KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner discussed Medicaid cuts in the House budget bill on CBS News on May 22.

• Click here to watch Rovner on CBS News.

Céline Gounder, KFF Health News’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed weight loss drugs and covid-19 vaccines on CBS’ “CBS Mornings” on May 22 and May 21, respectively.

• Click here to watch Gounder discuss weight loss drugs on “CBS Mornings.”
• Click here to watch Gounder discuss covid vaccines on “CBS Mornings.”

KFF Health News senior correspondent Renuka Rayasam discussed end-of-life incarceration on WUGA’s “The Georgia Health Report” on May 16.

• Click here to hear Rayasam on “The Georgia Health Report.”
• Read Rayasam’s “Prisons Routinely Ignore Guidelines on Dying Inmates’ End-of-Life Choices.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

OCR Releases Notice of Violation to Columbia University

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to Visit Argentina

A blockbuster lawsuit from the federal Department of Justice alleges that insurers Aetna, Elevance Health (formerly Anthem), and Humana paid “hundreds of millions of dollars in kickbacks” to large insurance brokerages eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote. The payments, made from 2016 to at least 2021, were incentives to steer patients into the insurer’s Medicare Advantage plans, the lawsuit alleges, while discouraging enrollment of potentially more costly disabled beneficiaries. 

All the insurers and brokers named in the case have denied the allegations and say they will fight them in court. 

Policy experts say the lawsuit, filed May 1, will add fuel to long-running concerns about whether Medicare enrollees are being encouraged to select the coverage that is best for them — or the one that makes the most money for the broker.  

In other Medicare news, The Wall Street Journal last week, citing unnamed sources, reported that a separate insurer, UnitedHealth Group, was being investigated by the Justice Department regarding unspecified potential Medicare violations. UnitedHealth pushed back, calling the article “deeply irresponsible” and saying it had not been notified by the DOJ as to any such investigation. 

Regardless of how this attention shakes out, Medicare Advantage, the private sector alternative to original Medicare, is likely to continue to draw scrutiny because it covers more than half of those enrolled. But the plans, which often include benefits not covered by the traditional government program, cost taxpayers more per enrollee and have drawn criticism for requiring patients to get prior authorization for certain services, something rarely required in original Medicare. 

The DOJ lawsuit alleges insurers made large payments they called “marketing” or “sponsorship” fees to get around rules that set caps on broker commissions. The payments, according to the lawsuit, added incentives — often more than $200 per enrollee — for brokers to direct Medicare beneficiaries toward their coverage “regardless of the quality or suitability of the insurers’ plans.” 

The case joins the DOJ in a previously filed whistleblower lawsuit brought by a then-employee of eHealth, Andrew Shea. The whistleblower’s attorney, Gregg Shapiro, said his client is grateful the DOJ chose to intervene: “People with Medicare must know that when an insurance agent recommends a plan, that recommendation is based solely on the client’s individual needs and preferences,” Shapiro said in an emailed statement. 

While encouraged that the Trump administration filed the case under investigations initiated by the Biden administration, policy experts say Congress and insurers need to do more. 

“What we see in this lawsuit highlights the terrible incentives that desperately need Congress to reform,” said Brian Connell, a vice president at the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, an advocacy group. 

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.

With only a single vote to spare, the House passed a controversial budget bill that includes billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy, along with billions of dollars of cuts to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the food stamp program — most of which will affect those at the lower end of the income scale. But the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate.

Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a report from his commission to “Make America Healthy Again” that described threats to the health of the American public — but notably included nothing on threats from tobacco, gun violence, or a lack of health insurance.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists Anna Edney Bloomberg News @annaedney @annaedney.bsky.social Read Anna's stories. Sarah Karlin-Smith Pink Sheet @SarahKarlin @sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social Read Sarah's stories. Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico @AliceOllstein @alicemiranda.bsky.social Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• House Republicans passed their “big, beautiful” bill 215-214 this week, with one Republican critic voting present. But the Senate may have its own “big, beautiful” rewrite. Some conservative senators who worry about federal debt are concerned that the bill is not fully paid for and would add to the budget deficit. Others, including some red-state Republicans, say the bill’s cuts to Medicaid and food assistance go too far and would hurt low-income Americans. The bill’s cuts would represent the biggest reductions to Medicaid in the program’s 60-year history.
• Many of the bill’s Medicaid cuts would come from adding work requirements. Most people receiving Medicaid already work, but such requirements in Arkansas and Georgia showed that people often lose coverage under these rules because they have trouble documenting their work hours, including because of technological problems. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would reduce the number of people with Medicaid by at least 8.6 million over a decade. The requirements also could add a burden for employers. The bill’s work requirements are relatively broad and would affect people who are 19 to 64 years old. 
• People whose Medicaid coverage is canceled also would no longer qualify for ACA subsidies for marketplace plans. Medicare also would be affected, because the bill would be expected to trigger an across-the-board sequestration cut.
• The bill also would impact abortion by effectively banning it in ACA marketplace plans, which would disrupt a compromise struck in the 2010 law. And the bill would block funding for Planned Parenthood in Medicaid, although that federal money is used for other care such as cancer screenings, not abortions. In the past, the Senate parliamentarian has said that kind of provision is not allowed under budget rules, but some Republicans want to take the unusual step of overruling the parliamentarian.
• This week, FDA leaders released covid-19 vaccine recommendations in a medical journal. They plan to limit future access to the vaccines to people 65 and older and others who are at high risk of serious illness if infected, and they want to require manufacturers to do further clinical trials to show whether the vaccines benefit healthy younger people. There are questions about whether this is legal, which products would be affected, when this would take effect, and whether it’s ethical to require these studies. 
• HHS released a report on chronic disease starting in childhood. The report doesn’t include many new findings but is noteworthy in part because of what it doesn’t discuss — gun violence, the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States; tobacco; the lack of health insurance coverage; and socioeconomic factors that affect access to healthy food.

Also this week, Rovner interviews University of California-Davis School of Law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler about her new book on the past and future of the “personhood” movement aimed at granting legal rights to fetuses and embryos.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “White House Officials Wanted To Put Federal Workers ‘in Trauma.’ It’s Working,” by William Wan and Hannah Natanson.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: NPR’s “Diseases Are Spreading. The CDC Isn’t Warning the Public Like It Was Months Ago,” by Chiara Eisner.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “The Potential Cancer, Health Risks Lurking in One Popular OTC Drug,” by Anna Edney.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Farmingdale Observer’s “Scientists Have Been Studying Remote Work for Four Years and Have Reached a Very Clear Conclusion: ‘Working From Home Makes Us Happier,’” by Bob Rubila.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “As Congress Debates Cutting Medicaid, a Major Study Shows It Saves Lives,” by Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz.
• NBC News’ “Georgia Mother Says She Is Being Forced To Keep Brain-Dead Pregnant Daughter Alive Under Abortion Ban Law,” by Minyvonne Burke.
• The Washington Post’s “Trump and GOP’s Tax Bill Would Force Cuts to Medicare, CBO Says,” by Jacob Bogage and Abha Bhattarai.
• The New England Journal of Medicine’s “An Evidence-Based Approach to Covid-19 Vaccination,” by Vinay Prasad and Martin A. Makary.

Credits Francis Ying Audio producer Rebecca Adams 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).

La emblemática legislación del presupuesto del presidente Donald Trump castigaría a 14 estados que ofrecen cobertura de salud a personas que viven en el país sin papeles.

Estos estados, la mayoría liderados por demócratas, dan seguro médico a algunos inmigrantes de bajos ingresos —a menudo niños—, independientemente de su estatus migratorio. Defensores argumentan que la política es humanitaria y que, en última instancia, ahora costos.

Sin embargo, la legislación federal, que los republicanos han denominado One Big Beautiful Bill (Un hermoso gran proyecto de ley), recortaría drásticamente los reembolsos federales de Medicaid a esos estados en miles de millones de dólares anuales en total, a menos que reduzcan esos beneficios.

El proyecto de ley fue aprobado por un estrecho margen en la Cámara de Representantes el jueves 22 de mayo, y ahora pasa al Senado.

Si bien avanza gran parte de la agenda nacional de Trump, incluyendo grandes recortes de impuestos que benefician principalmente a los estadounidenses más ricos, la legislación también realiza recortes sustanciales del gasto en Medicaid que, según los responsables del presupuesto del Congreso, dejará a millones de personas de bajos ingresos sin seguro médico.

De ser aprobados por el Senado, estos recortes representarían un complejo obstáculo político y económico para los estados y Washington, DC, que utilizan sus propios fondos para brindar seguro médico a algunas personas que viven en Estados Unidos sin autorización.

Estos estados verían reducidos en 10 puntos porcentuales los reembolsos federales para las personas cubiertas por la expansión de Medicaid que se realize bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA).

Estos recortes le costarían a California, el estado que más tiene que perder, hasta $3 mil millones al año, según un análisis de KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro dedicada a información de salud que incluye a KFF Health News.

En conjunto, los 15 lugares afectados (los 14 estados y DC) cubren a aproximadamente 1.9 millones de inmigrantes sin papeles, según KFF. La entidad indica que la sanción también podría aplicarse a otros estados que cubren a inmigrantes con residencia legal.

Dos de los estados, Illinois y Utah, tienen leyes de “activación” que exigen terminar con sus expansiones de Medicaid si el gobierno federal reduce su aporte de fondos. Esto significa que, a menos que esos estados deroguen sus leyes de activación o dejen de cubrir a las personas sin estatus migratorio legal, muchos más estadounidenses de bajos ingresos podrían quedarse sin seguro.

Si continúan cubriendo a personas sin papeles, a partir del año fiscal 2027, los estados restantes y Washington, DC, tendrían que aportar millones o miles de millones de dólares adicionales cada año, para compensar las reducciones en sus reembolsos federales de Medicaid.

Después de California, Nueva York podría perder la mayor parte de la financiación federal: cerca de 1.600 millones de dólares anuales, según KFF.

El senador estatal de California, Scott Wiener, demócrata y presidente del Comité de Presupuesto del Senado, afirmó que la legislación de Trump ha sembrado el caos mientras los legisladores estatales trabajan para aprobar su propio presupuesto antes del 15 de junio.

“Tenemos que mantenernos firmes”, declaró. “California ha decidido que queremos una atención médica universal y que vamos a garantizar que todos tengan acceso a la atención médica, y que no vamos a permitir que millones de personas indocumentadas reciban atención primaria en salas de emergencia”.

El gobernador de California, el demócrata Gavin Newsom, declaró en un comunicado que el proyecto de ley de Trump devastaría la atención médica en su estado.

“Millones de personas perderán cobertura, los hospitales cerrarán y las redes de seguridad social podrían colapsar bajo ese peso”, dijo Newsom.

En su propuesta de presupuesto del 14 de mayo, Newsom instó a los legisladores a recortar algunos beneficios para inmigrantes sin papeles, citando el aumento desmedido de los costos del programa estatal de Medicaid. Si el Congreso recorta los fondos para la expansión de Medicaid, el estado no estaría en condiciones de cubrir los gastos, afirmó el gobernador.

Newsom cuestionó si el Congreso tiene la autoridad para penalizar a los estados por cómo gastan su propio dinero, y afirmó que su estado consideraría impugnar la medida en los tribunales.

El representante estatal de Utah, Jim Dunnigan, republicano que ayudó a impulsar un proyecto de ley para cubrir a los niños en su estado independientemente de su estatus migratorio, afirmó que Utah necesita mantener la expansión de Medicaid que comenzó en 2020.

