Last month, Justin and Amy Miller packed their vehicles with three kids, two dogs, a pet bearded dragon, and whatever belongings they could fit, then drove 2,000 miles from Wisconsin to British Columbia to leave President Donald Trump’s America.

The Millers resettled on Vancouver Island, their scenic refuge accessible only by ferry or plane. Justin went to work in the emergency room at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, where he became one of at least 20 U.S.-trained nurses hired since April.

Fear of Trump, some of the nurses said, was why they left.

“There are so many like-minded people out there,” said Justin, who now works elbow to elbow with Americans in Canada. “You aren’t trapped. You don’t have to stay. Health care workers are welcomed with open arms around the world.”

The Millers are part of a new surge of American nurses, doctors, and other health care workers moving to Canada, and specifically British Columbia, where more than 1,000 U.S.-trained nurses have been approved to work since April. As the Trump administration enacts increasingly authoritarian policies and decimates funding for public health, insurance, and medical research, many nurses have felt the draw of Canada’s progressive politics, friendly reputation, and universal health care system.

Additionally, some nurses were incensed last year when the Trump administration said it would reclassify nursing as a nonprofessional degree, which would impose strict federal limits on the loans nursing students could receive.

Canada is poised to capitalize. Two of its most populous provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, have streamlined the licensing process for American nurses since Trump returned to the White House. British Columbia also launched a $5 million advertising campaign last year to recruit nurses from California, Oregon, and Washington state.

“With the chaos and uncertainty happening in the U.S., we are seizing the opportunity to attract the talent we need,” Josie Osborne, the province’s health minister, said in a statement announcing the campaign.

Fears Realized

Amy Miller, a nurse practitioner, said she and her husband were determined to move their children out of the country because they felt Trump’s second term would inevitably spiral into violence.

First, the Millers got nursing licenses in New Zealand, but when the job search took too long, they pivoted to Canada.

Justin was offered a job within weeks.

Amy found one within three months.

So they moved. And just a few days later, the Millers watched with horror from afar as their fears came true.

As federal immigration forces clashed with protesters in Minneapolis on Jan. 24, federal agents fatally shot an ICU nurse, Alex Pretti, as he filmed a confrontation and appeared to be trying to shield a woman who was knocked down. Video of the killing showed border agents pinning Pretti to the ground before seizing his concealed, licensed handgun and opening fire on him.

The Trump administration quickly called Pretti a “domestic terrorist” who intended to kill federal agents. That allegation was disputed by eyewitness videos that circulated on social media and spurred widespread outrage, including from nurses and nursing organizations, some of whom invoked the profession’s duty to care for the vulnerable.

“I don’t want to say it was expected, but that’s why we are here,” Amy Miller said. “Even our oldest kid, she was like: ‘It’s OK, Mom, because we are not there anymore. We are safe here.’ So she recognizes that, and she’s not even in middle school yet.”

Both the U.S. and Canada have a severe need for nurses. The U.S. is projected to be short about 270,000 registered nurses, plus at least 120,000 licensed practical nurses, by 2028, according to recent estimates from the Health Resources and Services Administration. In Canada, nursing job vacancies tripled from 2018 to 2023, when they reached nearly 42,000, according to a recent report from the Montreal Economic Institute, a Canadian think tank.

When asked to comment, the White House noted that industry data shows the number of nurses licensed in the U.S. increased in 2025. It dismissed accounts of nurses moving to Canada as “anecdotes of individuals with severe cases of Trump derangement syndrome.”

“The American health care workforce is the finest in the world, and it continues to expand under President Trump,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said. “Employment opportunities in the American health care system remain robust, with career advancement and pay that far exceed that of other developed nations.”

‘A Sense of Relief’

It is unknown precisely how many American nurses have moved north since Trump returned to office, because some Canadian provinces do not track or release such statistics.

British Columbia, which has done the most to recruit Americans, approved the licensing applications of 1,028 U.S.-trained nurses from when the province’s streamlined application process took effect in April 2025 through January, according to the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives. In all of 2023, only 112 applicants from the U.S. were approved, the agency said. In 2024, it was 127.

Increased interest from American nurses was also confirmed by nursing associations in Ontario and Alberta, as well as by the nationwide Canadian Nurses Association.

Angela Wignall, CEO of Nurses and Nurse Practitioners of British Columbia, said American nurses used to move north because they had fallen in love with Canada (or a Canadian). But more recently, she said, she had met nurses who feared the White House would spur violence and vigilantism, particularly against families that included same-sex couples.

“Some of them were living in fear of the administration, and they shared a sense of relief when crossing the border,” Wignall said. “As a Canadian, it’s heartbreaking. And also a joy to welcome them.”

Vancouver Island, which has a population of about 860,000, has gained 64 U.S.-trained nurses since April, including those at Nanaimo Regional, said Andrew Leyne, a spokesperson for the island’s health agency.

One of the nurses was Susan Fleishman, a Canadian who moved to the U.S. as a child, then worked for 23 years in American emergency rooms before leaving the country in November.

Fleishman said hateful rhetoric from Trump has fueled an angry division that has permeated and soured American life.

“It wasn’t an easy move — that’s for sure. But I think it’s definitely worth it,” she said, happily back in Canada. “I find there is a lot more kindness here. And I think that will keep me here.”

Brandy Frye, who also worked for decades in American ERs, said she moved to Vancouver Island last year after waiting to see whether Mark Carney would become Canada’s prime minister. Carney’s rise was widely viewed as a rejection of Trumpism.

Meanwhile, Frye said, the California hospital where she worked had been stripping words associated with diversity and equity out of its paperwork to appease the Trump administration. She couldn’t stand it.

“It felt like a step against everything I believe in,” Frye said. “And I didn’t feel like I belonged there anymore.”

Like many of the American nurses who have moved to Vancouver Island, Frye was first wooed to the area by a viral video that was meant to attract tourist dollars but ended up doing much more.

About a year ago, Tod Maffin, a social media content creator and former CBC Radio host, invited Americans to the port city of Nanaimo for a weekend event designed to offset the impact of Trump’s tariffs on the local economy.

Maffin said about 350 people attended the April event.

“A lot of them were health care workers looking for an escape route,” Maffin said. “They were there to help support our economy but also to look into Canada.”

Maffin saw an opportunity. He repurposed the event website into a recruiting tool and launched a Discord chatroom to help Americans relocate.

Maffin said he believes the campaign helped about 35 health care workers move to Vancouver Island. Volunteers in more than 30 other Canadian communities have since duplicated his website in an effort to attract their own American nurses and doctors.

“There are communities across Canada where the emergency room closes at night because one nurse is out. That’s how thin staffing is,” Maffin said.

“One new nurse in a small town, or in a midsized city like Nanaimo,” he said, “makes a difference.”

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).

COLUSA, Calif. — Early on, Jean Franklin got some career advice she followed religiously: “Pay yourself first.” So she did, socking away hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement savings by the time she became a stay-at-home mom at age 41.

She and her husband, Charles, a former high school teacher who goes by Chaz, planned to retire comfortably in the three-bedroom house where they raised their kids about 60 miles northwest of Sacramento.

But early last year, the 63-year-old became unsteady on her feet. One morning in May, she woke up with slurred speech and landed in the hospital, then rapidly lost the ability to move the right side of her body.

In August, as doctors continued to puzzle over a possible diagnosis, the couple received a notice saying that on Jan. 1 their combined health care premium payments through the state insurance exchange would shoot up from $540 a month to $3,899 a month. The reason: Federal enhanced premium subsidies expiring at the end of last year would no longer offset their payment.

They immediately canceled a monthlong cruise they’d been planning with friends and looked through their retirement accounts.

“Now, instead of thinking about where we can go in our retirement, we’re asking the question, ‘Are we still going to be able to stay where we are because of the health care costs?’” said Chaz, who retired in 2021 at age 59.

Then they received more bad news. In October, at the age of 63, Jean was diagnosed with ALS, a debilitating disease that will eventually leave her unable to speak, swallow, or breathe on her own. But Jean’s condition allowed her to enroll in Medicare, the federal health insurance program that covers adults 65 and older and people with disabilities. The diagnosis saved them roughly $1,600 a month in premiums — little comfort as Jean lost her ability to walk, bathe, and dress herself.

“It’s kind of morbid that, because of my diagnosis, I got put on Medicare right away, so at least we don’t have to pay that out-of-pocket,” Jean said, sitting in a wheelchair in her living room, a quilt draped over her legs to guard against the intense chills she now often gets. “We’re not going to get buried under this.”

Yet the premiums for Chaz’s plan and her Medicare remain a significant strain on their finances. The $2,300 a month they now owe, which includes roughly $342 in premium payments for Jean’s Medicare supplemental insurance, is higher than their monthly mortgage and eats up more than a quarter of their budget.

The Franklins are among the 22 million people across the nation facing greater financial pressure after Congress chose not to extend 2021 enhanced federal subsidies. That assistance helped more than double enrollment in Obamacare plans to over 24 million.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2024 that, without an extension of the tax credits, the number of uninsured Americans would climb by 2.2 million this year alone. As of January, nationwide enrollment in ACA plans was down about 1.2 million year over year, though experts say it could be months before the full effects of rising premiums are known, as people miss payments and lose coverage.

