harshest. The state is one of five that may require people such as Smith to register as a sex offender if convicted, a label that can follow them for over a decade. And state lawmakers considered a bill to expand the law to apply to other sexually transmitted infections, then failed to pass it before the session ended.

Meanwhile, people with HIV also face the threat that federal funding cuts will affect their access to treatment, along with prevention efforts, supportive services, and outreach. Such strategies have proved to slow the HIV/AIDS epidemic, unlike the laws’ punitive approach.

The tax and domestic policy law previously known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” will likely affect HIV-positive people enrolled in Medicaid by reducing federal support for Medicaid and restricting eligibility. About 40% of adults under 65 with HIV rely on Medicaid.

The Trump administration proposed in its fiscal 2026 budget request to eliminate HIV prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and to cancel a grant that helps fund housing for people with HIV. The Ryan White HIV/AIDS program, the largest federal fund dedicated to supporting HIV-positive people, also faces cuts. The program serves more than half of the people in the U.S. diagnosed with HIV, including in Louisiana, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Public health officials maintain that state laws criminalizing HIV exposure hurt efforts to end the HIV epidemic. Epidemiologists and other experts on AIDS agree that the enforcement of such laws is often shaped by fear, not science. For example, in many states that criminalize HIV exposure, people living with HIV can face heightened criminal penalties for actions that can’t transmit the virus, such as spitting on someone. The laws further stigmatize and deter people from getting tested and treatment, undermining response to the epidemic, experts say.

At least 4,400 people in 14 states have been arrested under these laws, though data is limited and the actual number is likely higher, and the arrests aren’t decreasing, according to analyses by UCLA’s Williams Institute.

“ Some people think it’s an issue that’s gone away, and that simply isn’t the case,” said Nathan Cisneros, a researcher at the Williams Institute.

In Louisiana, a 2022 Williams Institute analysis found at least 147 allegations reported to law enforcement under the state’s HIV law from 2011 to mid-2022. Black people made up nearly three-quarters of the people convicted and placed on the sex offender registry. Most were Black men, like Smith. At the time of the analysis, Black people made up about two-thirds of HIV diagnoses in the state.

“ We see over and over that Black people are disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic and disproportionately affected by policing and incarceration in the United States,” Cisneros said.

Nationally, other marginalized groups such as women, sex workers, the queer community, or people who overlap across more than one group are also disproportionately arrested and prosecuted under similar criminalization laws, Cisneros said.

Ensnared in the System

Louisiana’s law hinges on the requirement that if a person knows they have HIV, they must disclose their HIV status and receive consent before exposing someone to the virus.

Louisiana District Attorneys Association Executive Director Zach Daniels said these cases don’t come up often and can be difficult to prosecute. Daniels said the intimate nature of the cases can lead to little evidence in support of either side, especially if the accuser doesn’t contract HIV.

When it comes to talking about one’s sex life, Daniels said, “there are often no other witnesses, besides the two participants.”

Louisiana’s law is written so that “intentional exposure” can occur through “any means or contact.” That includes sex and needle-sharing, practices known to transmit the virus. But the language of the law is so broad that actions known not to transmit the virus — like biting or scratching — could be included, said Dietz, the statewide coordinator for the Louisiana Coalition on Criminalization and Health, an advocacy network founded by people living with HIV that has opposed the law.

The broad nature of the law creates opportunities for abuse, as the threat of being reported under the law can be used as a coercive tool in relationships, said Dietz, who goes by one name and uses they/them pronouns. Such threats, Dietz said, have kept people in abusive relationships and loomed over child custody battles. Dietz said they’ve supported people accused of exposing their children to HIV in ways that are not medically possible.

“ ‘Any means or contact’ could be just merely being around your kids,” they said.

The prosecutors’ organization still supports the law as a recourse for emergency responders who, in rare instances, come into contact with blood or syringes containing the virus. In one recent high-profile case in New Orleans, the law was used against a local DJ accused of knowingly transmitting HIV to several women without informing them of his status or using a condom.

The person accused of violating the law, not the accuser, must prove their case — that they disclosed their HIV status beforehand. Without a signed affidavit or tape recording, courts can end up basing their decisions on conflicting testimonies with little supporting evidence.

That’s what Smith alleged happened to him.

After his relationship ended, he said, he remembered being called into a meeting with his parole officer where a detective waited for him, asking about his former relationship and whether his girlfriend had known about his HIV status.

Smith said yes. But that’s not what she had told police.

Verite News could not find a working phone number for Smith’s former girlfriend but corroborated the story with the incident’s police report. His attorney at the time, a public defender named Carlos Prudhomme, said he didn’t remember much about the case, and court documents are sealed because it was a sex offense.