“No podemos permitirnos, ni monetaria ni políticamente, que se recorten nuestros fondos federales para la expansión”, declaró. Dunnigan no especificó si cree que el estado debería cancelar su cobertura para inmigrantes si la disposición republicana sobre sanciones se convierte en ley.

El programa de Utah cubre a unos 2.000 niños, el máximo permitido por su ley. Los inmigrantes adultos sin estatus legal no son elegibles. La expansión de Medicaid de Utah cubre a unos 75.000 adultos, quienes deben ser ciudadanos o inmigrantes con residencia legal.

Matt Slonaker, director ejecutivo del Utah Health Policy Project, una organización de defensa del consumidor, afirmó que el proyecto de ley de la Cámara federal deja al estado en una posición difícil.

“Políticamente, no hay grandes alternativas”, declaró. “Es el dilema del prisionero: cualquier movimiento en cualquier dirección no tiene mucho sentido”.

Slonaker apuntó que un escenario probable es que los legisladores estatales eliminen su ley de activación, y luego encuentren la manera de compensar la pérdida de fondos federales para la expansión.

Utah ha financiado su parte del costo de la expansión de Medicaid con impuestos sobre las ventas y los hospitales.

“El Congreso pondría al estado de Utah en posición de tener que tomar una decisión política muy difícil”, declaró Slonaker.

En Illinois, la sanción del Partido Republicano tendría incluso consecuencias más graves. Esto se debe a que podría llevar a que 770.000 adultos perdieran la cobertura médica que obtuvieron con la expansión estatal de Medicaid.

Stephanie Altman, directora de justicia sanitaria del Shriver Center on Poverty Law, un grupo de defensa con sede en Chicago, afirmó que es posible que su estado, liderado por demócratas, derogue su ley de activación antes de permitir que se dé por terminada la expansión de Medicaid.

Agregó que el estado también podría eludir la sanción solicitando a los condados que financien la cobertura para inmigrantes. “Obviamente, sería una situación difícil”, declaró.

Altman indicó que el proyecto de ley de la Cámara de Representantes parece redactado para penalizar a los estados controlados por demócratas, ya que estos suelen brindar cobertura a inmigrantes sin importar su estatus migratorio.

Agregó que la disposición demuestra la “hostilidad de los republicanos contra los inmigrantes” y que “no quieren que vengan aquí y reciban cobertura pública”.

Mike Johnson, el presidente de la Cámara de Representantes de Estados Unidos, declaró en mayo que los programas estatales que brindan cobertura pública a personas sin importar su estatus migratorio actúan como un “felpudo abierto”, invitando a más personas a cruzar la frontera sin autorización. Afirmó que los esfuerzos para eliminar estos programas cuentan con el apoyo de las encuestas públicas.

Una encuesta de Reuters-Ipsos realizada entre el 16 y el 18 de mayo reveló que el 47% de los estadounidenses aprueba las políticas migratorias de Trump y el 45% las desaprueba. La encuesta reveló que el índice de aprobación general de Trump ha caído 5 puntos porcentuales desde que regresó al cargo en enero, hasta el 42%, con un 52% de los estadounidenses desaprobando su gestión.

ACA, también conocida como Obamacare, impulsó a los estados a ampliar Medicaid a adultos con ingresos de hasta el 138% del nivel federal de pobreza, o $21.597 por persona este año. Cuarenta estados y Washington, DC, ampliaron su cobertura, lo que contribuyó a reducir la tasa nacional de personas sin seguro a un mínimo histórico.

El gobierno federal ahora cubre el 90% de los costos de las personas incluidas en Medicaid gracias a la ampliación del Obamacare.

En los estados que cubren la atención médica de inmigrantes sin autorización, el proyecto de ley republicano reduciría la contribución del gobierno federal del 90% al 80% del costo de la cobertura para cualquier persona que se incorpore a Medicaid bajo la expansión de ACA.

Por ley, los fondos federales de Medicaid no pueden utilizarse para cubrir a personas que se encuentran en el país papeles, excepto para servicios de embarazo y emergencias.

Los otros estados que utilizan sus propios fondos para cubrir a personas sin importar su estatus migratorio son: Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nueva Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont y Washington, según KFF.

Ryan Long, director de relaciones con el Congreso del Paragon Health Institute, un influyente grupo político conservador, afirmó que incluso si utilizan sus propios fondos para la cobertura de inmigrantes, los estados aún dependen de los fondos federales para “apoyar sistemas que faciliten la inscripción de inmigrantes indocumentados”.

Long afirmó que la preocupación por que los estados con leyes de activación puedan ver finalizada la expansión de Medicaid es una “pista falsa”, ya que los estados tienen la opción de eliminar sus activadores, como hizo Michigan en 2023.

La sanción por ofrecer cobrtura de salud a personas en el país sin papeles es una de las distintas maneras en que el proyecto de ley de la Cámara de Representantes recorta el gasto federal en Medicaid.

La legislación también trasladaría más costos de Medicaid a los estados al exigirles que verifiquen si los adultos cubiertos por el programa trabajan. Los estados también tendrían que recertificar la elegibilidad de los beneficiarios de la expansión de Medicaid cada seis meses, en lugar de una vez al año o menos, como lo hacen actualmente la mayoría.

El proyecto de ley también congelaría la práctica de los estados de gravar con impuestos a hospitales, residencias de adultos mayores, planes de atención médica administrada y otras compañías de atención médica para financiar su parte de los costos de Medicaid.

En una estimación preliminar del 11 de mayo, la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (CBO) indicó que, según el proyecto de ley aprobado por la Cámara de Representantes, alrededor de 8,6 millones de personas más perderían la cobertura médica en 2034.

Esa cifra aumentará a casi 14 millones, según la CBO, después que la administración Trump finalice las nuevas regulaciones de ACA y, si el Congreso, liderado por los republicanos, como se prevé, se niegue a extender los subsidios mejorados para ayudar a pagar las primas de los planes de salud comerciales vendidos a través de los mercados del Obamacare.

Los subsidios mejorados, una prioridad del ex presidente Joe Biden, eliminaron por completo las primas mensuales para algunas personas que adquirieran planes de Obamacare. Y expiran a fin de año.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

President Donald Trump’s signature budget legislation would punish 14 states that offer health coverage to people in the U.S. without authorization.

The states, most of them Democratic-led, provide insurance to some low-income immigrants — often children — regardless of their legal status. Advocates argue the policy is both humane and ultimately cost-saving.

But the federal legislation, which Republicans have titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” would slash federal Medicaid reimbursements to those states by billions of dollars a year in total unless they roll back the benefits.

The bill narrowly passed the House on Thursday and next moves to the Senate. While enacting much of Trump’s domestic agenda, including big tax cuts largely benefiting wealthier Americans, the legislation also makes substantial spending cuts to Medicaid that congressional budget scorekeepers say will leave millions of low-income people without health insurance.

The cuts, if approved by the Senate, would pose a tricky political and economic hurdle for the states and Washington, D.C., which use their own funds to provide health insurance to some people in the U.S. without authorization.

Those states would see their federal reimbursement for people covered under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion cut by 10 percentage points. The cuts would cost California, the state with the most to lose, as much as $3 billion a year, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Together, the 15 affected places cover about 1.9 million immigrants without legal status, according to KFF. The penalty might also apply to other states that cover lawfully residing immigrants, KFF says.

Two of the states — Utah and Illinois — have “trigger” laws that call for their Medicaid expansions to terminate if the feds reduce their funding match. That means unless those states either repeal their trigger laws or stop covering people without legal immigration status, many more low-income Americans could be left uninsured.

The remaining states and Washington, D.C., would have to come up with millions or billions more dollars every year, starting in the 2027 fiscal year, to make up for reductions in their federal Medicaid reimbursements, if they keep covering people in the U.S. without authorization.

Behind California, New York stands to lose the most federal funding — about $1.6 billion annually, according to KFF.

California state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat who chairs the Senate budget committee, said Trump’s legislation has sown chaos as state legislators work to pass their own budget by June 15.

“We need to stand our ground,” he said. “California has made a decision that we want universal health care and that we are going to ensure that everyone has access to health care, and that we’re not going to have millions of undocumented people getting their primary care in emergency rooms.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement that Trump’s bill would devastate health care in his state.

“Millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,” Newsom said.

In his May 14 budget proposal, Newsom called on lawmakers to cut some benefits for immigrants without legal status, citing ballooning costs in the state’s Medicaid program. If Congress cuts Medicaid expansion funding, the state would be in no position to backfill, the governor said.

Newsom questioned whether Congress has the authority to penalize states for how they spend their own money and said his state would consider challenging the move in court.

Utah state Rep. Jim Dunnigan, a Republican who helped spearhead a bill to cover children in his state regardless of their immigration status, said Utah needs to maintain its Medicaid expansion that began in 2020.

“We cannot afford, monetary-wise or policy-wise, to see our federal expansion funding cut,” he said. Dunnigan wouldn’t say whether he thinks the state should end its immigrant coverage if the Republican penalty provision becomes law.

Utah’s program covers about 2,000 children, the maximum allowed under its law. Adult immigrants without legal status are not eligible. Utah’s Medicaid expansion covers about 75,000 adults, who must be citizens or lawfully present immigrants.

Matt Slonaker, executive director of the Utah Health Policy Project, a consumer advocacy organization, said the federal House bill leaves the state in a difficult position.

“There are no great alternatives, politically,” he said. “It’s a prisoner’s dilemma — a move in either direction does not make much sense.”

Slonaker said one likely scenario is that state lawmakers eliminate their trigger law then find a way to make up the loss of federal expansion funding.

Utah has funded its share of the cost of Medicaid expansion with sales and hospital taxes.

“This is a very hard political decision that Congress would put the state of Utah in,” Slonaker said.

In Illinois, the GOP penalty would have even larger consequences. That’s because it could lead to 770,000 adults’ losing the health coverage they gained under the state’s Medicaid expansion.

Stephanie Altman, director of health care justice at the Shriver Center on Poverty Law, a Chicago-based advocacy group, said it’s possible her Democratic-led state would end its trigger law before allowing its Medicaid expansion to terminate. She said the state might also sidestep the penalty by asking counties to fund coverage for immigrants. “It would be a hard situation, obviously,” she said.

Altman said the House bill appeared written to penalize Democratic-controlled states because they more commonly provide immigrants coverage without regard for their legal status.

She said the provision shows Republicans’ “hostility against immigrants” and that “they do not want them coming here and receiving public coverage.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said this month that state programs that provide public coverage to people regardless of immigration status serve as “an open doormat,” inviting more people to cross the border without authorization. He said efforts to end such programs have support in public polling.

A Reuters-Ipsos poll conducted May 16-18 found that 47% of Americans approve of Trump’s immigration policies and 45% disapprove. The poll found that Trump’s overall approval rating has sunk 5 percentage points since he returned to office in January, to 42%, with 52% of Americans disapproving of his performance.

The Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, enabled states to expand Medicaid to adults with incomes of up to 138% of the federal poverty level, or $21,597 for an individual this year. Forty states and Washington, D.C., expanded, helping reduce the national uninsured rate to a historic low.

The federal government now pays 90% of the costs for people added to Medicaid under the Obamacare expansion.