The groups hit hardest will be early retirees, middle-income earners, and people living in high-cost states, said Stacey Pogue, a senior research fellow at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. The Franklins are all three.

“They fell off what we call a subsidy cliff,” Pogue said. “It’s very, very shocking, the amount that a person would have to absorb.”

That’s because the expanded tax credits made the biggest difference for people nearing retirement age who sat just above previous income eligibility thresholds, Pogue said. People such as the Franklins, who likely wouldn’t have qualified for financial help before expanded credits were implemented, are now losing that support at a time when insurers have responded to the uncertainty by dramatically raising rates.

Roughly half of people who were expected to lose eligibility for premium tax credits were ages 50 to 64, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Republicans who opposed the extension have said the premium assistance went directly to insurance companies rather than consumers, incentivizing fraud and wasteful coverage. They also say the enhanced subsidies, which had no upper income limit for eligibility, were far too generous in capping premium payments at 8.5% of income, no matter how much an enrollee made.

“Most Americans would agree that taxpayers should not be subsidizing the health insurance of someone making $250,000,” U.S. Rep. Ken Calvert, a California Republican who voted against an extension in January, wrote in an Orange County Register op-ed. “I cannot accept the simple extension of a program that will line the pockets of insurers and is riddled with fraud at the expense of the American taxpayer.”

Patient advocates say the premium increases and expiration of subsidies have forced people into difficult choices. “The young people who are healthy are the first to say, I’m going to roll the dice” and forgo coverage, said Rebecca Kirch, executive vice president of policy and programs at the National Patient Advocate Foundation. “Those who are remaining in the system — because they have no choice — are holding off care, they’re holding off their meds, they’re going without necessary food.”

While the Franklins are getting by, they have relied on their sons to pay for a motorized recliner to assist with lifting Jean and a handicap van to transport her. Chaz, who broke a tooth a year ago, delayed fixing it because a crown would cost him $1,000.

This year, the couple will draw $36,000 more than they had anticipated from their retirement savings, most of it to cover Chaz’s insurance premiums.

“I have a nest egg,” Chaz said. “But there’s a lot of people around here who don’t.”

For a while, he was outraged.

“I wish Congress would get off their butts and solve this issue,” said Chaz, who is a registered Republican but blames both sides of the aisle. “You’re so busy bickering over stupid crap and it’s both parties pointing fingers and blaming. Where was this discussion two years ago?”

Now, Chaz said, he’s focused on making Jean, his wife of 27 years, as comfortable as possible.

Before she got sick, they did practically everything together — hiking, traveling, tai chi, amateur photography, and bug-hunting. One of her favorite specimens was the rain beetle, a fuzzy scarab-like insect that can’t feed as an adult, relying solely on fat stores from its larval stages.

In the mornings, Chaz and their sons, Charlie and Louis, take turns lifting Jean, dressing her, and helping her use the bathroom. It’ll be fodder for the counselor, she jokes to her sons, when they inevitably need therapy later in life.

Most days, Jean’s outdoor adventures rarely extend beyond being wheeled to her back patio, where she loves to watch their backyard chickens bobble around. Chaz’s stubbornness makes him a great patient advocate. Charlie always seems to know exactly when she needs a big hug, and Louis tells jokes that can still make her snort with laughter.

“I don’t know what I would do without my boys making me laugh,” she said.

In December, Chaz will turn 65, old enough to qualify for Medicare himself. “After this year — knock on wood — we should be OK,” Jean said, before pausing and shooting her husband a wry smile.

“Well, you’re gonna be OK.”

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact KFF Health News and share your story.

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).

Después de un año agotador de quimioterapia, cirugía y radiación para tratar un cáncer de mama, Sadia Zapp se sentía ansiosa. No era la inquietud manejable que había sido parte de su vida durante años, sino algo más profundo y difícil de ignorar.

Dijo que “cada pequeña molestia, como un dolor de rodilla,  le hacía pensar: este es el final del camino para mí”.

Así que Zapp, de 40 años, directora de comunicaciones en Nueva York, se convirtió en una de los millones de estadounidenses que comenzaron a tomar medicamentos para la ansiedad (ansiolíticos) en los últimos años. En su caso, fue Lexapro, un fármaco que aumenta la producción de serotonina.

“Me encanta. Ha sido excelente”, dijo. “Realmente me ha ayudado a manejarla”.

La proporción de adultos en el país que tomaron medicamentos para la ansiedad aumentó de 11,7% en 2019 a 14,3% en 2024, y la mayor parte del incremento se registró durante la pandemia de covid, según datos de encuestas de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC).

Eso representa 8 millones de personas más, un total aproximado de 38 millones, con aumentos marcados entre adultos jóvenes, personas con título universitario y adultos que se identifican como LGBTQ+.

Aunque los medicamentos psiquiátricos han ganado aceptación pública y son más fáciles de conseguir mediante citas de telemedicina, el aumento en el uso de una clase de antidepresivos llamados inhibidores selectivos de la recaptación de serotonina, conocidos como ISRS, ha generado críticas de partidarios del movimiento “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA), quienes sostienen que son perjudiciales.

Médicos e investigadores dicen que medicamentos como Prozac, Zoloft y Lexapro son tratamientos de primera línea para muchos trastornos de ansiedad, incluidos el trastorno por ansiedad generalizada y el trastorno de pánico, y que han sido presentados de forma incorrecta como adictivos y dañinos en general, a pesar de que se ha demostrado que son seguros para uso prolongado.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretario del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS, por sus siglas en inglés), ha criticado el uso creciente de los ISRS. Durante su audiencia de confirmación el 29 de enero, dijo que conoce personas, incluidos familiares, a quienes les resultó más difícil dejar los ISRS que dejar la heroína. Más recientemente, afirmó que su agencia estudia un posible vínculo entre el uso de ISRS y otros medicamentos psiquiátricos y comportamientos violentos como tiroteos escolares.

Marty Makary, comisionado de la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA, por sus siglas en inglés), también ha sugerido que el uso de los ISRS en mujeres embarazadas podría provocar malos resultados en el nacimiento.

Los efectos secundarios comunes de los ISRS incluyen malestar estomacal, dificultad para concentrarse y fatiga. Algunos también pueden reducir la libido y causar otros efectos sexuales secundarios.

Para muchas personas, sin embargo, los efectos secundarios son leves y tolerables, y los beneficios de tratar la ansiedad crónica lo compensan, señaló Patrick Kelly, presidente de la Sociedad Psiquiátrica del Sur de California. “Las declaraciones sobre los ISRS simplemente no estaban basadas en ningún tipo de evidencia o hecho”, dijo Kelly sobre los comentarios de Kennedy.

Un estudio reciente mostró que más de la mitad de las personas con trastorno por ansiedad generalizada que tomaban un ISRS vieron reducidos sus síntomas de ansiedad al menos en un 50%. Los efectos secundarios llevaron a aproximadamente 1 de cada 12 personas a dejar de usar el medicamento.

“Cuando se hace de manera adecuada y también se utilizan técnicas de terapia apropiadas, los ISRS pueden ser realmente muy útiles”, dijo Emily Wood, psiquiatra que ejerce en Los Ángeles.

MAHA atribuye la ansiedad a una mala alimentación y a la falta de ejercicio

Los partidarios de MAHA han atribuido en parte el aumento de varios problemas de salud, incluidos la ansiedad, la depresión y otros trastornos de salud mental, a malas decisiones alimentarias y a un estilo de vida sedentario. Como solución, han propuesto medidas como reducir el consumo de alimentos ultraprocesados, que estudios recientes han vinculado con la depresión y la ansiedad, y disminuir el tiempo frente a pantallas a favor del ejercicio.

Los psiquiatras suelen recomendar una alimentación saludable y ejercicio como terapia complementaria para la ansiedad y la depresión. Wood dijo que los que pueden manejar la ansiedad sin medicamentos también deberían considerar la terapia de conversación. La proporción de adultos en Estados Unidos que utilizan consejería en salud mental aumentó entre 2019 y 2024 a medida que la teleterapia ganó popularidad, según datos federales. “Los trastornos de ansiedad están entre los trastornos psiquiátricos que mejor responden a la terapia cognitivo-conductual”, dijo.

Pero los medicamentos pueden ayudar.

Estudios muestran que los riesgos de tomar ISRS durante el embarazo son bajos para la madre y el bebé. En contraste, “la depresión aumenta el riesgo de casi todas las complicaciones para la madre y el bebé”, expresó Wood, y agregó que declaraciones recientes de funcionarios del gobierno sobre el uso de ISRS durante el embarazo “podrían estar causando un daño real a estas mujeres”.

Algunas personas que dejan de tomar antidepresivos experimentan náuseas, insomnio u otros síntomas, especialmente si los suspenden de forma repentina. Pero “el concepto de adicción simplemente no se aplica a estos medicamentos”, dijo Kelly, una afirmación respaldada por estudios.

La adicción sí es posible con benzodiacepinas como Xanax, que a menudo son un tratamiento de segunda línea para la ansiedad. Estas sustancias controladas también pueden aumentar el riesgo de sobredosis de opioides en pacientes que toman ambos tipos de medicamentos. Durante audiencias en el Congreso el año pasado, Kennedy también criticó el uso excesivo de benzodiacepinas como un problema.

Aunque las benzodiacepinas son efectivas a corto plazo, requieren supervisión y cuidado, dijo Wood.