In court, it was her word against his. So when he was offered six months in prison instead of the 10-year maximum, he switched his plea from not guilty to guilty. But he said he didn’t know his new conviction would require him to register as a sex offender once he got out — worsening the stigma.

“When people see ‘sex offender,’ the first thing that comes to their mind is rape, child molester, predator,” Smith said. “This law puts me in a category that I don’t care to be in.”

He has tried to make the most of it, despite the expense of paying fees each year to reregister. After being rejected from jobs, he started a catering business and built a loyal clientele. But he said he’s still stuck living in a poorly maintained apartment complex primarily inhabited by sex offenders.

“I understand their strategy for creating this law to prevent the spread, but it’s not helping. It’s hurting; it’s hindering. It’s destroying people’s lives instead of helping people’s lives, especially the HIV community,” he said. “They don’t care about us.”

The Case for Reform

Since 2014, there has been a nationwide effort to update or repeal state laws that criminalize HIV nondisclosure, exposure, or transmission. A dozen states have changed their laws to align more closely with modern science, and four have gotten rid of them completely in hopes of reducing stigma and improving public health outcomes, according to the Center for HIV Law and Policy.

Sean McCormick, an attorney with the center, said these changes are influenced partly by a growing body of evidence showing the laws’ negative consequences.

McCormick said the laws offer a “clear disincentive” for people to get tested for HIV. If they don’t know their status, there’s no criminal liability for transmission or exposure.

A 2024 survey by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and DLH Corp. researchers found that after California updated its HIV criminalization law in 2018, respondents were more likely to get tested. Meanwhile, survey respondents in Nevada, which still had a more punitive law on the books, were less likely to get tested.

There’s no one-size-fits-all solution, McCormick said. His center works with HIV-positive people across the country to determine what legislative changes would work best in their states.

Texas was the first to repeal its HIV law in 1994.

“As a person living with HIV in Texas, I’m deeply appreciative that we don’t have an HIV-specific statute that puts a target on my back,” said Michael Elizabeth, the public health policy director for the Equality Federation.

But Elizabeth points out that Texans living with HIV still face steeper penalties under general felony laws for charges such as aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault after state courts in Texas equated the bodily fluids of a person with HIV with a “deadly weapon.”

Louisiana activists have pushed lawmakers in the state to amend the law in three ways: removing the sex offender registration requirement, requiring transmission to have occurred, and requiring clear intent to transmit the virus.

“Our strategy, as opposed to repeal, is to create a law that actually addresses the kind of boogeyman that they ostensibly created the law for: the person who successfully, maliciously, intentionally transmits HIV,” said Dietz with the Louisiana Coalition on Criminalization and Health.

In 2018, a bill to narrow the statute was amended in ways that expanded the law. For example, the updated law no longer had any definition of which actions “expose” someone to HIV.

In 2023, state lawmakers created a task force that recommended updating Louisiana’s law to align with the latest public health guidelines, limit the potential for unintended consequences, and give previously convicted people a way to clear their record.

Lawmakers in the state House pushed forward a bill this year to criminalize other sexually transmitted infections, including hepatitis B and the herpes simplex virus. That bill died in the Senate, but it spurred the creation of another legislative task force with a nearly identical mission to that of the first.

“ This state has no idea how closely we just dodged a bullet,” Dietz said.

In the meantime, the Louisiana coalition is helping Smith petition the state to take his name off the sex offender registry. Louisiana law allows people to petition to have their names removed from the registry after 10 years without any new sex crime convictions. Smith expects his case to be approved by the end of the year.

Despite the difficulty of the past 12 years, he said, he’s grateful for the chance to be free from the registry’s restrictions.

“It’s like a breath of fresh air,” Smith said. “I can do stuff that I wanted to do that I couldn’t. Like, go to a football game. Simple stuff like that, I’m going to be ready to do.”

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).

Every time Ashton Alexander sees an ad for Georgia Pathways to Coverage, it feels like a “kick in the face.”

Alexander tried signing up for Pathways, the state’s limited Medicaid expansion, multiple times and got denied each time, he said, even though he met the qualifying terms because he’s a full-time student.

Georgia is one of 10 states that haven’t expanded Medicaid health coverage to a broader pool of low-income adults. Instead, it offers coverage to those who can prove they’re working or completing 80 hours a month of other qualifying activities, like going to school or volunteering. And it is the only state currently doing so.

“Why is this marketing out here?” said the 20-year-old, who lives in Conyers, east of Atlanta. “It’s truly not accessible.”