In states that cover health care for immigrants in the U.S. without authorization, the Republican bill would reduce the federal government’s contribution from 90% to 80% of the cost of coverage for anyone added to Medicaid under the ACA expansion.

By law, federal Medicaid funds cannot be used to cover people who are in the country without authorization, except for pregnancy and emergency services.

The other states that use their own money to cover people regardless of immigration status are Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, according to KFF.

Ryan Long, director of congressional relations at Paragon Health Institute, an influential conservative policy group, said that even if they use their own money for immigrant coverage, states still depend on federal funds to “support systems that facilitate enrollment of illegal aliens.”

Long said the concern that states with trigger laws could see their Medicaid expansion end is a “red herring” because states have the option to remove their triggers, as Michigan did in 2023.

The penalty for covering people in the country without authorization is one of several ways the House bill cuts federal Medicaid spending.

The legislation would shift more Medicaid costs to states by requiring them to verify whether adults covered by the program are working. States would also have to recertify Medicaid expansion enrollees’ eligibility every six months, rather than once a year or less, as most states currently do.

The bill would also freeze states’ practice of taxing hospitals, nursing homes, managed-care plans, and other health care companies to fund their share of Medicaid costs.

The Congressional Budget Office said in a May 11 preliminary estimate that, under the House-passed bill, about 8.6 million more people would be without health insurance in 2034. That number will rise to nearly 14 million, the CBO estimates, after the Trump administration finishes new ACA regulations and if the Republican-led Congress, as expected, declines to extend enhanced premium subsidies for commercial insurance plans sold through Obamacare marketplaces.

The enhanced subsidies, a priority of former President Joe Biden, eliminated monthly premiums altogether for some people buying Obamacare plans. They are set to expire at the end of the year.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

HHS OCR finds Columbia University violated Title VI by failing to address harassment of Jewish students since October 7, 2023.

President Trump signed an Executive Order establishing the MAHA Commission and tasking it with delivering a “Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment”

ST. LOUIS — Kevin Hines has been living in a house without a roof in the days since a tornado devastated his community. He has seen some of his neighbors sleeping in their cars. A different man has spent untold hours on a bench.

In the aftermath of the May 16 tornado, Hines, 60, has a blue tarp covering his home. Still, rain came in three days later — an expected problem in a house without a roof. But he didn’t think wildlife would be an issue. Then a bird landed on his television. He spotted a squirrel on the sofa.

He already has enough to handle. He’s not sure when his home will be repaired. A toppled tree destroyed the purple Jeep he bought only months ago. His job told employees not to come into work because the building was damaged.

The tornado cut a 23-mile-long path, touching down in the affluent suburb of Clayton, Missouri, before ripping through the north side of the city of St. Louis then across the Mississippi River through communities in western Illinois. At least five people were killed, 38 more were injured, and about 5,000 structures were damaged, according to St. Louis Mayor Cara Spencer. The twister caused more than $1.6 billion in estimated property damage.

While the impact was felt throughout the area, it will take some neighborhoods longer than others to recover. Kayla Reed, a community activist who runs the Action St. Louis nonprofit, which is coordinating help for storm victims, said residents in the predominantly Black area known as North City especially face a long set of challenges in the days ahead.

“A natural disaster met a created one and a systemic one,” Reed said. “They’ve sort of been in a long-term storm all of their lives. If you live in this footprint, you know this is where infant mortality is highest. This is where incarceration rates are highest. This is where poverty rates are highest.”

Food and water aid provide some relief, Reed said, but the community needs more than that. “I can’t put into words how long it’s going to take to stabilize some of these families and how much trauma they are navigating,” she said.

A possible source of major aid is the federal government, which can unlock resources at the president’s discretion. But Missouri is already waiting for President Donald Trump to approve federal assistance for damage left by three sets of storms in March and April that killed 19 people in the state. Trump has denied major disaster requests from West Virginia and Washington this year, and initially denied one for storm and tornado damage in Arkansas before reversing course and approving the request May 13.

Black families here in North St. Louis are worried that their community will not be prioritized.

On May 19, Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, requested that Trump issue a federal emergency declaration, which would authorize about $5 million in federal assistance for cleanup efforts. Kehoe also requested that the Federal Emergency Management Agency conduct a preliminary damage assessment, a necessary step to securing a “major disaster declaration,” which would provide federal resources for homeowners and renters, reimburse local government efforts, and pay for damaged public infrastructure.

FEMA was on the ground two days later helping conduct damage assessments. But a disaster declaration could take weeks, if it comes.

“Bringing FEMA in, it’s my understanding, is not going to be a quick process,” the mayor said at a May 21 press conference. “All elected officials at every level here are doing everything they can to make that process as quick as possible.”

That includes Republican U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, who asked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during an oversight hearing May 20 to help expedite the pending aid requests from Missouri’s three previous storms and for the recent tornado. “Yes, absolutely,” she responded.

While the city waits, thousands of volunteers have shown up to the parking lot of the YMCA’s O’Fallon Park Rec Complex in North St. Louis in what they are calling the “People’s Response” to help residents in need. So far, they’ve helped more than 5,000 families. Volunteers have collected more than 17,280 pounds of food, according to Action St. Louis.

The last time such an outpouring occurred around here, according to locals, was in 2014 after the police killing of Michael Brown in nearby Ferguson. Rasheen Aldridge, an alderman who represents part of the storm-affected area, said some of the same activists who showed up then made it a point to help now.

Hines, too, looked for ways to help his neighbors. He became an unofficial traffic director at the YMCA as thousands of cars streamed into the area to get help — or provide it.

“It’s not about me,” Hines said. “I’m staying until no one is here because there’s nothing to do at my house. I have no power.”

Residents in North City described the moments after the storm as chaos: trees down everywhere; power lines damaged; limited cellphone service, making it hard to connect with loved ones. Then the sun went down, cloaking corners of the city in complete darkness.

Five days after the tornado, people still needed candles, flashlights, and batteries to make it through the night. Piles of debris filled street corners. Exterior walls were ripped off homes, exposing the inside of closets, bedrooms, and living rooms to passersby on the street. Some buildings were leveled. The downed trees in the tornado’s path left a scar in the city’s canopy visible from miles away.

The tornado flipped a semitrailer outside a new gas station and strip mall that had been scheduled to open this fall. One evening, Charles Stanford, a security guard for the property, sat in the parking lot to make sure no one tried to enter what remained of the building. Stanford said the project had been nearly complete. Now, it is surrounded by rubble and debris.

A giant tree crashed into the house of one of Hines’ neighbors. He said the woman recently had heart surgery and had been recovering at home. But then she went back to the hospital, and he thinks stress after the tornado may be why. Hines was planning to bring her a few Hershey’s Kisses, her favorite candy, to lift her spirits.

Shannette BoClair, 52, said she found her infirm father, Albert Noble, on the floor in the fetal position after the tornado passed her parents’ home. A window had imploded and strong winds knocked him down. BoClair called 911 but, she said, first responders were overwhelmed by calls for help and tree-blocked streets. Her father needed medical attention right away, she said, so his family helped him hobble a mile to his grandson, who drove him to a triage station that had been set up for tornado victims.

They learned he had broken his hip, she said. He had surgery within days.

BoClair, who works as a health and wellness director at the YMCA, said she’s helping care for her mother, who remained at home after the storm. BoClair is depending on meals provided by volunteers and staffers at the YMCA but said she had also spent about $500 on DoorDash meals to feed her family since the tornado hit.

As far as federal aid goes, BoClair said she hopes it comes soon. The community needs dumpsters for the debris, reconstruction, and more.

But the outpouring of support from volunteers amazed her. The People’s Response drew so many volunteers that lines of cars snaked outside of the YMCA parking lot in North City. The smell of barbecue wafted through the air as residents without electricity grilled food for one another before it spoiled.

“I’m so proud of our community,” BoClair said. “They say we don’t care. We do care.”

Reed said volunteers would be stationed in the YMCA’s parking lot for a few more days. But, she said, that doesn’t mean the job ends there. The community will need more help to rebuild.

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).

At one call center in the Philippines, workers help Americans with diabetes or neurological conditions troubleshoot devices that monitor their health. Sometimes they get pressing calls: elderly patients who are alone and experiencing a medical emergency.

“That’s not part of the job of our employees or our tech supports,” said Ruth Elio, an occupational nurse who supervised the center’s workers when she spoke with KFF Health News last year. “Still, they’re doing that because it is important.”

Elio also helped workers with their own health problems, most frequently headaches or back pains, borne of a life of sitting for hours on end.

In a different call center, Kevin Asuncion transcribed medical visits from half a world away, in the United States. You can get used to the hours, he said in an interview last year: 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. His breaks were mostly spent sleeping; not much is open then.

Health risks and night shifts aside, call center workers have a new concern: artificial intelligence.

Startups are marketing AI products with lifelike voices to schedule or cancel medical visits, refill prescriptions, and help triage patients. Soon, many patients might initiate contact with the health system not by speaking with a call center worker or receptionist, but with AI. Zocdoc, the appointment-booking company, has introduced an automated assistant it says can schedule visits without human intervention 70% of the time.

The medically focused call center workforce in the Philippines is a vast one: 200,000 at the end of 2024, estimates industry trade group leader Jack Madrid. That figure is more than the number of paramedics in the United States at the end of 2023, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And some employers are opening outposts in other countries, like India, while using AI to reshape or replace their workforces.

Still, it’s unclear whether AI’s digital manipulations could match the proverbial human touch. For example, a recent study in Nature Medicine found that while some models can diagnose maladies when presented with a canned anecdote, as prospective doctors do in training, AI struggles to elicit information from simulated patients.

“The rapport, or the trust that we give, or the emotions that we have as humans cannot be replaced,” Elio said.

Sachin Jain, president and CEO of Scan Health Plan, an insurer, said humans have context that AI doesn’t have — at least for now. A receptionist at a small practice may know the patients well enough to pick up on subtle cues and communicate to the doctor that a particular caller is “somebody that you should see, talk to, that day, that minute, or that week.”

The turn toward call centers, while creating more distance between a caller and a health provider, preserved the human touch. Yet some agents at call centers and their advocates say the ways they are monitored on the job undermine care. At one Kaiser Permanente location, it’s a “very micromanaging environment,” said one nurse who asked not to provide her name for fear of reprisal.

“From the beginning of the shift to your end, you’re expected to take call after call after call from an open queue,” she said. Even when giving advice for complex cases, “there’s an unwritten rule on how long a nurse should take per call: 12 minutes.”

Meanwhile, the job is getting tougher, she said. “We’re the backup to the health care system. We’re open 24/7,” she said. “They’re calling about their incision sites, which are bleeding. Their child has asthma, and the instructions for the medications are not clear.”

One nurses union is protesting a potential AI management tool in the call centers.

“AI tools don’t make medical decisions,” Kaiser Permanente spokesperson Vincent Staupe told KFF Health News. “Our physicians and care teams are always at the center of decision-making with our patients and in all our care settings, including call centers.”

Kaiser Permanente is not affiliated with KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Some firms cite 30% to 50% turnover rates — stats that some say make a case for turning over the job to AI.

Call centers “can’t keep people, because it’s just a really, really challenging job,” said Adnan Iqbal, co-founder and CEO of Luma Health, which creates AI products to automate some call center work. No wonder, “if you’re getting yelled at every 90 seconds by a patient, insurance company, a staff member, what have you.”

To hear business leaders tell it, their customers are frustrated: Instead of the human touch, patients get nothing at all, stymied by long wait times and harried, disempowered workers.