“Son medicamentos muy útiles para la ansiedad aguda y no son adecuados como tratamiento a largo plazo, porque pueden generar dependencia con el tiempo”, explicó Wood. “Si se toman a diario, se necesita cada vez más para lograr el mismo efecto y luego hay que reducir la dosis de manera gradual”.

Un número creciente de personas también toma ocasionalmente betabloqueantes como el propranolol para la ansiedad. Algunas las usan para prevenir el ritmo cardíaco acelerado antes de un discurso público u otros momentos importantes, aunque no están aprobadas por la FDA para tratar la ansiedad y se usan por fuera de lo que indica la receta.

Los betabloqueantes pueden causar mareos y fatiga, pero “no generan adicción, son útiles para reducir la activación del sistema nervioso autónomo, pasar de la respuesta de lucha o huida a un estado más neutral y son seguros”, dijo Wood.

Cambios sociales impulsan el aumento en el uso de estos medicamentos

Un número de teorías podrían explicar por qué muchas más personas están tomando medicamentos para la ansiedad, entre ellas un mayor uso de redes sociales, más aislamiento y mayor incertidumbre económica, según médicos e investigadores.

Además, los medicamentos son relativamente fáciles de obtener. Muchas personas reciben recetas de ISRS y benzodiacepinas de su médico de atención primaria. Otras, después de una breve cita de teleterapia.

Muchos influencers en redes sociales hablan sobre sus problemas de salud mental, lo que ha reducido el estigma entre los jóvenes y los anima a buscar ayuda. Aproximadamente un tercio de los adolescentes en un estudio reciente dijo que busca información sobre salud mental a través de redes sociales.

Aun así, el mayor acceso a medicamentos para la ansiedad puede ser problemático cuando se combina con una tendencia a autodiagnosticarse basada en información en redes sociales. Una búsqueda en Google de “buy Xanax online” muestra promesas patrocinadas de tratamiento el mismo día, aunque la letra pequeña aclara que no se garantiza una receta.

“Creo que un mayor acceso es algo positivo, pero no es lo mismo que, por ejemplo, pedir Xanax por internet”, dijo Kelly.

Los adultos jóvenes impulsan en gran medida el aumento en el uso de medicamentos para la ansiedad. La proporción de estadounidenses de 18 a 34 años que los toman aumentó de 8,8% en 2019 —el primer año en que estos datos estuvieron disponibles— a 14,6% en 2024. En contraste, la tasa cambió poco entre los adultos de 65 años o más, según datos de los CDC.

La pandemia y los confinamientos por covid aumentaron de forma importante el estrés entre muchos adultos, en especial los jóvenes.

Los datos también muestran que más mujeres que hombres toman medicamentos para la ansiedad.

Jason Schnittker, jefe de departamento y profesor de Sociología en la Universidad de Pennsylvania, dijo que esto se debe a que es más probable que los necesiten. También es más probable que las mujeres digan cuando se sienten ansiosas, y los médicos “tienden a identificar la ansiedad con mayor facilidad en sus pacientes mujeres que en sus pacientes hombres”, añadió Schnittker.

También podrían influir tendencias más amplias. Schnittker señaló que estudios han mostrado que la ansiedad se ha vuelto más común entre generaciones sucesivas durante gran parte del siglo XX y el siglo XXI. Autor de Unnerved: Anxiety, Social Change, and the Transformation of Modern Mental Health, dijo que el aumento de la desigualdad de ingresos podría ser un factor, ya que las personas sienten presión por mejorar su situación económica. Las actividades sociales y religiosas han sido reemplazadas por un mayor aislamiento. Y las personas se han vuelto más desconfiadas de los demás, lo que crea una sensación de inquietud frente a extraños.

Para Zapp, sobreviviente de cáncer, pasaron algunos meses tomando Lexapro antes de notar resultados claros. Cuando ocurrió, dijo, sintió que su mente estaba menos saturada, lo que le facilitó concentrarse. También recibió terapia, pero ahora su ansiedad crónica está estabilizada solo con el medicamento.

“Definitivamente me ayudó a volver a mi rutina diaria de una manera productiva y no simplemente llena de ansiedad durante todo el día”, dijo.

Holly Hacker, Maia Rosenfeld y Lydia Zuraw, de KFF Health News, contribuyeron con este artículo.

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).

After a grueling year of chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation to treat breast cancer, Sadia Zapp was anxious — not the manageable hum that had long been part of her life, but something deeper, more distracting.

“Every little ache, like my knee hurts,” she said, made her worry that “this is the end of the road for me.”

So Zapp, a 40-year-old communications director in New York, became one of millions of Americans to start taking an anxiety medication in recent years. For her, it was the serotonin-boosting drug Lexapro.

“I love it. It’s been great,” she said. “It’s really helped me manage.”

The proportion of American adults who took anxiety medications jumped from 11.7% in 2019 to 14.3% in 2024, with most of the increase occurring during the covid pandemic, according to survey data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s 8 million more people, bringing the total to roughly 38 million, with sharp increases among young adults, people with a college degree, and adults who identify as LGBTQ+.

Even as psychiatric medications gain public acceptance and become easier to access through telehealth appointments, the rise of a class of antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, known as SSRIs, has triggered a backlash from supporters of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement who argue they are harmful. Doctors and researchers say medications such as Prozac, Zoloft, and Lexapro are front-line treatments for many anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder, and are being misrepresented as addictive and broadly harmful even though they’ve been proved safe for extended use.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has decried broadening SSRI use. During his Jan. 29 confirmation hearing, he said he knows people, including family members, who had a tougher time quitting SSRIs than people have quitting heroin. More recently, he said his agency is studying a possible link between the use of SSRIs and other psychiatric medications and violent behavior like school shootings.

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary has also suggested that SSRI use among pregnant women could lead to poor birth outcomes.

SSRIs’ common side effects include upset stomach, brain fog, and fatigue. Some SSRIs also can reduce libido and cause other sexual side effects.

For many people, however, the side effects are mild and tolerable and the benefits of treating chronic anxiety are worth it, said Patrick Kelly, president of the Southern California Psychiatric Society. “The statements about SSRIs were just not grounded in any sort of evidence or fact,” Kelly said of Kennedy’s comments.

A recent comprehensive study showed that over half of people with generalized anxiety disorder taking an SSRI saw their anxiety symptoms reduced by at least 50%. Side effects prompted about 1 in 12 to stop taking an SSRI.

“When it’s being done right and when you’re also using appropriate therapy techniques, SSRIs can be really, really helpful,” said Emily Wood, a psychiatrist who practices in Los Angeles.

MAHA Blames Anxiety on Poor Diet, Lack of Exercise

Supporters of MAHA have partly blamed poor dietary choices and the increase of a sedentary lifestyle for the rise of a number of health problems, including anxiety, depression, and other mental health disorders. As a remedy, they have called for measures such as reducing consumption of ultraprocessed foods, which studies in recent years have connected to depression and anxiety, and cutting back on screen time in favor of exercise.

Psychiatrists often encourage a healthy diet and exercise as an adjunctive therapy for anxiety and depression. Wood said those who can manage anxiety without medication should also consider talk therapy. The proportion of American adults using mental health counseling boomed from 2019 to 2024 as teletherapy grew in popularity, federal data shows. “Anxiety disorders are amongst our psychiatric disorders that really respond well to cognitive behavioral therapy,” she said.

But medication can help.

Studies show the risks of taking SSRIs during pregnancy are low for mother and child. By contrast, “depression increases your risk for every complication for a mother and a baby,” Wood said, adding that recent statements by government officials about SSRI use during pregnancy are “potentially leading to real harm for these women.”

Some people who stop taking antidepressant medication will experience nausea, insomnia, or other symptoms, especially if they quit suddenly. But “the concept of addiction simply does not apply to these chemicals,” Kelly said, a statement backed up by studies.

Addiction, though, is a possibility with benzodiazepines such as Xanax that are often a second line of treatment for anxiety. These controlled substances can also increase the risk of opioid overdose in patients taking both types of drugs. During congressional hearings last year, Kennedy also decried benzodiazepine overuse as a problem.

While benzodiazepines are effective for short-term use, they require monitoring and care, Wood said.

“Those are really great meds for acute anxiety and not great as long-term anxiety medications, because they are habit-forming over time,” Wood said. “If you’re taking them on a daily basis, you’ll need more and more to get the same effect, and then you have to come down from them in a tapered way.”

And an increasing number of people are also occasionally taking beta-blockers such as propranolol for anxiety. Some people use beta-blockers to prevent a racing heart before a public speech or other big moments, even though they are not FDA-approved for treating anxiety and are prescribed “off-label.”

Beta-blockers can cause dizziness and fatigue, but they are “nonaddictive, really helpful for bringing down the autonomic nervous system, going from fight or flight to something more neutral, and really safe,” Wood said.

Social Shifts Drive Increased Use of Anxiety Meds

A number of leading theories could explain why so many more people are taking anxiety medication, including increased social media use, more isolation, and heightened economic uncertainty, physicians and researchers say.

Plus, the medicines are relatively easy to get. Many people obtain SSRI and benzodiazepine prescriptions from their primary care physician. Others obtain the medications after a brief teletherapy appointment.

Many social media influencers talk about their mental health struggles, easing some stigma among young people and encouraging them to get help. About a third of teens in a recent study said they get mental health information via social media.