Each denial used the same boilerplate language, Alexander said, and his calls to caseworkers were not returned. State offices couldn’t connect him with caseworkers assigned to him from the same state agency. And when he requested contact information for a supervisor to appeal his denial, he said, the number rang to a fax machine.

“It’s impenetrable,” Alexander said. “I’ve literally tried everything, and there’s no way.”

Millions of Americans trying to access Medicaid benefits could soon find themselves navigating similar byzantine state systems and work rules. Legislation signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4 allocates $200 million to help states that expanded Medicaid create systems by the end of next year to verify whether some enrollees are meeting the requirements.

Conservative lawmakers have long argued that public benefits should go only to those actively working to get off of government assistance. But the nation’s only Medicaid work requirement program shows they can be costly for states to run, frustrating for enrollees to navigate, and disruptive to other public benefit systems. Georgia’s budget for marketing is nearly as much as it has spent on health benefits. Meanwhile, most enrollees under age 65 are already working or have a barrier that prevents them from doing so.

What Georgia shows is “just how costly setting up these administrative systems of red tape can be,” said Joan Alker, executive director of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families.

Over the past two years, KFF Health News has documented the issues riddling Georgia’s Pathways program, launched in July 2023. More than 100,000 Georgians have applied to the program through March. Just over 8,000 were enrolled at the end of June, though about 300,000 would be eligible if the state fully expanded Medicaid under the terms of the Affordable Care Act.

The program has cost more than $100 million, with only $26 million spent on health benefits and more than $20 million allocated to marketing contracts, according to a KFF Health News analysis of state reports.

“That was truly a pretty shocking waste of taxpayer dollars,” Alker said.

The Government Accountability Office is investigating the costs of the program after a group of Democratic senators — including both members of the Georgia delegation — asked the government watchdog to look into the program. Findings are expected this fall.

A state report to the federal government from March said Georgia couldn’t effectively determine if applicants meet the qualifying activities criteria. The report also said the state hadn’t suspended anyone for failing to work, a key philosophical pillar of the program. Meanwhile, as of March, more than 5,000 people were waiting to have their eligibility verified for Pathways.

The Pathways program has strained Georgia’s eligibility system for other public benefits, such as food stamps and cash assistance.

In April, the state applied to the federal government to renew Pathways. In its application, officials scaled back key elements, such as the requirement that enrollees document work every month. Critics of the program also say the red tape doesn’t help enrollees find jobs.

“Georgia’s experience shows that administrative complexity is the primary outcome, not job readiness,” said Natalie Crawford, executive director of Georgia First, which advocates for fiscal responsibility and access to affordable health care.

Despite the struggles, Garrison Douglas, a spokesperson for Georgia’s Republican governor, Brian Kemp, defended the program. “Georgia Pathways is doing what it was designed to do: provide free healthcare coverage to low-income, able-bodied Georgians who are willing to engage in one of our many qualifying activities,” he said in an emailed statement.

New federal requirements in the tax and spending legislation mean that the 40 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that expanded Medicaid will need to prepare technology to process the documentation some Medicaid recipients will now have to regularly file.

The federal law includes exemptions for people with disabilities, in addiction treatment, or caring for kids under 14, among others.

The Trump administration said other states won’t face a bumpy rollout like Georgia’s.

“We are fully confident that technology already exists that could enable all parties involved to implement work and community engagement requirements,” said Mehmet Oz, head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in an emailed statement.

In a written public comment on Georgia’s application to extend the program, Yvonne Taylor of Austell detailed the difficulties she faced trying to enroll.

She said she tried to sign up several times but that her application was not accepted. “Not once, not twice,  but 3 times. With no response from customer service,” she wrote in February. “So now I am without coverage.”

Victoria Helmly of Marietta wrote in a January comment that she and her family members take care of their dad, but the state law doesn’t exempt caregivers of older adults.

“Georgia should recognize their sacrifices by supporting them with health insurance,” she wrote. “Let’s simplify this system and in the end, save money and lives.”

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).

https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/07/mp_20250718_seg_MMR_-_Rural_Health_64.mp3

The Rural Health Transformation Program calls for federal regulators to hand states $10 billion a year for five years starting in fiscal year 2026.

But the “devil’s in the details in terms of implementing,” said Sarah Hohman, director of government affairs at the National Association of Rural Health Clinics.

“An investment of this amount and this style into rural — hopefully it goes to rural — is the type of investment that we and other advocates have been working on for a long time,” said Hohman, whose organization represents 5,600 rural health clinics.