One time, Marissa Moore — an investor at OMERS Ventures — got a taste of patients’ frustrations when trying to schedule a visit by phone at five doctors’ offices. “In every single one, I got a third party who had no intel on providers in the office, their availability, or anything.”

These types of gripes are increasingly common — and getting the attention of investors and businesses.

Customer complaints are hitting the bottom lines of businesses — like health insurers, which can be rewarded by the federal government’s Medicare Advantage policies for better customer service.

When Scan noticed a drop in patient ratings for some of the medical providers in its insurance network, it learned those providers had switched to using centralized call centers. Customer service suffered, and the lower ratings translated into lower payments from the federal government, Jain said.

“There’s a degree of dissatisfaction that’s bubbling up among our patients,” he said.

So, for some businesses, the notion of a computer receptionist seems a welcome solution to the problem of ineffectual call centers. AI voices, which can convincingly mimic human voices, are “beyond uncanny valley,” said Richie Cartwright, the founder of Fella, a weight loss startup that used one AI product to call pharmacies and ask if they had GLP-1s in stock.

Prices have dropped, too. Google AI’s per-use price has dropped by 97%, company CEO Sundar Pichai claimed in a 2024 speech.

Some boosters are excited to put the vision of AI assistants into action. Since the second Trump administration took office, policy initiatives by the quasi-agency known as the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, have reportedly explored using artificial intelligence bots for customer service at the Department of Education.

Most executives interviewed by KFF Health News — in the hospital, insurance, tech, and consultancy fields — were keen to emphasize that AI would complement humans, not replace them. Some resorted to jargon and claimed the technology might make call center nurses and employees more efficient and effective.

But some businesses are signaling that their AI models could replace human workers. Their websites hint at reducing reliance on staff. And they are developing pricing strategies based on reducing the need for labor, said Michael Yang, a venture capitalist at OMERS.

Yang described the prospect for businesses as a “we-share-in-the-upside kind of thing,” with startups pitching clients on paying them for the cost of 1½ hires and their AI doing the work of twice that number.

But providers are building narrow services at the moment. For example, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences started with a limited idea. The organization’s call center closes at 5 p.m. — meaning patients who try to cancel appointments after hours left a phone message, creating a backlog for workers to address the next morning that took time from other scheduling tasks and left canceled appointments unfilled. So they started by using an AI system provided by Luma Health to allow after-hours cancellations and have since expanded it to allow patients to cancel appointments all day.

Michelle Winfeld-Hanrahan, the health system’s chief clinical access officer, who oversees its deployment, said UAMS has plenty of ideas for more automation, including allowing patients to check on prior authorizations and leading them through post-discharge follow-up.

Many executives claim AI tools can complement, rather than replace, humans. One company says its product can measure “vocal biomarkers” — subtle changes in tone or inflection — that correlate with disease and supply that information to human employees interacting with the patient. Some firms are using large language models to summarize complex documents: pulling out obscure insurance policies, or needed information, for employees. Others are interested in AI guiding a human through a conversation.

Even if the technology isn’t replacing people, it is reshaping them. AI can be used to change humans’ behavior and presentation. Call center employees said in interviews that they knew of, or had heard omnipresent rumors of, or feared, a variety of AI tools.

At some Kaiser Permanente call centers, unionized employees protested — and successfully delayed — the implementation of an AI tool meant to measure “active listening,” a union flyer claimed.

And employees and executives associated with the call center workforce in the Philippines said they’d heard of other software tools, such as technology that changed Filipino accents to American ones. There’s “not a super huge need for that, given our relatively neutral accents, but we’ve seen that,” said Madrid, the trade group leader.

“Just because something can be automated doesn’t mean it should be,” he said.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

CHARLESTON, S.C. — When Page Campbell’s doctor recommended she try an injectable prescription drug called Wegovy to lose weight before scheduling bariatric surgery, she readily agreed.

“I’ve struggled with my weight for so long,” said Campbell, 40, a single mother of two. “I’m not opposed to trying anything.”

In early April, about four weeks after she’d started taking Wegovy, Campbell said she hadn’t experienced any side effects, such as nausea or bowel irritation. But she doesn’t use a scale at home, she said, so she didn’t know whether she’d lost any weight since her most recent medical appointment earlier this year, when she weighed 314 pounds. Still, she was confident about achieving weight loss.

“It’s going to work because I’m putting in the work. I’m changing my eating habits. I’m exercising,” said Campbell, a shipping manager at a Michaels store. “I’m not going to second-guess myself.”

Wegovy belongs to a pricey class of drugs called GLP-1s (short for glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists) that have upended the treatment of obesity in recent years, offering hope to patients who have tried and failed to lose weight in myriad other ways.

Campbell gained access to Wegovy through South Carolina Medicaid’s decision in late 2024 to cover these weight loss drugs. But the medications remain out of reach for millions of patients across the country who could benefit from them, because many public and private health insurers have deemed the drugs too expensive.

A report published in November by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, found only 13 states were covering GLP-1s for the treatment of obesity for Medicaid beneficiaries as of August. South Carolina became the 14th in November.

Liz Williams, one of the report’s authors and a senior policy manager for the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at KFF, said she was not aware of any other state Medicaid programs joining the list since then. Looking ahead, the remaining states may be reluctant to add a new, expensive drug benefit while they brace for potential federal cuts coming from Congress, she said.

“As the budget debate, federally, is developing, that may impact how states are thinking about this,” Williams said.

The federal government won’t be helping anytime soon, either. Medicare covers GLP-1s to treat diabetes and some other health conditions, including obstructive sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease, but not obesity. In early April, the Trump administration announced it will not finalize a rule proposed by the Biden administration that would have allowed an estimated 7.4 million people covered by Medicare and Medicaid to access GLP-1s for weight loss. Meanwhile, the FDA is poised to force less expensive, compounded versions of these drugs off the market.

And the barrier to entry remains high, even for Medicaid patients in those few states that have agreed to cover the drugs without a federal mandate.

Case in point: In South Carolina, where more than one-third of all adults, and nearly half of the African American population, qualify as obese, the state Medicaid agency estimates only 1,300 beneficiaries will meet the stringent prerequisites for GLP-1 coverage.

Under one of those requirements, Medicaid beneficiaries who wish to access these drugs to lose weight must attest to “increased exercise activity,” said Jeff Leieritz, a spokesperson for the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

Campbell, who is insured by Medicaid, was granted coverage for Wegovy based on her body mass index. First, though, she was required to submit six months’ worth of documentation proving that she’d tried and failed to lose weight after receiving nutrition counseling and going on a 1,200-calorie-a day diet, said Kenneth Mitchell, one of Campbell’s doctors and the medical director for bariatric surgery and obesity medicine at Roper St. Francis Healthcare.

Campbell’s Wegovy prescription was approved for six months, Mitchell said. When that authorization expires, Campbell and her health care team will need to submit more documentation, including proof that she has lost at least 5% of her body weight and has kept up with nutrition counseling.

“It’s not just, ‘Send a prescription in and they cover it.’ It’s rather arduous,” Mitchell said. “Not a lot of folks are going to do this.”

Mitchell said South Carolina Medicaid’s decision to cover these drugs was met with excitement among those working in his medical specialty. But he wasn’t surprised that the state anticipates relatively few people will access this benefit annually, since the approval process is so rigorous and the cost high. “The problem is the medicines are so expensive,” Mitchell said.

Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, announced in March that it was cutting the monthly price for the drug from $650 to $499 for cash-paying customers. The price that health insurance plans and beneficiaries pay for these drugs varies, but some GLP-1s cost more than $1,000 per patient per month, Mitchell said, and many people will need to take them for the rest of their lives to maintain weight loss.

“That is a tremendous price tag that someone has to foot the bill for,” Mitchell said.

That’s the reason California Gov. Gavin Newsom on May 14 proposed eliminating Medicaid coverage of GLP-1s for weight loss starting Jan. 1, to save an estimated $680 million a year by 2028.

And the North Carolina State Health Plan Board of Trustees voted last year to end coverage of GLP-1s for state employees, after then-North Carolina Treasurer Dale Folwell’s office estimated in 2023 that the drugs were projected to cost the State Health Plan $1 billion over the next six years. The decision came only a few months after a separate North Carolina agency announced it would start covering these drugs for Medicaid beneficiaries. North Carolina Medicaid has estimated it will spend $16 million a year on GLP-1s.

South Carolina Medicaid, which insures fewer than half the number of people enrolled in North Carolina Medicaid, anticipates spending less. Leieritz estimated GLP-1s and nutrition counseling offered to Medicaid beneficiaries in South Carolina will cost $10 million a year. State funding will cover $3.3 million of the expense; the remainder will be paid for by matching Medicaid funds from the federal government.

In a recent interview, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. didn’t rule out the possibility that Medicare and Medicaid might cover GLP-1s for obesity treatment in the future as costs come down.

They’re “extraordinary drugs” and “we’re going to reduce the cost,” Kennedy told CBS News in early April. He said he would like GLP-1s to eventually be made available to Medicare and Medicaid patients who are seeking obesity treatment after they have tried other ways to lose weight. “That is the framework that we’re now debating.”

Meanwhile, public health experts have applauded South Carolina Medicaid’s decision to cover GLP-1s. Yet the new benefit won’t help the vast majority of the 1.5 million adults in South Carolina who are classified as obese, according to data published by the South Carolina Department of Public Health.

“We still have some work to do,” acknowledged Brannon Traxler, the public health department’s chief medical officer.

But the state’s new “Action Plan for Healthy Eating and Active Living,” written by a coalition of groups in South Carolina, including the Department of Public Health, makes no mention of GLP-1s or the role they might play in lowering obesity rates in the state.

The action plan, underwritten by a $1.5 million federal grant, isn’t meant to lay out an overarching approach for lowering obesity in South Carolina, Traxler said. Instead, it promotes physical activity in schools, nutrition, and the expansion of outdoor walking trails, among other strategies. A more comprehensive obesity plan might address the benefits of surgical intervention and GLP-1s, but those also carry risk, expense, and side effects, Traxler said.

“Certainly, I think, there is a need to bring it all together,” she said.

Campbell, for one, is taking the comprehensive approach. On top of injecting Wegovy once weekly, she said, she is prioritizing protein intake and moving her body. She also underwent weight loss surgery in late April.

“Weight loss is my biggest goal,” said Campbell, who expressed appreciation for Medicaid’s coverage of Wegovy. “It’s one more thing that’s going to help me get to my goal.”

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 is taking immediate steps to implement President Trump’s Executive Order “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients.

Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. defended the Trump Administration’s intent to withdraw from the World Health Organization

Health care has proved a vulnerable target for the firehose of cuts and policy changes President Donald Trump ordered in the name of reducing waste and improving efficiency. But most of the impact isn’t as tangible as, say, higher egg prices at the grocery store.

One thing experts from a wide range of fields, from basic science to public health, agree on: The damage will be varied and immense. “It’s exceedingly foolish to cut funding in this way,” said Harold Varmus, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist and former director of both the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute.

The blaze of cuts have yielded nonsensical and perhaps unintended consequences. Consider instances in which grant funding gets canceled after two years of a three-year project. That means, for example, that $2 million has already been spent but there will be no return on that investment.

Some of the targeted areas are not administration priorities. That includes the abrupt termination of studies on long covid, which afflicts more than 100,000 Americans, and the interruption of work on mRNA vaccines, which hold promise not just in infectious disease but also in treating cancer.