Still, increased access to anxiety medication can be a problem when combined with a trend of self-diagnosis based on social media trends. A Google search for “buy Xanax online” leads to sponsored promises of same-day treatment, though fine-print disclaimers clarify that a prescription is not guaranteed.

“I think increased access is good, but that’s not the same thing as, you know, ordering Xanax online,” Kelly said.

Young adults are largely driving an increase in anxiety medication use. The proportion of Americans ages 18 to 34 taking anxiety medication rose from 8.8% in 2019 — the first year such survey data became available — to 14.6% in 2024. By contrast, the rate didn’t change much among adults 65 and older, CDC data shows.

The pandemic and covid lockdowns greatly increased stress among many American adults, particularly young adults.

And data shows more women than men take anxiety medication. Jason Schnittker, a department chair and professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, said that’s because they’re more likely to need them. They are also likelier than men to report when they feel anxious, and doctors are “inclined or see anxiety more readily in their female patients than their male patients,” Schnittker added.

Broader trends could also be at work. Schnittker said studies have shown anxiety growing more prevalent among ensuing generations for much of the 20th and 21st centuries. Schnittker, author of Unnerved: Anxiety, Social Change, and the Transformation of Modern Mental Health, said growing income inequality could be partly to blame, with people feeling stress over improving their economic status. Social and religious activities have been replaced by more isolation. And people have become more suspicious of others, creating a sense of unease around strangers.

For Zapp, the cancer survivor, it took a few months on Lexapro before she started seeing clear results. When she did, she said, it felt like her mind was less noisy, making it easier to focus. She also underwent talk therapy, but now her chronic anxiety is stabilized on medication alone.

“It definitely helped me get back to my day-to-day in a way that was productive and not just riddled with my anxieties throughout the day,” she said.

KFF Health News’ Holly Hacker, Maia Rosenfeld, and Lydia Zuraw contributed to this report.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

¿Cómo deben usar la inteligencia artificial (IA) las aseguradoras de salud? La respuesta a esta pregunta inusual de política pública, encuentra en un mismo bando al gobernador republicano Ron DeSantis, de Florida, y al gobierno demócrata de Maryland, los dos contra el presidente Donald Trump y el gobernador de California, Gavin Newsom.

La regulación de la inteligencia artificial, en especial su uso por parte de las aseguradoras de salud, se está convirtiendo en un tema que divide políticamente y altera las líneas partidarias tradicionales.

Quienes la impulsan, con Trump a la cabeza, no solo quieren insertar la IA de lleno en el gobierno, como en el experimento de Medicare que la utiliza en las autorizaciones previas (el proceso para autorizar ciertos tratamientos y medicamentos), sino que además buscan frenar a los estados que pretenden poner reglas y límites. Una orden ejecutiva firmada en diciembre busca invalidar la mayoría de los esfuerzos de los estados para regularla, al plantear que existe “una carrera con adversarios por la supremacía” en una nueva “revolución tecnológica”.

“Para ganar, las empresas estadounidenses de IA deben tener la libertad de innovar sin regulaciones engorrosas”, dice la orden de Trump. “Pero la regulación estatal excesiva frustra este imperativo”.

En todo el país, los estados se están rebelando. Al menos cuatro —Arizona, Maryland, Nebraska y Texas— aprobaron el año pasado leyes que limitan el uso de la IA en los seguros de salud. Otros dos, Illinois y California, habían aprobado leyes similares el año anterior.

Los legisladores de Rhode Island se proponen intentarlo de nuevo este año, después de que durante 2025 no lograran sancionar un proyecto que exigía a los organismos reguladores que recopilaran datos sobre el uso de las tecnologías. El año pasado, en Carolina del Norte, una iniciativa que exige que las aseguradoras no utilicen la IA como única base para decidir la cobertura generó interés entre legisladores republicanos.

DeSantis, ex candidato presidencial del Partido Republicano, ha presentado una “Carta de Derechos de la IA”, cuyas disposiciones incluyen restricciones a su uso en la tramitación de reclamos de seguros y el requisito de que un organismo regulador estatal inspeccione los algoritmos.

“Tenemos la responsabilidad de garantizar que las nuevas tecnologías se desarrollen de forma moral y ética, de modo que refuercen nuestros valores estadounidenses, no que los erosionen”, dijo DeSantis durante su discurso anual sobre la situación de su estado en enero.

Lista para regular

Las encuestas muestran que los estadounidenses desconfían de la IA. En diciembre, un relevamiento  de Fox News encontró que el 63% de los votantes se describen como “muy” o “extremadamente” preocupados por la inteligencia artificial. La preocupación es mayoritaria en todo el espectro político. Casi dos tercios de los demócratas y poco más de 3 de cada 5 republicanos dijeron tener reparos sobre la IA.

Las tácticas de las aseguradoras de salud para reducir costos también preocupan a la población. Una encuesta de enero de KFF mostró un descontento generalizado en temas como la autorización previa.

En los últimos años, informes de ProPublica y otros medios han destacado el uso de algoritmos para rechazar rápidamente reclamos de seguros o solicitudes de autorización previa, al parecer con muy poca revisión por parte de un profesional de salud.

En enero, el Comité de Medios y Arbitrios de la Cámara de Representantes convocó a ejecutivos de Cigna, UnitedHealth Group y otras grandes aseguradoras para discutir preocupaciones sobre los altos costos de la atención médica.

Cuando se les preguntó directamente, los ejecutivos negaron o evitaron referirse al uso de la tecnología más avanzada para rechazar solicitudes de autorización o descartar reclamos.

La IA “nunca se utiliza para una denegación”, aseguró a los legisladores David Cordani, director ejecutivo de Cigna. Al igual que otras empresas del sector de seguros de salud, la compañía enfrenta demandas por sus métodos para rechazar reclamos, como destacó ProPublica. Justine Sessions, vocera de Cigna, dijo que el proceso de rechazo de reclamos de la empresa “no está impulsado por la IA”.

De hecho, las compañías insisten en presentar la IA como una herramienta de apoyo que no decide sola. Optum, parte del gigante de la salud UnitedHealth Group, anunció el 4 de febrero que implementaría autorización previa impulsada por tecnología, destacando que permitirá aprobaciones más rápidas.

“Estamos transformando el proceso de autorización previa para abordar los puntos de conflicto que genera”, dijo John Kontor, vicepresidente sénior de Optum, en un comunicado de prensa.

Aun así, Alex Bores, científico informático y miembro de la Asamblea de Nueva York, una figura clave en el debate legislativo del estado sobre la IA—que terminó en una ley integral para regular esta tecnología—, aseguró que la IA es un campo que, naturalmente, requiere regulación.

“Muchas personas consideran que las respuestas que reciben de sus aseguradoras son difíciles de entender”, dijo Bores, demócrata que compite por un escaño en el Congreso. “Agregar una tecnología que no puede explicar sus propias decisiones no ayudará a hacer las cosas más claras”.

Al menos una parte del ámbito de la salud —por ejemplo, muchos médicos— respalda a los legisladores y a quienes defienden las regulaciones.

La Asociación Médica Americana (AMA, por sus siglas en inglés) “apoya las regulaciones estatales que buscan más responsabilidad y transparencia de las aseguradoras comerciales que usan herramientas de IA y aprendizaje automático para revisar solicitudes de autorización previa”, dijo John Whyte, su director ejecutivo.

Whyte señaló que las aseguradoras ya utilizan IA y que “los médicos siguen enfrentando retrasos en la atención de los pacientes, decisiones poco claras de las aseguradoras, reglas de autorización inconsistentes y una carga administrativa abrumadora”.

Las aseguradoras responden

Con legislación aprobada o pendiente de aprobación en por lo menos nueve estados, aún no está claro el impacto real que tendrán esas leyes estatales, dijo Daniel Schwarcz, profesor de Derecho en la Universidad de Minnesota. Los estados no pueden regular los planes “autoasegurados”, que utilizan muchos empleadores; solo el gobierno federal tiene esa facultad.

Pero hay problemas más profundos, dijo Schwarcz: la mayoría de las leyes estatales que ha visto exigirían que un ser humano apruebe cualquier decisión propuesta por la IA, pero no especifican qué significa eso en la práctica.

Las leyes no ofrecen un marco claro para entender cuánta revisión es suficiente y, con el tiempo, los humanos tienden a volverse un poco descuidados y simplemente dan el visto bueno a cualquier sugerencia de una computadora, dijo.

Aun así, las aseguradoras ven esta ola de proyectos de ley como un problema.

“En términos generales, la carga regulatoria es real”, dijo Dan Jones, vicepresidente sénior de asuntos federales de la Alliance of Community Health Plans, un grupo comercial que representa a algunas aseguradoras de salud sin fines de lucro. Si las aseguradoras pasan mucho tiempo lidiando con un mosaico de leyes estatales y federales, agregó, eso significa que se dispondrá de “menos tiempo y recursos para enfocarnos en lo que se supone que debemos hacer: asegurarnos de que los pacientes tengan el acceso adecuado a la atención médica”.

Linda Ujifusa, senadora estatal demócrata en Rhode Island, dijo que las aseguradoras se opusieron el año pasado a un proyecto que presentó para restringir el uso de la IA en las denegaciones de cobertura. Fue aprobado en una cámara, pero en la otra no avanzó.