People who live in the nation’s rural expanses have more chronic diseases, die younger, and make less money. Those compounding factors have financially pummeled rural health infrastructure, triggering hospital closures and widespread discontinuation of critical health services like obstetrics and mental health care.

Nearly 1 in 4 people in rural America use Medicaid, the state and federal program for low-income and disabled people. So, as Senate Republicans heatedly debated Medicaid spending reductions, lawmakers added the $50 billion program to quell opposition. But health advocates and researchers doubt it will be enough to offset expected cuts in federal funding.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, which has one of the largest percentages of rural residents in the nation, led the push to pass the budget bill. His website touts support for strengthening access to care in rural areas. But his office declined to respond on the record to questions about the rural health program included in the bill.

Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine who introduced an initial amendment to add the rural program, also did not respond to a request for comment. On July 15, Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, introduced a bill to reverse future cuts to Medicaid and add to the rural program.

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C., said the money was set aside because of politics and not necessarily for rural patients.

“As long as it’s a government slush fund where politics decides where the money goes, then there’s going to be a mismatch between where those funds go and what it is consumers need,” Cannon said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates federal Medicaid spending will be reduced by about $1 trillion over the next decade.

“These dollar amounts translate to actual people,” said Fredric Blavin, a senior fellow and researcher at the Urban Institute, a Washington D.C.-based think tank that focuses on social and economic research.

Most states expanded their Medicaid programs to cover more low-income adults under the Affordable Care Act. That has lowered medical debt, improved health, and even reduced death rates, Blavin said.

By 2034, about 11.8 million people are expected to lose their health insurance from this bill, said Alice Burns, an associate director for KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured. And she said the Medicaid rollback may have an outsize impact on rural areas.

In rural areas, federal Medicaid spending is expected to decline by $155 billion over 10 years, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

If the goal of the rural program was to transform rural health care, as its name suggests, it will fall short, Burns said. The $50 billion rural program distributed over five years won’t offset the losses expected over a decade of Medicaid reductions, she said.

In Kansas, Holton Community Hospital Chief Executive Carrie Lutz said she doesn’t “feel that the sky is falling right now.”

Lutz, whose 14-bed hospital is on the northern plains of the state, said she is bracing for the potential loss of Medicaid-covered patients and limits to provider taxes, which nearly all states use to get extra federal Medicaid money.

The reduction in provider taxes has been delayed until fiscal year 2028, Lutz said, but she still wants her state’s leaders to apply for a portion of the rural program funding, which is expected to be distributed sooner.

“Every little penny helps when you’ve got very negative margins to begin with,” Lutz said.

The program’s $50 billion will be spread over five years and may not be limited to bolstering rural areas or their hospitals. Half of the money will be distributed “equally” among states that apply to and win approval from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The law’s current language “raises the possibility” that a small state like Vermont could receive the same amount as a large state like Texas, Burns said.

States are required to submit a “detailed rural health transformation plan” by the end of this year, according to the law.

The law says states should use the funds to pursue goals including improving access to hospitals and other providers, improving health outcomes, enhancing economic opportunity for health care workers, and prioritizing the use of emerging technologies.

Mehmet Oz, a Trump appointee leading Medicare and Medicaid, will determine how to distribute the other half, or $25 billion, using a formula based on states’ rural population and need. The law says the money is to be used for such things as increasing use of robotics, upgrading cybersecurity, and helping rural communities “to right size their health care delivery systems.”

Spokespeople for CMS did not respond to a list of questions.

Kyle Zebley, senior vice president of public policy at the American Telemedicine Association, said there is “a pretty significant degree of discretion” for the White House and the Medicare and Medicaid administrator in approving state plans.

“We will urge states to include robust telehealth and virtual care options within their proposals going up to the federal government,” Zebley said.

Alexa McKinley Abel, government affairs and policy director for the National Rural Health Association, said that while the law calls for states to create and submit plans, it’s unclear what state agencies will perform the task, McKinley Abel said.

“There are a lot of gaps around application and implementation,” she said, noting that an earlier version of the bill called for state plans to be developed in consultation with federally funded state offices of rural health.

But those offices are proposed to be eliminated in Trump’s federal budget, which will face congressional approval in the fall. McKinley Abel said her organization supports state offices of rural health helping develop the plans and working with states to disburse the money, “since they intimately know the rural health community.”

Hohman, with the rural health clinic association, said she is not sure money from the transformation program will even reach her members. About 27% of the patients treated at rural health clinics are enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

“There’s just some confusion about who actually gets this money at the end of the day,” Hohman said. “What is it actually going to be used for?”

KFF Health News senior correspondent Phil Galewitz 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).