While charitable dollars have flowed in to plug some gaps, “philanthropy cannot replace federal funding,” said Dustin Sposato, communications manager for the Science Philanthropy Alliance, a group that works to boost support from charities for basic science research.

Here are critical ways in which Trump administration cuts — proposed and actual — could affect American health care and, more important, the health of American patients.

Cuts to the National Institutes of Health: The Trump administration has cut $2.3 billion in new grant funding since its term began, as well as terminated existing grants on a wide range of topics — vaccine hesitancy, HIV/AIDS, and covid-19 — that do not align with its priorities. National Institutes of Health grants do have yearly renewal clauses, but it is rare for them to be terminated, experts say. The administration has also cut “training grants” for young scientists to join the NIH.

Why It Matters: The NIH has long been a crucible of basic science research — the kind of work that industry generally does not do. Most pharmaceutical patents have their roots in work done or supported by the NIH, and many scientists at pharmaceutical manufacturers learned their craft at institutions supported by the NIH or at the NIH itself. The termination of some grants will directly affect patients since they involved ongoing clinical studies on a range of conditions, including pediatric cancer, diabetes, and long covid. And, more broadly, cuts in public funding for research could be costly in the longer term as a paucity of new discoveries will mean fewer new products: A 25% cut to public research and development spending would reduce the nation’s economic output by an amount comparable to the decline in gross domestic product during the Great Recession, a new study found.

Cuts to Universities: The Trump administration also tried to deal a harrowing blow — currently blocked by the courts — to scientific research at universities by slashing extra money that accompanies research grants for “indirect costs,” like libraries, lab animal care, support staff, and computer systems.

Why It Matters: Wealthier universities may find the funds to make up for draconian indirect cost cuts. But poorer ones — and many state schools, many of them in red states — will simply stop doing research. A good number of crucial discoveries emerge from these labs. “Medical research is a money-losing proposition,” said one state school dean with former ties to the Ivies. (The dean requested anonymity because his current employer told him he could not speak on the record.) “If you want to shut down research, this will do it, and it will go first at places like the University of Tennessee and the University of Arkansas.” That also means fewer opportunities for students at state universities to become scientists.

Cuts to Public Health: These hits came in many forms. The administration has cut or threatened to cut long-standing block grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; covid-related grants; and grants related to diversity, equity, and inclusion activities — which often translated into grants to improve health care for the underserved. Though the covid pandemic has faded, those grants were being used by states to enhance lab capacity to improve detection and surveillance. And they were used to formally train the nation’s public health workforce, many of whom learn on the job.

Why It Matters: Public health officials and researchers were working hard to facilitate a quicker, more thoughtful response to future pandemics, of particular concern as bird flu looms and measles is having a resurgence. Mati Hlatshwayo Davis, the St. Louis health director, had four grants canceled, three in one day. One grant that fell under the covid rubric included programs to help community members make lifestyle changes to reduce the risk of hypertension and diabetes — the kind of chronic diseases that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said he will focus on fighting. Others paid the salaries of support staff for a wide variety of public health initiatives. “What has been disappointing is that decisions have been made without due diligence,” she said.

Health-Related Impact of Tariffs: Though Trump has exempted prescription drugs from his sweeping tariffs on most imports thus far, he has not ruled out the possibility of imposing such tariffs. “It’s a moving target,” said Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, noting that since high drug prices are already a burden, adding any tax to them is problematic.

Why It Matters: That supposed exemption doesn’t fully insulate American patients from higher costs. About two-thirds of prescription drugs are already manufactured in the U.S. But their raw materials are often imported from China — and those enjoy no tariff exemption. Many basic supplies used in hospitals and doctors’ offices — syringes, surgical drapes, and personal protective equipment — are imported, too. Finally, even if the tariffs somehow don’t themselves magnify the price to purchase ingredients and medical supplies, Americans may suffer: Across-the-board tariffs on such a wide range of products, from steel to clothing, means fewer ships will be crossing the Pacific to make deliveries — and that means delays. “I think there’s an uncomfortably high probability that something breaks in the supply chain and we end up with shortages,” Strain said.

Changes to Medicaid: Trump has vowed to protect Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for Americans with low incomes and disabilities. But House Republicans have eyed the program as a possible source of offsets to help pay for what Trump calls “the big, beautiful bill” — a sweeping piece of budget legislation to extend his 2017 tax cuts. The amount of money GOP leaders have indicated they could squeeze from Medicaid, which now covers about 20% of Americans, has been in the hundreds of billions of dollars. But deep cuts are politically fraught.

To generate some savings, administration officials have at times indicated they are open to at least some tweaks to Medicaid. One idea on the table — work requirements — would require adults on Medicaid to be working or in some kind of job training. (Nearly two-thirds of Medicaid recipients ages 19-64 already work.)

Why It Matters: In 2024 the uninsured rate was 8.2%, near the all-time low, in large part because of the Medicaid expansion under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Critics say work requirements are a backhanded way to slim down the Medicaid rolls, since the paperwork requirements of such programs have proved so onerous that eligible people drop out, causing the uninsured rate to rise. A Congressional Budget Office report estimates that the proposed change would reduce coverage by at least 7.7 million in a decade. This leads to higher rates of uncompensated care, putting vulnerable health care facilities — think rural hospitals — at risk.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

It’s a marvel of food technology: ice cream that resists melting.

In a video explaining the science behind it, a seller of food chemicals shows scoops of ice cream holding their shape under hot lights. The super ingredient? Polysorbate 80.

Polysorbate 80 is an emulsifier, a chemical used to control the consistency of thousands of supermarket products. Other widely used emulsifiers or stabilizers include carboxymethyl cellulose, carrageenan, and maltodextrin.

Recently, such ingredients have been showing up in scientific studies for another reason: Researchers say they may cause a variety of health problems.

Studies have found that emulsifiers can alter the mix of bacteria in the gut, known as the microbiome or microbiota; damage the lining of the gastrointestinal tract; and trigger inflammation, potentially contributing to problems elsewhere in the body.

Emulsifiers and stabilizers are among the most common ingredients in ultraprocessed foods, a prime target of the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

They are on the department’s radar: Their potentially harmful effects were flagged in a document HHS recently produced to support Kennedy’s drive to eliminate petroleum-based food dyes.

But they illustrate the complexity of the war on food additives.

They show how, when it comes to food science, regulators are chronically playing catch-up. In the meantime, for many ingredients, regulators and consumers alike are left in a gray zone between suspicion and proof of harm in humans.

Emulsifiers’ assault on the microbiome could help explain inflammatory bowel diseases such as Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, metabolic disorders, and even cancer, the studies suggest.

“There is a lot of data showing that those compounds are really detrimental for the microbiota and that we should stop using them,” said Benoit Chassaing, a research director at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research and a co-author of several related studies.

Yet much larger and more ambitious clinical trials in humans are needed, Chassaing added.

For Lewis Rands, who has suffered from gastrointestinal illness, the research fits his own experience as a consumer. Changing his diet to avoid emulsifiers has made a shocking difference, easing symptoms that were debilitating, Rands said.

“Clinically, many patients have reported an improvement in symptoms with such changes,” said Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, a gastroenterologist and researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital.

The scientific findings come with caveats. For instance, much of the research has been done in mice, or by mimicking the human gut in a tube. There are many unknowns. Not all emulsifiers have bad effects, or the same effects, and some people are thought to be much more vulnerable than others. Even some researchers who have co-authored papers say that the substances have not been proven harmful to humans and that it’s too soon to say regulators should ban them.

Still, the research poses a challenge for the FDA.

When emulsifiers began spreading through the food supply, the agency wasn’t focusing on the gut microbiome, a relatively recent scientific frontier, researchers said.

Martin Makary, appointed by President Donald Trump to head the FDA, mentioned the microbiome at his Senate confirmation hearing in March. Though he didn’t cite emulsifiers specifically or identify chemicals by name, he said substances that affect the microbiome deserve the FDA’s attention.

“There’s a body of research now that suggests concern with some of these ingredients,” he said. “We have to look at those ingredients, and you have my commitment to do so if confirmed as FDA commissioner.”

“These chemicals are creating an inflammatory response in the gastrointestinal tract, and with an altered microbiome lining that GI tract, kids feel sick,” he added.

The FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to questions about Makary’s testimony.

However, when journalist Emily Kopp asked HHS for the science behind its recent announcement that it is phasing out petroleum-based food dyes, the agency provided a compilation of information on potentially harmful compounds commonly found in ultraprocessed foods. The document, which appeared to be a draft, included a section on emulsifiers, such as xanthan gum and carrageenan. It noted that the section needed more work.

HHS subsequently provided the document to KFF Health News.

As far back as 2020, an international organization for the study of inflammatory bowel diseases advised that, for people with those conditions, it “may be prudent to limit intake” of maltodextrin, carrageenan, carboxymethyl cellulose, and polysorbate 80.

Emulsifiers are developed from a variety of sources, including plants and bacteria.

Some ingredients that might affect the microbiome show up in foods because they were deemed “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS.

“New information may at any time require reconsideration of the GRAS status of a food ingredient,” the Code of Federal Regulations says.

‘More of a Difference Than Any Drug’

Rands, a genetic scientist, took matters into his own hands to battle severe inflammatory bowel disease. The illness caused bloating, stomach pain, cramps, frequent bowel movements, and bleeding, he said. It left him in a constant state of anxiety and stress, he added, wondering where the nearest bathroom was and whether he’d reach it in time.

Even taking a walk around the block with his wife and baby near their home in Australia was problematic.

Then, on the advice of a dietitian, Rands began avoiding foods with emulsifiers: chemicals such as carboxymethyl cellulose, carrageenan, guar gum, xanthan gum, and maltodextrin — plus other additives.

For instance, instead of eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, he switched to Häagen-Dazs ice cream that is free of the substances at issue.

The relief was dramatic.

“It’s a huge difference,” Rands said. “To me, it’s made more of a difference than any drug.”

He has been able to scale back or stop taking several drugs, which is an added relief — not least because some can have harmful side effects, and, he said, one was taking its toll.

Rands said he used a scientific approach, isolating variables in his diet and logging the results. Avoiding artificial sweeteners helps, he said, but most of the benefit relates to avoiding the emulsifiers.

Ben & Jerry’s did not respond to a request for comment.

‘Science That Hasn’t Been Done Yet’

The Consumer Brands Association, which represents makers of processed foods, stands behind use of the chemicals.

“Food safety and protecting the integrity of the food supply is priority number one for the makers of America’s food and beverage products,” Sarah Gallo, the group’s senior vice president of product policy, said in a statement.

“Emulsifiers and thickening agents play an important role in improving food texture and consistency, and have been studied by the FDA through a rigorous scientific and risk-based process,” Gallo said.

Asked for specifics on how the FDA had analyzed potential effects on the microbiome, the group did not respond.

Chassaing said the chemicals were “never considered for the potential effect on the microbiota.”

Robert Califf, who led the FDA under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, said in an interview that scientists are just beginning to understand the microbiome. He compared it to where the field of genomics was 20 years ago, only much more complicated — “multiplied by a thousand dimensions.”

He said the substances “fell within the standards” when they were greenlighted. “But hopefully most people agree that the standards need to be upgraded,” he added.

“This is different than traditional food safety thinking about, ‘Does it cause an immediate problem?’” Califf said. “We’re talking about long-term health outcomes here.”