“Hay una oposición enorme” a cualquier intento de regular prácticas como la autorización previa, dijo, y también “una oposición enorme” a señalar a intermediarios —como las aseguradoras privadas o los administradores de beneficios farmacéuticos— “como parte del problema”.

En una carta en la que criticó el proyecto, AHIP, el principal grupo que representa a las aseguradoras, pidió “políticas equilibradas que promuevan la innovación y, al mismo tiempo, protejan a los pacientes”.

“Los planes de salud reconocen que la IA tiene el potencial de impulsar mejores resultados en la atención médica mejorando la experiencia del paciente, cerrando brechas en la atención, acelerando la innovación y reduciendo la carga administrativa y los costos para mejorar el enfoque en la atención al paciente”, dijo Chris Bond, portavoz de AHIP, a KFF Health News.

Y agregó que el sector necesita “un enfoque nacional coherente basado en un marco federal integral de políticas de IA”.

En busca de equilibrio

En California, Newsom ha promulgado algunas leyes que regulan la IA, incluida una que exige que las aseguradoras de salud garanticen que sus algoritmos se apliquen de manera justa y equitativa. Pero el gobernador demócrata ha vetado otras iniciativas con un enfoque más amplio, como un proyecto que imponía más requisitos sobre cómo debe funcionar la tecnología y que exigía revelar su uso a reguladores, médicos y pacientes cuando lo pidieran.

Según Chris Micheli, lobista de Sacramento, es probable que el gobernador quiera asegurarse de que el presupuesto estatal —que se mantiene fuerte gracias a las grandes ganancias de la Bolsa, especialmente de las empresas tecnológicas— no se resienta. Y para eso, dijo, hace falta equilibrio.

Newsom está tratando de “garantizar que ese flujo de dinero continúe y, al mismo tiempo, que haya algunas protecciones para los consumidores de California”, afirmó. Añadió que las aseguradoras consideran que ya están sujetas a una gran cantidad de regulaciones.

La administración Trump parece estar de acuerdo. La reciente orden ejecutiva del presidente propone demandar ante la Justicia y restringir ciertos fondos federales a cualquier estado que apruebe lo que caracteriza como una regulación estatal “excesiva”, con algunas excepciones, como las políticas destinadas a proteger a los niños.

Esa orden posiblemente sea inconstitucional, dijo Carmel Shachar, experta en políticas de salud de la Facultad de Derecho de Harvard. La autoridad para invalidar leyes estatales generalmente recae en el Congreso, explicó, y los legisladores federales consideraron en dos ocasiones, pero finalmente rechazaron, una disposición que prohibía a los estados regular la IA.

“Según nuestro conocimiento previo del federalismo y del equilibrio de poderes entre el Congreso y el Poder Ejecutivo, es muy probable que una impugnación tenga éxito”, dijo Shachar.

Algunos legisladores ven la orden de Trump con mucho escepticismo, y señalan que la administración ha eliminado controles y ha impedido que otros los establezcan, en un grado extremo.

“En este momento, no se trata de decidir si la regulación debe ser federal o estatal”, dijo Alex Bores. “La pregunta es si va a haber regulación a nivel estatal o directamente no va a haber ninguna”.

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).

Lawmakers in at least eight states this year are aiming to reel in wage garnishment for unpaid medical bills.

The legislation introduced in Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington builds on efforts made in other states in past years. This latest push for patient protections comes as the Trump administration has backed away from federal debt protections, health care has become more costly, and more people are expected to go without medical coverage or choose cheaper but riskier high-deductible insurance plans that could lead them into debt.

“In the wealthiest country on Earth, people are going bankrupt, suffering wage garnishment, just because they get sick,” said Colorado state Rep. Javier Mabrey, a Democrat who introduced legislation on Feb. 19 that would, among other measures, ban wage garnishment for medical debt.

That legislation is under consideration after a KFF Health News investigation found that courts approved wage garnishment requests in an estimated 14,000 medical debt cases a year in Colorado. The investigation also showed that it isn’t just urban hospitals or big health care chains allowing their patients’ wages to be garnished. It’s also small rural hospitals, physician groups, and public ambulance services, among other medical care providers. And the reporting showed that wage garnishment can erroneously target patients. For example, one family lost wages — and subsequently power to their home, because they couldn’t pay their electric bill — after an ambulance company incorrectly billed the family instead of Medicaid.

Wage garnishment is one tool creditors can use in most states to recoup money from people with unpaid bills. In many states, they can garnish someone’s bank account or put a lien on their home, too. To garnish a person’s wages, a creditor must typically get permission from a court to make the person’s employer hand over a piece of the debtor’s earnings.

“The creditor is taking the money directly out of somebody’s paycheck, and so it doesn’t leave people with any choice to say, ‘I need to prioritize food for my children,’” said Lauren Jones, legal and policy director for the National Center for Access to Justice. The center, based at Fordham Law School, scores states and the District of Columbia on how fair their laws are to consumers who get sued over debt.

It is legal to garnish patients’ wages for medical debt in all but a few states, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit foundation based in New York focused on health care.

Now, lawmakers in additional states seek to ban the practice entirely. Others want to limit it by exempting debtors whose household income falls under a certain threshold or by upping the amount of earnings immune from garnishment.

Such policies on wage garnishment fit into a larger push around the country to address the effect of medical debt on people’s lives and finances. Those efforts include barring medical debt from credit reports, prohibiting liens on people’s homes, capping interest rates, and limiting the ability to file lawsuits against people with low incomes over unpaid medical bills.

Debt collectors have fought against such measures, arguing they don’t solve the problem of health care affordability and hurt the ability of medical providers to continue to provide care.

“The wage garnishment process is already highly regulated at the federal and state level and includes many consumer protection measures,” said Scott Purcell, chief executive of ACA International, an association of credit and collection professionals.

Even before the Colorado legislation was introduced, BC Services sent a letter warning its clients that the legislation “poses an existential threat,” especially to rural health providers. And Bridget Frazier, a spokesperson for the Colorado Hospital Association, said Feb. 20 that the bill “could drive up costs and financial risk for health care providers, making it harder to keep hospitals sustainable and ensuring Coloradans have access to care when they need it most.”

The pending Colorado measure would ban wage garnishment for all patients. It also would limit bank garnishments, in which a patient’s financial institution must hand over a chunk of the money in the person’s account. Additionally, among other things, it would prevent payment plans from exceeding 4% of weekly net income, require creditors to check whether uninsured patients are eligible for public health insurance before collecting, bar creditors from collecting on bills that are more than three years old, and leave medical care providers liable to the patient for at least $3,000 if collectors don’t comply.

“No one is saying, ‘Don’t get paid for your services.’ We’re saying getting health care should not lead to financial ruin for people,” said Dana Kennedy, co-executive director at the Denver-based Center for Health Progress, a health advocacy group that has been working with lawmakers on the Colorado measure.

Kennedy said that KFF Health News’ investigation drove home how many kinds of Colorado health care facilities are willing to let this collection practice happen to their patients, and that the people whose wages are being garnished are often working at Family Dollar, Walmart, Amazon, or gas stations and restaurants.

“Medical debt is typically different from other forms of indebtedness,” said Colorado state Sen. Mike Weissman, a Democrat co-sponsoring the legislation. “You could choose to keep driving your old car or buy a new one and take on debt for that. You could upgrade your home. You could buy consumer appliances. There’s not usually that voluntary element in a health care context.”

Carolyn Carter, a senior attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, said broad laws that don’t require patients to jump through hoops to access protections are the most likely to be effective. Because of that, she and other consumer advocates prefer state policies that get rid of wage garnishment for all debtors and all types of debt.

“It can be hard to identify medical debt as medical debt,” Carter said. “For example, if you have a medical debt and you put it on your credit card, it’s not going to be easy for a court system to identify that debt as medical debt.”

She said another reason is that complexity is the enemy of effectiveness. Carter pointed to a report about Hamilton County, Tennessee, showing that even though people in the state can keep $10,000 in their bank accounts safe from garnishment, few consumers take advantage of the protection. They must know the protection exists, know where to find the relevant form, get the form notarized, file it, and mail copies to creditors. The same report found that garnishments can also be burdensome for employers, who must process garnishments and can find themselves in court if they make an error.

Jones, at the National Center for Access to Justice, said outlawing wage garnishment fully, rather than limiting it, has other benefits. “It’s also to protect people’s jobs, because in most states, if somebody has two or more orders of garnishment, they can lose their job for it,” she said.

Still, some lawmakers are pushing for the intermediate route. In Washington state, Democratic state Sen. Marko Liias is spearheading legislation to rope off a larger portion of low-wage earnings from garnishment. So, for example, a person making $1,000 a week would be able to keep their whole paycheck, as opposed to the $800 that the law would currently protect.

Mindy Chumbley, owner of a Washington-based collections company and an ACA International board member, testified against the bill on Feb. 2. “Washington has made sweeping changes to medical debt policy year after year without pausing to study the cumulative impact,” she told lawmakers. “Our clients are reporting clinic closures, urgent care centers shutting down, staffing shortages, and rural facilities struggling to stay open.”

The Washington State Hospital Association said it is neutral on the legislation. The American Hospital Association said it does not take positions on state policies.

Liias told KFF Health News that lawmakers need to ensure health care providers can recoup their costs while also protecting patients. “We don’t want families either to be driven into bankruptcy or to be driven into under-the-table work to avoid these garnishment thresholds,” he said.

Liias said his measure follows the lead of Arizona, which passed similar consumer protections in 2022. “Obviously, the health care system is still functioning in Arizona, and folks are able to make it work.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

“We’re going to post that, all the prices for everything,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declared at a recent event held by the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.

It’s a bold-sounding promise, and a familiar one; politicians from both parties have been repeating it for years now. Both Trump administrations — and the Biden administration in between — have taken whacks at making medical prices more accessible, with the goal of empowering patients to shop for better deals. 

The idea makes intuitive sense. Why shouldn’t you be able to compare the prices of MRI scans, for instance? 

The feds have made some strides. Prices are available, albeit in confusing or fragmentary form. But there’s one big problem: “There’s no evidence that patients use this information,” said Zack Cooper, a health economist at Yale University. 

Health care is an inherently complicated marketplace. For one thing, it’s not as simple as one price for one medical stay. Two babies might be delivered by the same obstetrician, for example, but the mothers could be charged very different amounts. One patient might be given medications to speed up contractions; another might not. Or one might need an emergency cesarean section — one of many cases in medicine in which obtaining the service simply isn’t a choice. Plus, the same hospital typically has different contract terms with each insurer, making comparing prices even more difficult for patients. 

Instead of helping consumers sort things out, this federally mandated price data largely has become a tool for providers and insurers, looking for intel about their competitors — so they can use it at the negotiating table in a quest for more advantageous rates. 

“We use the transparency data,” said Eric Hoag, an executive at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, noting that the insurer wants to make sure health care providers aren’t being paid substantially different rates. It’s “to make sure that we are competitive, or, you know, more than competitive against other health plans.” 

For all those tugs-of-war, it’s not clear these policies have had much of an effect overall. Research shows that transparency policies can have mixed effects on prices, with one 2024 study of a New York initiative finding a marginal increase in billed charges. 

Price isn’t the only piece of information negotiations hinge on. Hoag said Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota also considers quality of care, rates of unnecessary treatments, and other factors. And sometimes negotiators feel they keep up with their peers — claiming a need for more revenue to match competitors’ salaries, for example. 

Hoag said doctors and other care providers often look at the data from comparable health systems and say, “‘I need to be paid more.’”

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).

Tamar Abrams had a lousy couple of years in 2022 and ’23. Both her parents died; a relationship ended; she retired from communications consulting. She moved from Arlington, Virginia, to Warren, Rhode Island, where she knew all of two people.

“I was kind of a mess,” recalled Abrams, 69. Trying to cope, “I was eating myself into oblivion.” As her weight hit 270 pounds and her blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood glucose levels climbed, “I knew I was in trouble health-wise.”

What came to mind? “Oh, oh, oh, Ozempic!” — the tuneful ditty from television commercials that promoted the GLP-1 medication for diabetes. The ads also pointed out that patients who took it lost weight.

Abrams remembered the commercials as “joyful” and sometimes found herself humming the jingle. They depicted Ozempic-takers cooking omelets, repairing bikes, playing pickleball — “doing everyday activities, but with verve,” she said. “These people were enjoying the hell out of life.”

So, just as such ads often urge, even though she had never been diagnosed with diabetes, she asked her doctor if Ozempic was right for her.

Small wonder Abrams recalled those ads. Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Ozempic, spent an estimated $180 million in direct-to-consumer advertising in 2022 and $189 million in 2023, according to MediaRadar, which monitors advertising.

By last year, the sum — including radio and TV commercials, billboards, and print and digital ads — had reached an estimated $201 million, and total spending on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs topped $9 billion, by MediaRadar’s calculations.

Novo Nordisk declined to address those numbers.

Should it be legal to market drugs directly to potential patients? This controversy, which has simmered for decades, has begun receiving renewed attention from both the Trump administration and legislators.

The question has particular relevance for older adults, who contend with more medical problems than younger people and are more apt to take prescription drugs. “Part of aging is developing health conditions and becoming a target of drug advertising,” said Steven Woloshin, who studies health communication and decision-making at the Dartmouth Institute.

The debate over direct-to-consumer ads dates to 1997, when the FDA loosened restrictions and allowed prescription drug ads on television as long as they included a rapid-fire summary of major risks and provided a source for further information.

“That really opened the door,” said Abby Alpert, a health economist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

The introduction of Medicare Part D, in 2006, brought “a huge expansion in prescription drug coverage and, as a result, a big increase in pharmaceutical advertising,” Alpert added. A study she co-wrote in 2023 found that pharmaceutical ads were much more prevalent in areas with a high proportion of residents 65 and older.

Industry and academic research have shown that ads influence prescription rates. Patients are more apt to make appointments and request drugs, either by brand name or by category, and doctors often comply. Multiple follow-up visits may ensue.

But does that benefit consumers? Most developed countries take a hard pass. Only New Zealand and, despite the decadelong opposition of the American Medical Association, the United States allow direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising.

Public health advocates argue that such ads encourage the use and overuse of expensive new medications, even when existing, cheaper drugs work as effectively. (Drug companies don’t bother advertising once patents expire and generic drugs become available.)

In a 2023 study in JAMA Network Open, for instance, researchers analyzed the “therapeutic value” of the drugs most advertised on television, based on the assessments of independent European and Canadian organizations that negotiate prices for approved drugs.

Nearly three-quarters of the top-advertised medications didn’t perform markedly better than older ones, the analysis found.

“Often, really good drugs sell themselves,” said Aaron Kesselheim, senior author of the study and director of the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Harvard University.

“Drugs without added therapeutic value need to be pushed, and that’s what direct-to-consumer advertising does,” he said.

Opponents of a ban on such advertising say it benefits consumers. “It provides information and education to patients, makes them aware of available treatments and leads them to seek care,” Alpert said. That is “especially important for underdiagnosed conditions,” like depression.

Moreover, she wrote in a recent JAMA Health Forum commentary, direct-to-consumer ads lead to increased use not only of brand-name drugs but also of non-advertised substitutes, including generics.

The Trump administration entered this debate last September, with a presidential memorandum calling for a return to the pre-1997 policy severely restricting direct-to-consumer drug advertising.

That position has repeatedly been urged by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has charged that “pharmaceutical ads hooked this country on prescription drugs.”

At the same time, the FDA said it was issuing 100 cease-and-desist orders about deceptive drug ads and sending “thousands” of warnings to pharmaceutical companies to remove misleading ads. Marty Makary, the FDA commissioner, blasted drug ads in an essay in The New York Times.

“There’s a lot of chatter,” Woloshin said of those actions. “I don’t know that we’ll see anything concrete.”

This month, however, the FDA notified Novo Nordisk that the agency had found its TV spot for a new oral version of Wegovy false and misleading. Novo Nordisk said in an email that it was “in the process of responding to the FDA” to address the concerns.

Meanwhile, Democratic and independent senators who rarely align with the Trump administration also have introduced legislation to ban or limit direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads.

Last February, independent Sen. Angus King of Maine and two other sponsors introduced a bill prohibiting direct-to-consumer ads for the first three years after a drug gains FDA approval.

King said in an email that the act would better inform consumers “by making sure newly approved drugs aren’t allowed to immediately flood the market with ads before we fully understand their impact on the general public.”

Then, in June, he and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposed legislation to ban such ads entirely. That might prove difficult, Woloshin said, given the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling protecting corporate speech.

Moreover, direct-to-consumer ads represent only part of the industry’s promotional efforts. Pharmaceutical firms actually spend more money advertising to doctors than to consumers.

Although television still accounts for most consumer spending, because it’s expensive, Kesselheim pointed to “the mostly unregulated expansion of direct-to-consumer ads onto the web” as a particular concern. Drug sales themselves are bypassing doctors’ practices by moving online.

Woloshin said that “disease awareness campaigns” — for everything from shingles to restless legs — don’t mention any particular drug but are “often marketing dressed up as education.”

He advocates more effective educational campaigns, he said, “to help consumers become more savvy and skeptical and able to recognize reliable versus unreliable information.”

For example, Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz, a late colleague, designed and tested a simple “drug facts box,” similar to the nutritional labeling on packaged foods, that summarizes and quantifies the benefits and harms of medications.

For now, consumers have to try to educate themselves about the drugs they see ballyhooed on TV.

Abrams read a lot about Ozempic. Her doctor agreed that trying it made sense.

Abrams was referred to an endocrinologist, who decided that her blood glucose was high enough to warrant treatment. Three years later and 90 pounds lighter, she feels able to scramble after her 2-year-old grandson, enjoys Zumba classes, and no longer needs blood pressure or cholesterol drugs.

So Abrams is unsure, she said, how to feel about a possible ban on direct-to-consumer drug ads.

“If I hadn’t asked my new doctor about it, would she have suggested Ozempic?” Abrams wondered. “Or would I still weigh 270 pounds?”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with The New York Times.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

More than 10,000 people have enrolled in Nevada’s new public option health plans, which debuted last fall with the expectation that they would bring lower prices to the health insurance market.

Those preliminary numbers from the open enrollment period that ended in January are less than a third of what state officials had projected. Nevada is the third state so far to launch a public option plan, along with Colorado and Washington state. The idea is to offer lower-cost plans to consumers to expand health care access.