And has the FDA evaluated those?

“How could it? There was no way to do it,” Califf said. The answers will vary depending on the emulsifier, and “proving whether it’s bad or good is going to require rigorous science that hasn’t been done yet.”

More recent scientific capabilities expand the possibilities, he said.

‘A Lot of Confusion in the Field’

For a consumer, trying to steer clear of emulsifiers can be difficult. Without realizing it, people can consume a variety of emulsifiers from a variety of foods — and the same chemicals from multiple sources.

Polysorbate 80 was listed as an ingredient on the labels of 2,311 products as of May 12, according to an online database posted by the Environmental Working Group using information from NielsenIQ. Carrageenan was listed on 8,100 product labels; maltodextrin, 12,769; and xanthan gum, 17,153.

Some emulsifiers have multiple names, making them harder to recognize. Some names can apply to more than one emulsifier. And some chemical names that appear on product labels don’t appear in the FDA’s “Substances Added to Food” inventory.

Carboxymethyl cellulose — not to be confused with methyl cellulose — is also known as carboxymethylcellulose  and cellulose gum. Maltodextrin can be derived from substances such as cornstarch, rice starch, and wheat starch — but the FDA doesn’t consider it synonymous with the term “modified food starch.”

The naming practices can frustrate efforts to track the chemicals in food, to measure how much of the stuff people are taking in, and even to figure out precisely which chemicals a scientific study evaluated, researchers said.

“There’s a lot of confusion in the field,” said Christine McDonald, a researcher at the Cleveland Clinic who has studied maltodextrin. She called for more consistent naming of additives in the United States.

The very term “emulsifier” is problematic. By strict definition, emulsifiers create an emulsion — a stable blend of liquids that would not otherwise mix, such as oil and water. However, the term is used broadly, encompassing chemicals such as maltodextrin that thicken, stabilize, or alter texture.

Gummed Up

Emulsifiers can be found in foods marketed as natural or healthy as well as ones that look artificial. Some products contain multiple emulsifiers.

Products sold at Whole Foods, for instance, list a variety of emulsifiers on their labels. 365 brand Organic Vegan Ranch Dressing & Dip contained organic tapioca maltodextrin and xanthan gum. Pacific Seafood Starfish brand Cornmeal Crusted Fishsticks — marked as wild-caught and MSC-certified (sustainably sourced) — contain guar gum. Flour tortillas by 365 included monoglycerides of fatty acids and “stabilizer (guar gum, xanthan gum, carrageenan).”

At a Safeway supermarket, Healthy Choice Grilled Chicken Pesto With Vegetables listed modified potato starch, modified corn starch, carrageenan, xanthan gum, and guar gum.

The label on Newman’s Own Caesar salad dressing said the product contained no artificial preservatives or flavors, no colors from an artificial source, and was gluten-free. The ingredient label listed, “as a thickener,” xanthan gum.

In response to questions for this article, Whole Foods Market said it prohibits more than 300 ingredients commonly found in food. “Our experts evaluate ingredients for acceptability in all food products we sell based on the best available scientific research,” the company said in a statement provided by spokesperson Rachel Malish.

Safeway’s parent company, Albertsons Companies, did not respond to inquiries. Nor did Pacific Seafood, Newman’s Own, or Conagra Brands, which makes Healthy Choice.

A Growing Body of Research

Research on emulsifiers has been building in recent years.

For example, a study published in January by the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis concluded that a diet low in emulsifiers is an effective treatment for mild or moderate Crohn’s disease. The eight-week clinical trial, which tracked 154 patients in the United Kingdom, focused on carrageenan, carboxymethyl cellulose, and polysorbate 80.

A study published in February 2024 in the journal PLOS Medicine found that higher intakes of carrageenan and mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids were associated with higher risks of cancer. The study observed 92,000 French adults for an average of 6.7 years.

A study published in September 2023 in The BMJ, formerly known as the British Medical Journal, found that intake of several types of emulsifiers was associated with the risk of cardiovascular disease. The study observed more than 95,000 French adults for a median of 7.4 years.

A series of earlier studies found that emulsifiers “can promote chronic intestinal inflammation in mice”; that two in particular, carboxymethyl cellulose and polysorbate 80, “profoundly impact intestinal microbiota in a manner that promotes gut inflammation and associated disease states”; and that, based on a laboratory study of human samples, “numerous, but not all, commonly used emulsifiers can directly alter gut microbiota in a manner expected to promote intestinal inflammation,” as recounted in a 2021 paper in the journal Microbiome.

Other findings diverge.

A study from Australia, published in February in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, followed 24 Crohn’s patients over four weeks and concluded that, in the context of a healthy diet, the emulsifier content had “no influence over disease activity.”

Authors declared conflicts of interest, including payments from PepsiCo, drug companies, and Mindset Health Pty, which promotes hypnosis-based therapy.

One of the authors, gastroenterology professor Peter Gibson of Monash University in Australia, said the conflicts of interest “have nothing whatsoever to do with the study.”

“It is important not to overinterpret results of studies,” he said, adding that his team’s report “does not mean that emulsifiers are good for you or that there are no health benefits in avoiding emulsifiers.”

‘Keeping It Real’ (Or Not)

Häagen-Dazs touts the absence of such chemicals as a virtue.

“Keeping it real, the way it should be,” it said in an online plug for its vanilla ice cream. “No emulsifiers. No stabilizers.”

However, at the company that makes Häagen-Dazs in the United States, Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, there are limits to that approach.

Under other brand names — such as Edy’s, Dreyer’s, and Drumstick — it markets products that contain emulsifiers or stabilizers. The company did not respond to questions. In addition, a spokesperson for Nestlé, which markets Drumstick and Häagen-Dazs brands internationally, did not respond.

Drumstick Vanilla Caramel Sundae Cones have no artificials flavors or colors, the package says — but they feature an array of other ingredients, including soy lecithin, guar gum, monogylcerides, and carob bean gum.

The cones, the company’s website says, offer “one incredibly creamy experience.”

And the creamy filling doesn’t melt.

Instead, over 24 hours on a KFF Health News reporter’s kitchen counter, it bled a caramel-tinged fluid and shrank into a sticky white foam that could be cut with a knife.

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).

Health care has proved a vulnerable target for the firehose of cuts and policy changes President Donald Trump ordered in the name of reducing waste and improving efficiency. But most of the impact isn’t as tangible as, say, higher egg prices at the grocery store.

One thing experts from a wide range of fields, from basic science to public health, agree on: The damage will be varied and immense. “It’s exceedingly foolish to cut funding in this way,” said Harold Varmus, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist and former director of both the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute.

The blaze of cuts have yielded nonsensical and perhaps unintended consequences. Consider instances in which grant funding gets canceled after two years of a three-year project. That means, for example, that $2 million has already been spent but there will be no return on that investment.

Some of the targeted areas are not administration priorities. That includes the abrupt termination of studies on long covid, which afflicts more than 100,000 Americans, and the interruption of work on mRNA vaccines, which hold promise not just in infectious disease but also in treating cancer.

While charitable dollars have flowed in to plug some gaps, “philanthropy cannot replace federal funding,” said Dustin Sposato, communications manager for the Science Philanthropy Alliance, a group that works to boost support from charities for basic science research.

Here are critical ways in which Trump administration cuts — proposed and actual — could affect American health care and, more important, the health of American patients.

Cuts to the National Institutes of Health: The Trump administration has cut $2.3 billion in new grant funding since its term began, as well as terminated existing grants on a wide range of topics — vaccine hesitancy, HIV/AIDS, and covid-19 — that do not align with its priorities. National Institutes of Health grants do have yearly renewal clauses, but it is rare for them to be terminated, experts say. The administration has also cut “training grants” for young scientists to join the NIH.

Why It Matters: The NIH has long been a crucible of basic science research — the kind of work that industry generally does not do. Most pharmaceutical patents have their roots in work done or supported by the NIH, and many scientists at pharmaceutical manufacturers learned their craft at institutions supported by the NIH or at the NIH itself. The termination of some grants will directly affect patients since they involved ongoing clinical studies on a range of conditions, including pediatric cancer, diabetes, and long covid. And, more broadly, cuts in public funding for research could be costly in the longer term as a paucity of new discoveries will mean fewer new products: A 25% cut to public research and development spending would reduce the nation’s economic output by an amount comparable to the decline in gross domestic product during the Great Recession, a new study found.

Cuts to Universities: The Trump administration also tried to deal a harrowing blow — currently blocked by the courts — to scientific research at universities by slashing extra money that accompanies research grants for “indirect costs,” like libraries, lab animal care, support staff, and computer systems.

Why It Matters: Wealthier universities may find the funds to make up for draconian indirect cost cuts. But poorer ones — and many state schools, many of them in red states — will simply stop doing research. A good number of crucial discoveries emerge from these labs. “Medical research is a money-losing proposition,” said one state school dean with former ties to the Ivies. (The dean requested anonymity because his current employer told him he could not speak on the record.) “If you want to shut down research, this will do it, and it will go first at places like the University of Tennessee and the University of Arkansas.” That also means fewer opportunities for students at state universities to become scientists.

Cuts to Public Health: These hits came in many forms. The administration has cut or threatened to cut long-standing block grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; covid-related grants; and grants related to diversity, equity, and inclusion activities — which often translated into grants to improve health care for the underserved. Though the covid pandemic has faded, those grants were being used by states to enhance lab capacity to improve detection and surveillance. And they were used to formally train the nation’s public health workforce, many of whom learn on the job.

Why It Matters: Public health officials and researchers were working hard to facilitate a quicker, more thoughtful response to future pandemics, of particular concern as bird flu looms and measles is having a resurgence. Mati Hlatshwayo Davis, the St. Louis health director, had four grants canceled, three in one day. One grant that fell under the covid rubric included programs to help community members make lifestyle changes to reduce the risk of hypertension and diabetes — the kind of chronic diseases that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said he will focus on fighting. Others paid the salaries of support staff for a wide variety of public health initiatives. “What has been disappointing is that decisions have been made without due diligence,” she said.

Health-Related Impact of Tariffs: Though Trump has exempted prescription drugs from his sweeping tariffs on most imports thus far, he has not ruled out the possibility of imposing such tariffs. “It’s a moving target,” said Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, noting that since high drug prices are already a burden, adding any tax to them is problematic.

Why It Matters: That supposed exemption doesn’t fully insulate American patients from higher costs. About two-thirds of prescription drugs are already manufactured in the U.S. But their raw materials are often imported from China — and those enjoy no tariff exemption. Many basic supplies used in hospitals and doctors’ offices — syringes, surgical drapes, and personal protective equipment — are imported, too. Finally, even if the tariffs somehow don’t themselves magnify the price to purchase ingredients and medical supplies, Americans may suffer: Across-the-board tariffs on such a wide range of products, from steel to clothing, means fewer ships will be crossing the Pacific to make deliveries — and that means delays. “I think there’s an uncomfortably high probability that something breaks in the supply chain and we end up with shortages,” Strain said.

Changes to Medicaid: Trump has vowed to protect Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for Americans with low incomes and disabilities. But House Republicans have eyed the program as a possible source of offsets to help pay for what Trump calls “the big, beautiful bill” — a sweeping piece of budget legislation to extend his 2017 tax cuts. The amount of money GOP leaders have indicated they could squeeze from Medicaid, which now covers about 20% of Americans, has been in the hundreds of billions of dollars. But deep cuts are politically fraught.