But researchers said plans like these are unlikely to fill the gaps left by sweeping federal changes, including the expiration of enhanced subsidies for plans bought on Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

The public option gained attention in the late 2000s when Congress considered but ultimately rejected creating a health plan funded and run by the government that would compete with private carriers in the market. The programs in Washington state, Colorado, and Nevada don’t go that far — they aren’t government-run but are private-public partnerships that compete with private insurance.

In recent years, states have considered creating public option plans to make health coverage more affordable and to reduce the number of uninsured people. Washington was the first state to launch a program, in 2021, and Colorado followed in 2023.

Washington and Colorado’s programs have run into challenges, including a lack of participation from clinicians, hospitals, and other care providers, as well as insurers’ inability to meet rate reduction benchmarks or lower premiums compared with other plans offered on the market.

Nevada law requires that the carriers of the public option plans — Battle Born State Plans, named after a state motto — lower premium costs compared with a benchmark “silver” plan in the marketplace by 15% over the next four years.

But that amount might not make much difference to consumers with rising premium payments from the loss of the ACA’s enhanced tax credits, said Keith Mueller, director of the Rural Policy Research Institute.

“That’s not a lot of money,” Mueller said.

Three of the eight insurers on the state’s exchange, Nevada Health Link, offered the state plans during the open enrollment period.

Insurance companies plan to meet the lower premium cost requirement in Nevada by cutting broker fees and commissions, which prompted opposition from insurance brokers in the state. In response, Nevada marketplace officials told state lawmakers in January that they will give a flat-fee reimbursement to brokers.

The public option has faced opposition among state leaders. In 2024, a state judge dismissed a lawsuit, brought by a Nevada state senator and a group that advocates for lower taxes, that challenged the public option law as unconstitutional. They have appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Federal Policy Impacts

Recent federal changes create more obstacles.

Nevada is consistently among the states with the largest populations of people who do not have health insurance coverage. Last year, nearly 95,000 people in the state received the enhanced ACA tax credits, averaging $465 in savings per month, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

But the enhanced tax credits expired at the end of the year, and it appears unlikely that lawmakers will bring them back. Nationwide ACA enrollment has decreased by more than 1 million people so far this year, down from record-high enrollment of 24 million last year.

About 4 million people are expected to lose health coverage from the expiration of the tax credits, according to the Congressional Budget Office. An additional 3 million are projected to lose coverage because of other policy changes affecting the marketplace.

Justin Giovannelli, an associate research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, said the changes to the ACA in the Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law last summer, will make it more difficult for people to keep their coverage. These changes include more frequent enrollment paperwork to verify income and other personal information, a shortened enrollment window, and an end to automatic reenrollment.

In Nevada, the changes would amount to an estimated 100,000 people losing coverage, according to KFF.

“All of that makes getting coverage on Nevada Health Link harder and more expensive than it would be otherwise,” Giovannelli said.

State officials projected ahead of open enrollment that about 35,000 people would purchase the public option plans. Of the 104,000 people who had purchased a plan on the state marketplace as of mid-January, 10,762 had enrolled in one of the public option plans, according to Nevada Health Link.

Katie Charleson, communications officer for the state health exchange, said the original enrollment estimate was based on market conditions before the recent increases in customers’ premium costs. She said that the public option plans gave people facing higher costs more choices.

“We expect enrollment in Battle Born State Plans to grow over time as awareness increases and as Nevadans continue seeking quality coverage options that help reduce costs,” Charleson said.

According to KFF, nationally the enhanced subsidies saved enrollees an average of $705 annually in 2024, and enrollees would save an estimated $1,016 in premium payments on average in 2026 if the subsidies were still in place. Without the subsidies, people enrolled in the ACA marketplace could be seeing their premium costs more than double.

Insights From Washington and Colorado

Washington and Colorado are not planning to alter their programs due to the expiration of the tax credits, according to government officials in those states.

Other states that had recently considered creating public options have backtracked. Minnesota officials put off approving a public option in 2024, citing funding concerns. Proposals to create public options in Maine and New Mexico also sputtered.

Washington initially saw meager enrollment in its Cascade Select public option plans; only 1% of state marketplace enrollees chose a public option plan in 2021. But that changed after lawmakers required hospitals to contract with at least one public option plan by 2023. Last year the state reported that 94,000 customers enrolled, accounting for 30% of all customers on the state marketplace. The public option plans were the lowest-premium silver plans in 31 of Washington’s 39 counties in 2024.

A 2025 study found that since Colorado implemented its public option, called the Colorado Option, coverage through the ACA marketplace has become more affordable for enrollees who received subsidies but more expensive for enrollees who did not.

Colorado requires all insurers offering coverage through its marketplace to include a public option that follows state guidelines. The state set premium reduction targets of 5% a year for three years beginning in 2023. Starting this year, premium costs are not allowed to outpace medical inflation.

Though the insurers offering the public option did not meet the premium reduction targets, enrollment in the Colorado Option has increased every year it has been available. Last year, the state saw record enrollment in its marketplace, with 47% of customers purchasing a public option plan.

Giovannelli said states are continuing to try to make health insurance more affordable and accessible, even if federal changes reduce the impact of those efforts.

“States are reacting and trying to continue to do right by their residents,” Giovannelli said, “but you can’t plug all those gaps.”

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact KFF Health News and share your story.

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).

Wyoming officials say they have a plan to make five years of upcoming grants from a new $50 billion federal rural health program last “forever.”

The state could tackle rural health issues long into the future by investing its awards from the Rural Health Transformation Program, the director of Wyoming’s health department, Stefan Johansson, told state lawmakers.

But it’s unclear whether the maneuver will pass muster with the federal government.

If approved, Wyoming’s Rural Health Transformation Perpetuity fund could provide $28.5 million for the state to spend every year, according to materials presented to lawmakers.

Wyoming would spend the money on scholarships for health students and incentive payments to help keep small hospitals and rural ambulance services afloat.

“I have lots of questions. It seems very clever,” said Kevin Bennett, director of the South Carolina Center for Rural and Primary Healthcare. “It’s a wild idea.”

Bennett said the big question is whether the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which manages the new program, will approve of Wyoming’s plan.

If it does, he said, “it’s really an interesting way to keep things going” — one with potential benefits as well as risks.

Congressional Republicans created the Rural Health Transformation Program as a last-minute sweetener in their One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer. The funding was intended to offset concerns about the outsize fallout anticipated in rural communities from the new law, which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade.

Since 2010, 152 rural hospitals in the U.S. have shuttered completely or stopped offering inpatient services, according to the Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina. The guidelines for the federal rural health program say states can use only 15% of their funding for direct payments to providers, including hospitals.

CMS officials announced first-year funding on Dec. 29 after scoring states’ applications. States had until Jan. 30 to submit revised budgets and other documents that align with their grant awards. CMS has until March 1 to review and approve the updated material.

Wyoming — the least populous state, with about 588,000 residents — will receive $205 million in the program’s first year, $5 million more than it asked for.

States must spend each year’s grants by the end of the following fiscal year, according to CMS rules. If they don’t, unused money will be redistributed to other states. The final deadline for all spending is Oct. 1, 2032, with leftover funds being returned to the federal government.

Given those rules, “how do you square that with squirreling money away in an account?” state Rep. Ken Pendergraft, a Republican, asked during a hearing on Wyoming’s plan.

Johansson said that depositing the federal grants into the perpetuity fund counts as expending them.

He said that CMS called in December to specifically ask questions about the fund and that he believes the agency has formally approved it. But “the devil’s always in the details,” he said, as the state works with CMS during the budget review period.

Emails obtained by KFF Health News through public records requests show CMS told officials in some states in early November that the grant money can’t “fund an endowment, capital fund, or other vehicle resembling an investment fund with the purpose of generating income.”

Wyoming officials wrote in the state’s application that the perpetuity fund won’t be making or keeping any profit.

“All program income from these investments will directly fund” rural health programs, they wrote.

CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden did not directly comment on whether Wyoming’s perpetuity idea is allowed. Instead, she said states must follow regulations related to the program and federal grants.

The Trump administration gave states a mandate to spend their money by fall 2032, but on projects that will continue to help rural patients even after the federal program ends.

The perpetuity fund would ensure just that, said Patrick Hardigan, dean of the College of Health Sciences at the University of Wyoming.

“Rather than spend out now,” Hardigan said, “we would have this available to help fund us over a longer time period.”

The state health department has already presented lawmakers with a bill to create the perpetuity fund and approve other parts of its rural health plan.

The legislation says Wyoming would put 80% of this year’s award — $164 million — and 69.5% of the funding it receives over the next four years into the fund. The state treasurer’s office would invest the fund in equities, including stocks. The health department plans to spend 4% of the fund’s money — in line with its expected return — each year, according to materials presented to lawmakers.

About 41% of the annual fund distribution would be spent on incentive payments for qualifying small hospitals, the bill says. The assistance could include one-time grants, medical debt relief for patients, and ongoing payments to offset fixed costs. This funding could amount to 2.5% to 10% of these hospitals’ annual operating expenses, according to an estimate in Wyoming’s application.

Bennett said it’s unclear whether all those types of payments are allowed under the federal rules.

“I think that states will try to do a lot of creative things like this, and CMS will approve or not on a case-by-case basis,” he said.