To generate some savings, administration officials have at times indicated they are open to at least some tweaks to Medicaid. One idea on the table — work requirements — would require adults on Medicaid to be working or in some kind of job training. (Nearly two-thirds of Medicaid recipients ages 19-64 already work.)

Why It Matters: In 2024 the uninsured rate was 8.2%, near the all-time low, in large part because of the Medicaid expansion under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Critics say work requirements are a backhanded way to slim down the Medicaid rolls, since the paperwork requirements of such programs have proved so onerous that eligible people drop out, causing the uninsured rate to rise. A Congressional Budget Office report estimates that the proposed change would reduce coverage by at least 7.7 million in a decade. This leads to higher rates of uncompensated care, putting vulnerable health care facilities — think rural hospitals — at risk.

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).

Durante su primer gobierno, los principales funcionarios de salud del presidente Donald Trump autorizaron a Carolina del Norte a utilizar dinero de Medicaid para servicios sociales que tradicionalmente no estaban cubiertos por el seguro médico. Fue un experimento pionero en el país para canalizar fondos de atención médica hacia vivienda, nutrición y otros servicios sociales.

Algunos beneficiarios de Medicaid pudieron acceder a beneficios, como dinero para pagar el depósito y el primer mes de un alquiler, transporte a citas médicas, rampas para sillas de ruedas e incluso recetas para frutas y verduras frescas.

Estas iniciativas experimentales, que buscan mejorar la salud de los estadounidenses vulnerables y, al mismo tiempo, ahorrar a los contribuyentes en costosos procedimientos médicos y atención de emergencias, están en auge a nivel nacional. Sin hogar ni alimentos saludables, las personas corren el riesgo de enfermarse más, quedarse sin hogar y experimentar aún más dificultades para controlar afecciones crónicas como la diabetes y las enfermedades cardíacas.

El ex presidente Joe Biden animó a los estados a apostar a gran escala por nuevos beneficios, y la disponibilidad de servicios sociales se disparó en los estados tanto republicanos como demócratas.

Desde el lanzamiento de Carolina del Norte, al menos otros 24 estados han seguido el ejemplo ampliando las prestaciones de servicios sociales cubiertos por Medicaid, el programa de atención médica para estadounidenses de bajos ingresos y con discapacidad. Este cambio nacional está transformando un sistema centrado en la atención médica en uno que prioriza la prevención. Y aunque Trump fue fundamental para la expansión, ahora está revirtiendo el rumbo, independientemente de si la evidencia demuestra que funciona.

En el segundo mandato de Trump, su administración está desorganizando a los estados participantes, desde California hasta Arkansas, argumentando que el seguro medico del gobierno no debería estar financiando servicios sociales. Funcionarios de los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS), que otorgan a los estados permiso para experimentar, han rescindido su amplia directiva anterior, argumentando que la administración Biden fue demasiado lejos.

“Esta administración cree que la guía sobre necesidades sociales relacionadas con la salud distrajo al programa Medicaid de su misión principal: brindar excelentes resultados de salud a los estadounidenses vulnerables”, declaró Catherine Howden, vocera de los CMS, en un comunicado.

“Esta decisión evita el drenaje de recursos de Medicaid para servicios potencialmente duplicados que ya ofrecen otros programas federales consolidados, incluyendo aquellos que históricamente se han centrado en la inseguridad alimentaria y la vivienda asequible”, agregó Howden, refiriéndose a los cupones de alimentos y los vales para viviendas de bajos ingresos proporcionados a través de otras agencias gubernamentales.

Sin embargo, Trump también ha propuesto recortar la financiación de los programas de vivienda y alimentación para personas de bajos ingresos administrados por agencias como los departamentos de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano y Agricultura, además de las propuestas republicanas de recortes más amplios a Medicaid.

La retirada ha generado caos y confusión en los estados que han ampliado sus programas de Medicaid, y tanto los líderes liberales como los conservadores temen que el cambio trastoque las inversiones multimillonarias ya en marcha.

Problemas sociales como la falta de vivienda y la inseguridad alimentaria pueden causar, o agravar, problemas de salud física y conductual, lo que resulta en un gasto astronómico en atención médica.

Por ejemplos, la atención médica brindada en hospitales y clínicas solo representa aproximadamente el 15% de la salud general de una persona, mientras que un asombroso 85% está influenciado por factores sociales como el acceso a alimentos saludables y un lugar para dormir, afirmó Anthony Iton, experto en políticas sobre determinantes sociales de salud.

Los expertos en salud advierten que este retiro de la inversión tendrá un precio.

“Simplemente conducirá a más muertes, más sufrimiento y mayores costos de atención médica”, declaró Margot Kushel, médica de atención primaria en San Francisco e investigadora líder sobre personas sin hogar y atención médica.

En un meno del 4 de marzo, la administración Trump anunció que rescindía las directrices de la era Biden que expandían dramáticamente los beneficios experimentales conocidos como necesidades sociales relacionadas con la salud. Se requieren exenciones federales para que los estados utilicen los fondos de Medicaid para la mayoría de los servicios sociales no tradicionales fuera de hospitales y clínicas

En abril, la administración indicó a los estados que estos servicios, que también pueden incluir internet de alta velocidad y unidades de almacenamiento de datos, no deberían formar parte de Medicaid.

Las futuras solicitudes de exención que permitan a Medicaid prestar servicios sociales —una filosofía liberal— se considerarán caso por caso, dijo la administración. Más bien, esto ha señalado un cambio conservador hacia la exigencia de que la mayoría de los beneficiarios de Medicaid demuestren que trabajan o buscan empleo, lo que pone a aproximadamente 36 millones de estadounidenses en riesgo de perder su cobertura médica.

“Lo que argumentan es que Medicaid se ha expandido mucho más allá de la atención médica básica y que debe recortarse para brindar solo cobertura básica a quienes más la necesitan”, declaró Mark Peterson, experto en políticas sanitarias en UCLA. “Están argumentando, algo que no comparten ampliamente los especialistas en el campo de la salud, que no es responsabilidad de los contribuyentes ni de Medicaid pagar todo esto fuera del sistema de salud tradicional”.

Aunque los estados no han recibido directrices formales para poner fin a sus experimentos sociales, Peterson y otros investigadores de políticas sanitarias esperan que la administración no renueve las exenciones, que suelen aplicarse cada cinco años. Peor aún, los expertos legales afirman que los programas en curso podrían detenerse prematuramente.

La evidencia que respalda las inversiones sociales de Medicaid es aún incipiente. Por ejemplo, una expansión en Massachusetts que proporcionó beneficios alimentarios redujo las visitas a emrgencias y las hospitalizaciones. Pero a menudo, los resultados son dispares

California es la que más está invirtiendo, con una inversión de $12.000 millones a lo largo de cinco años para ofrecer una serie de nuevos servicios, desde la gestión intensiva de casos para ayudar a personas con problemas graves de salud mental hasta la asistencia para vivienda y alimentación a través de dos exenciones federales.

Los beneficios más populares que ofrecen las aseguradoras de salud son aquellos que ayudan a las personas con Medicaid que no tienen hogar, alojándolas en apartamentos o asegurando camas en centros de recuperación, cubriendo hasta $5.000 en depósitos, y previniendo el desalojo. Con resultados mixtos.

Desde su lanzamiento en 2022, el programa CalAIM ha atendido solo a una pequeña fracción de los casi 15 millones de beneficiarios de Medicaid del estado, con aproximadamente 577.000 derivaciones para recibir beneficios.

Sin embargo, ha mejorado e incluso salvado la vida de algunos de los afortunados que recibieron ayuda, como Eric Jones, un residente de Los Ángeles de 65 años.

“Cuando me dio diabetes, no sabía qué hacer y me costaba mucho ir a mis citas médicas”, dijo Jones, quien perdió su vivienda este año tras la muerte de su madre, pero recibía servicios a través de su aseguradora de Medi-Cal, L.A. Care. “Mi gestor de casos me llevaba a mis citas y también me ayudó a encontrar un apartamento”.

California está considerando la posibilidad de que algunos de sus servicios sociales sean permanentes después de que expiren las exenciones de CalAIM a finales de 2026.

La administración del gobernador Gavin Newsom está agregando más servicios de vivienda, incluyendo hasta seis meses de alquiler gratuito en virtud de una tercera exención aprobada por la administración Biden. Los funcionarios de Medi-Cal afirmaron que las primeras pruebas muestran que CalAIM ha mejorado la coordinación de la atención y ha reducido las visitas al hospital y a emergencias.

“Estamos totalmente comprometidos”, dijo Susan Philip, subdirectora del Departamento de Servicios de Atención Médica del estado, que administra el programa. “Hemos invertido muchísimo”.

Las aseguradoras de salud, que ofrecen cobertura de Medicaid y reciben fondos mayores para cubrir estos beneficios adicionales, expresan su preocupación por la posibilidad de que la administración Trump cancele o reduzca los programas.

“Si seguimos haciendo las cosas como siempre, solo generaremos los mismos resultados: más personas enfermando y costos de atención médica que siguen aumentando”, declaró Charles Bacchi, presidente y director ejecutivo de la Asociación de Planes de Salud de California, que representa a las aseguradoras.

Los líderes de la industria afirman que la expansión ya está cambiando vidas.

“Creemos firmemente que la vivienda es salud, la alimentación es salud, por lo que ver desaparecer estos programas sería devastador”, declaró Kelly Bruno-Nelson, directora ejecutiva de Medi-Cal para CalOptima Health, una aseguradora del condado de Orange.

Oregon también ofrece a los pacientes de Medicaid de bajos ingresos una gama de nuevos servicios, que incluyen comidas saludables a domicilio y asistencia para el pago del alquiler. Los residentes incluso pueden calificar para aires acondicionados, calentadores, filtros de aire, generadores de energía y mini refrigeradores. Los funcionarios estatales de Medicaid afirman que mantienen su compromiso con la provisión de los beneficios, pero les preocupan los recortes federales.

“El cambio climático y la inestabilidad de la vivienda son indicadores importantes de mala salud”, afirmó Josh Balloch, vicepresidente de políticas y comunicaciones de salud de AllCare Health, una aseguradora de Medicaid en Oregón. “Esperamos demostrarle al gobierno federal que esta es una buena inversión”.

Pero incluso mientras la administración Trump reduce las exenciones, conserva la discreción para brindar servicios sociales en Medicaid, solo que a menor escala. Quienes apoyan esta medida afirman que es justo analizar con atención dónde se debe establecer el límite en el gasto público, argumentando que no siempre existe una conexión directa con la salud.

“Estamos observando un aumento en estos aspectos, con el alquiler gratuito, y estamos viendo que algunos estados pagan por internet gratuito y por muebles”, declaró Kody Kinsley, quien anteriormente se desempeñó como el principal funcionario de salud de Carolina del Norte. “Sabemos que hay evidencia para la alimentación y la vivienda, pero con todos estos nuevos beneficios, debemos analizar detenidamente la evidencia y su vínculo con lo que realmente impulsa la salud”.

Las autoridades actuales de Carolina del Norte afirman confiar en que los nuevos servicios sociales que Medicaid ofrece en su estado han resultado en una mejor salud y una reducción del gasto general en atención médica costosa y de alta intensidad. Los beneficiarios de Medicaid pueden incluso usar el programa para comprar productos agrícolas frescos.

Si bien es demasiado pronto para saber si estos experimentos han sido efectivos en otras partes de Estados Unidos, la evidencia preliminar en Carolina del Norte es prometedora: el estado ahorró $1,020 por participante al año en su experimento —que opera principalmente en condados rurales— al reducir las visitas a urgencias y las hospitalizaciones.

Las autoridades sanitarias estatales también destacaron los beneficios económicos de impulsar el negocio hacia las granjas familiares, los contratistas de mejoras para el hogar y las organizaciones comunitarias que brindan vivienda y servicios sociales.

“Acepto con satisfacción el reto de demostrar la eficacia de nuestros programas. Esto contribuye a una vida más saludable y a presupuestos más saludables”, declaró Jay Ludlam, subsecretario del programa Medicaid de Carolina del Norte. “Las granjas familiares que estaban al borde del colapso tras el huracán Helene ahora se benefician de ingresos estables a la vez que sirven a su comunidad”.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

WINNER, Dakota del Sur — Sophie Hofeldt tenía previsto hacerse los controles de embarazo y dar a luz en el hospital local, a 10 minutos de su casa. En cambio, ahora, para ir a la consulta médica, tiene que conducir más de tres horas entre ida y vuelta.

Es que el hospital donde se atendía, Winner Regional Health, se ha sumado recientemente al cada vez mayor número de centros de salud rurales que cierran sus unidades de maternidad.

“Ahora va a ser mucho más estresante y complicado para las mujeres recibir la atención médica que necesitan, porque tienen que ir mucho más lejos”, dijo Hofeldt, que tiene fecha de parto de su primer hijo el 10 de junio.

Hofeldt agregó que los viajes más largos suponen más gasto en gasolina y un mayor riesgo de no llegar a tiempo al hospital. “Mi principal preocupación es tener que parir en un auto”, afirma.

Más de un centenar de hospitales rurales han dejado de atender partos desde 2021, según el Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, una organización sin fines de lucro. El cierre de los servicios de obstetricia se suele achacar a la falta de personal y la falta de presupuesto.

En la actualidad, alrededor del 58% de los condados de Dakota del Sur no cuentan con salas de parto. Es la segunda tasa más alta del país, después de Dakota del Norte, según March of Dimes, una organización que asiste a las madres y sus bebés.

Además, el Departamento de Salud de Dakota del Sur informó que las mujeres embarazadas y los bebés del estado — especialmente las afroamericanas y las nativas americanas— presentan tasas más altas de complicaciones y mortalidad.

Winner Regional Health atiende a comunidades rurales en Dakota del Sur y Nebraska, incluyendo parte de la reserva indígena Rosebud Sioux. El año pasado nacieron allí 107 bebés, una baja considerable respecto de los 158 que nacieron en 2021, contó su director ejecutivo, Brian Williams.

Los hospitales más cercanos con servicios de maternidad se encuentran en pueblos rurales a una hora de distancia, o más, de Winner.

Sin embargo, varias mujeres afirmaron que el trayecto en coche hasta esos centros las llevaría por zonas donde no hay señal de celular confiable, lo que podría suponer un problema si tuvieran una emergencia en el camino.

KFF Health News habló con cinco pacientes de la zona de Winner que tenían previsto que su parto fuera en el Avera St. Mary’s Hospital de Pierre, a unas 90 millas de Winner, o en uno de los grandes centros médicos de Sioux Falls, a 170 millas de distancia.

Hofeldt y su novio conducen cada tres semanas para ir a las citas prenatales en el hospital de Pierre, que brinda servicios a la pequeña capital y a la vasta zona rural circundante.

A medida que se acerque la fecha del parto, las citas de control y, por lo tanto los viajes, tendrán que ser semanales. Ninguno de los dos tiene un empleo que le brinde permiso con goce de sueldo para ese tipo de consulta médica.

“Cuando necesitamos ir a Pierre, tenemos que tomarnos casi todo el día libre”, explicó Hofeldt, que nació en el hospital de Winner.

Eso significa perder una parte del salario y gastar dinero extra en el viaje. Además, no todo el mundo tiene auto ni dinero para la gasolina, y los servicios de autobús son escasos en las zonas rurales del país.

Algunas mujeres también tienen que pagar el cuidado de sus otros hijos para poder ir al médico cuando el hospital está lejos. Y, cuando nace el bebé, tal vez tengan que asumir el costo de un hotel para los familiares.

Amy Lueking, la médica que atiende a Hofeldt en Pierre, dijo que cuando las pacientes no pueden superar estas barreras, los obstetras tienen la opción de darles dispositivos para monitorear el embarazo en el hogar y ofrecerles consulta por teléfono o videoconferencia.

Las pacientes también pueden hacerse los controles prenatales en un hospital o una clínica local y, más tarde, ponerse en contacto con un profesional de un hospital donde se practiquen partos, dijo Lueking.

Sin embargo, algunas zonas rurales no tienen acceso a la telesalud. Y algunas pacientes, como Hofeldt, no quieren dividir su atención, establecer relaciones con dos médicos y ocuparse de cuestiones logísticas como transferir historias clínicas.

Durante una cita reciente, Lueking deslizó un dispositivo de ultrasonido sobre el útero de Hofeldt. El ritmo de los latidos del corazón del feto resonó en el monitor.

“Creo que es el mejor sonido del mundo”, expresó Lueking.

Hofeldt le comentó que quería un parto lo más natural posible.

Pero lograr que el parto se desarrolle según lo planeado suele ser complicado para quienes viven en zonas rurales, lejos del hospital. Para estar seguras de que llegarán a tiempo, algunas mujeres optan por programar una inducción, un procedimiento en el que los médicos utilizan medicamentos u otras técnicas para provocar el trabajo de parto.

Katie Larson vive en un rancho cerca de Winner, en la localidad de Hamill, que tiene 14 habitantes. Esperaba evitar que le indujeran el parto.

Larson quería esperar a que las contracciones comenzaran de forma natural y luego conducir hasta el Avera St. Mary’s, en Pierre.

Pero terminó programando una inducción para el 13 de abril, su fecha probable de parto. Más tarde, la adelantó al 8 de abril para no perderse una venta de ganado muy importante, que ella y su esposo estaban preparando.

“La gente se verá obligada a elegir una fecha de inducción aunque no sea lo que en un principio hubiera elegido. Si no, correrá el riesgo de tener al bebé en la carretera”, afirmó.

Lueking aseguró que no es frecuente que las embarazadas den a luz mientras se dirigen al hospital en automóvil o en ambulancia. Pero también recordó que el año anterior cinco mujeres que tenían previsto tener a sus hijos en Pierre acabaron haciéndolo en las salas de emergencias de otros hospitales, porque el parto avanzó muy rápido o porque las condiciones del clima hicieron demasiado peligroso conducir largas distancias.

Nanette Eagle Star tenía previsto que su bebé naciera en el hospital de Winner, a cinco minutos de su casa, hasta que el hospital anunció que cerraría su unidad de maternidad. Entonces decidió dar a luz en Sioux Falls, porque su familia podía quedarse con unos familiares que vivían allí y así ahorrar dinero.

El plan de Eagle Star volvió a cambiar cuando comenzó el trabajo de parto prematuramente y el clima se puso demasiado peligroso para manejar o para tomar un helicóptero médico a Sioux Falls.

“Todo ocurrió muy rápido, en medio de una tormenta de nieve”, contó.

Finalmente, Eagle Star tuvo a su bebé en el hospital de Winner, pero en la sala de emergencias, sin epidural, ya que en ese momento no había ningún anestesista disponible. Esto ocurrió  solo tres días después del cierre de la unidad de maternidad.

El fin de los servicios de parto y maternidad en el Winner Regional Health no es solo un problema de salud, según las mujeres de la localidad. También tiene repercusiones emocionales y económicas en la comunidad.

Eagle Star recuerda con cariño cuando era niña e iba con sus hermanas a las citas médicas. Apenas llegaban, iban a un pasillo que tenía fotos de bebés pegadas en la pared y comenzaban una “búsqueda del tesoro” para encontrar polaroids de ellas mismas y de sus familiares.

“A ambos lados del pasillo estaba lleno de fotos de bebés”, contó Eagle Star. Recuerda pensar: “Mira todos estos bebés tan lindos que han nacido aquí, en Winner”.

Hofeldt contó que muchos lugareños están tristes porque sus bebés no nacerán en el mismo hospital que ellos.

Anora Henderson, médica de familia, señaló que la falta de una correcta atención a las mujeres embarazadas puede tener consecuencias negativas para sus hijos. Esos bebés pueden desarrollar problemas de salud que requerirán cuidados de por vida, a menudo costosos, y otras ayudas públicas.

“Hay un efecto negativo en la comunidad”, dijo. “Simplemente no es tan visible y se notará bastante más adelante”.

Henderson renunció en mayo a su puesto en el Winner Regional Health, donde asistía partos vaginales y ayudaba en las cesáreas. El último bebé al que recibió fue el de Eagle Star.

Para que un centro de salud sea designado como hospital con servicio de maternidad, debe contar con instalaciones donde se pueden efectuar cesáreas y proporcionar anestesia las 24 horas del día, los 7 días de la semana, explicó Henderson.

Williams, el director ejecutivo del hospital, dijo que el Winner Regional Health no ha podido contratar suficientes profesionales médicos con formación en esas especializaciones.

En los últimos años, el hospital solo había podido ofrecer servicios de maternidad cubriendo aproximadamente $1,2 millones anuales en salarios de médicos contratados de forma temporal, señaló. Pero el hospital ya no podía seguir asumiendo ese gasto.

Otro reto financiero está dado porque muchos partos en los hospitales rurales están cubiertos por Medicaid, el programa federal y estatal que ofrece atención a personas con bajos ingresos o discapacidades.

El programa suele pagar aproximadamente la mitad de lo que pagan las aseguradoras privadas por los servicios de parto, según un informe de 2022 de la U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Williams contó que alrededor del 80% de los partos en Winner Regional Health estaban cubiertos por Medicaid.

Las unidades obstétricas suelen constituir el mayor gasto financiero de los hospitales rurales y, por lo tanto, son las primeras que se cierran cuando un centro de salud atraviesa dificultades económicas, explica el informe de la GAO.

Williams dijo que el hospital sigue prestando atención prenatal y que le encantaría reanudar los partos si pudiera contratar suficiente personal.

Henderson, la médica que dimitió del hospital de Winner, ha sido testigo del declive de la atención materna en las zonas rurales durante décadas.

Recuerda que, antes de que naciera su hermana, acompañaba a su madre a las citas médicas. En cada viaje, su madre recorría unas 100 millas después de que el hospital de la ciudad de Kadoka cerrara en 1979.

Henderson trabajó durante casi 22 años en el Winner Regional Health, lo que permitió que muchas mujeres no tuvieran que desplazarse para dar a luz, como le ocurrió a su madre.

A lo largo de los años, atendió a nuevas pacientes cuando cerraron las unidades de maternidad de un hospital rural cercano y luego las de un centro del Servicio de Salud Indígena. Finalmente, el propio hospital de Henderson dejó de atender partos.

“Lo que ahora realmente me frustra es que pensaba que iba a dedicarme a la medicina familiar y trabajar en una zona rural, y que así íbamos a solucionar estos problemas, para que las personas no tuvieran que conducir 100 millas para tener un bebé”, se lamentó.

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 Administration for Children and Families celebrates the 60th birthday of the Head Start program.