The bill says around 27% of annual spending would go to incentive payments to encourage coordination or consolidation among rural ambulance services. The funding could be ongoing or grants that help pay for ambulances, communications equipment, and regional dispatch services.

But these incentives would come with strings attached. Hospitals and ambulance services could receive payments only if they reduce “unprofitable, duplicative or nonessential” services and participate in “cost-containment arrangements,” such as regional collaborations and shared services.

About 22% of the annual spending would provide scholarships to help Wyomingites afford nursing, behavioral health, emergency medical services, and physician education. In exchange, recipients would have to work in the state for five years.

The remaining spending, around 11%, would be for scholarships to help doctors in training afford medical school, residency programs, and fellowships if they agree to work in an “underserved” Wyoming county for five years. The state health department would prioritize scholarships for people pursuing family medicine, obstetrics, or other high-demand specialties.

Johansson told Wyoming lawmakers that CMS could claw back money if a future state legislature decides to spend the fund in ways not allowed under the federal rural health program. He said this “check and balance” could last for decades.

“I can’t predict the future,” Johansson said, but “I think they have the authority to go look at the appropriate use of those funds through their audit parameters.”

Other states proposed funds in their applications, but Wyoming’s appears unique, according to a KFF Health News review of state applications.

For example, Kentucky wants to create a rural health endowment to continue its work once the federal program ends. But it would be backed by charitable donations, not seed money and investments from the federal funding.

Several states mention putting some of their federal award money into what they call rural health “catalyst funds.” But these funds, sometimes augmented with private contributions, would be invested in rural health technology.

Bennett said he’s never heard of a state investing any other federal health grant the way Wyoming wants to.

He said that in setting aside significant portions of its Rural Health Transformation Program awards, Wyoming would have much less money for rural health care in the short term in exchange for an ongoing revenue stream that could last decades.

“Everything has trade-offs,” Bennett said.

The Wyoming House Appropriations Committee unanimously approved the bill on Feb. 12, sending the legislation to the House floor.

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 the rare policy question that unites Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and the Democratic-led Maryland government against President Donald Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom of California: How should health insurers use AI?

Regulating artificial intelligence, especially its use by health insurers, is becoming a politically divisive topic, and it’s scrambling traditional partisan lines.

Boosters, led by Trump, are not only pushing its integration into government, as in Medicare’s experiment using AI in prior authorization, but also trying to stop others from building curbs and guardrails. A December executive order seeks to preempt most state efforts to govern AI, describing “a race with adversaries for supremacy” in a new “technological revolution.”

“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” Trump’s order said. “But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative.”

Across the nation, states are in revolt. At least four — Arizona, Maryland, Nebraska, and Texas — enacted legislation last year reining in the use of AI in health insurance. Two others, Illinois and California, enacted bills the year before.

Legislators in Rhode Island plan to try again this year after a bill requiring regulators to collect data on technology use failed to clear both chambers last year. A bill in North Carolina requiring insurers not to use AI as the sole basis of a coverage decision attracted significant interest from Republican legislators last year.

DeSantis, a former GOP presidential candidate, has rolled out an “AI Bill of Rights,” whose provisions include restrictions on its use in processing insurance claims and a requirement allowing a state regulatory body to inspect algorithms.

“We have a responsibility to ensure that new technologies develop in ways that are moral and ethical, in ways that reinforce our American values, not in ways that erode them,” DeSantis said during his State of the State address in January.

Ripe for Regulation

Polling shows Americans are skeptical of AI. A December poll from Fox News found 63% of voters describe themselves as “very” or “extremely” concerned about artificial intelligence, including majorities across the political spectrum. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats and just over 3 in 5 Republicans said they had qualms about AI.

Health insurers’ tactics to hold down costs also trouble the public; a January poll from KFF found widespread discontent over issues like prior authorization. (KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.) Reporting from ProPublica and other news outlets in recent years has highlighted the use of algorithms to rapidly deny insurance claims or prior authorization requests, apparently with little review by a doctor.

Last month, the House Ways and Means Committee hauled in executives from Cigna, UnitedHealth Group, and other major health insurers to address concerns about affordability. When pressed, the executives either denied or avoided talking about using the most advanced technology to reject authorization requests or toss out claims.

AI is “never used for a denial,” Cigna CEO David Cordani told lawmakers. Like others in the health insurance industry, the company is being sued for its methods of denying claims, as spotlighted by ProPublica. Cigna spokesperson Justine Sessions said the company’s claims-denial process “is not powered by AI.”

Indeed, companies are at pains to frame AI as a loyal servant. Optum, part of health giant UnitedHealth Group, announced Feb. 4 that it was rolling out tech-powered prior authorization, with plenty of mentions of speedier approvals.

“We’re transforming the prior authorization process to address the friction it causes,” John Kontor, a senior vice president at Optum, said in a press release.

Still, Alex Bores, a computer scientist and New York Assembly member prominent in the state’s legislative debate over AI, which culminated in a comprehensive bill governing the technology, said AI is a natural field to regulate.

“So many people already find the answers that they’re getting from their insurance companies to be inscrutable,” said Bores, a Democrat who is running for Congress. “Adding in a layer that cannot by its nature explain itself doesn’t seem like it’ll be helpful there.”

At least some people in medicine — doctors, for example — are cheering legislators and regulators on. The American Medical Association “supports state regulations seeking greater accountability and transparency from commercial health insurers that use AI and machine learning tools to review prior authorization requests,” said John Whyte, the organization’s CEO.

Whyte said insurers already use AI and “doctors still face delayed patient care, opaque insurer decisions, inconsistent authorization rules, and crushing administrative work.”

Insurers Push Back

With legislation approved or pending in at least nine states, it’s unclear how much of an effect the state laws will have, said University of Minnesota law professor Daniel Schwarcz. States can’t regulate “self-insured” plans, which are used by many employers; only the federal government has that power.

But there are deeper issues, Schwarcz said: Most of the state legislation he’s seen would require a human to sign off on any decision proposed by AI but doesn’t specify what that means.

The laws don’t offer a clear framework for understanding how much review is enough, and over time humans tend to become a little lazy and simply sign off on any suggestions by a computer, he said.

Still, insurers view the spate of bills as a problem. “Broadly speaking, regulatory burden is real,” said Dan Jones, senior vice president for federal affairs at the Alliance of Community Health Plans, a trade group for some nonprofit health insurers. If insurers spend more time working through a patchwork of state and federal laws, he continued, that means “less time that can be spent and invested into what we’re intended to be doing, which is focusing on making sure that patients are getting the right access to care.”

Linda Ujifusa, a Democratic state senator in Rhode Island, said insurers came out last year against the bill she sponsored to restrict AI use in coverage denials. It passed in one chamber, though not the other.

“There’s tremendous opposition” to anything that regulates tactics such as prior authorization, she said, and “tremendous opposition” to identifying intermediaries such as private insurers or pharmacy benefit managers “as a problem.”

In a letter criticizing the bill, AHIP, an insurer trade group, advocated for “balanced policies that promote innovation while protecting patients.”

“Health plans recognize that AI has the potential to drive better health care outcomes — enhancing patient experience, closing gaps in care, accelerating innovation, and reducing administrative burden and costs to improve the focus on patient care,” Chris Bond, an AHIP spokesperson, told KFF Health News. And, he continued, they need a “consistent, national approach anchored in a comprehensive federal AI policy framework.”

Seeking Balance

In California, Newsom has signed some laws regulating AI, including one requiring health insurers to ensure their algorithms are fairly and equitably applied. But the Democratic governor has vetoed others with a broader approach, such as a bill including more mandates about how the technology must work and requirements to disclose its use to regulators, clinicians, and patients upon request.

Chris Micheli, a Sacramento-based lobbyist, said the governor likely wants to ensure the state budget — consistently powered by outsize stock market gains, especially from tech companies — stays flush. That necessitates balance.

Newsom is trying to “ensure that financial spigot continues, and at the same time ensure that there are some protections for California consumers,” he said. He added insurers believe they’re subject to a welter of regulations already.

The Trump administration seems persuaded. The president’s recent executive order proposed to sue and restrict certain federal funding for any state that enacts what it characterized as “excessive” state regulation — with some exceptions, including for policies that protect children.

That order is possibly unconstitutional, said Carmel Shachar, a health policy scholar at Harvard Law School. The source of preemption authority is generally Congress, she said, and federal lawmakers twice took up, but ultimately declined to pass, a provision barring states from regulating AI.

“Based on our previous understanding of federalism and the balance of powers between Congress and the executive, a challenge here would be very likely to succeed,” Shachar said.

Some lawmakers view Trump’s order skeptically at best, noting the administration has been removing guardrails, and preventing others from erecting them, to an extreme degree.

“There isn’t really a question of, should it be federal or should it be state right now?” Bores said. “The question is, should it be state or not at all?”

Do you have an experience navigating prior authorization to get medical treatment that you’d like to share with us for our reporting? Share it with us here.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Republicans think patients should be shopping for better health care prices. The party has long pushed to give patients money and let consumers do the work of reducing costs. After some GOP lawmakers closed out 2025 advocating to fund health savings accounts, President Donald Trump introduced his Great Healthcare Plan, which calls for, among other policies, requiring providers and insurers to post their prices “in their place of business.”

The idea echoes a policy implemented during his first term, when Trump suggested that requiring hospitals to post their charges online could ease one of the most common gripes about the health care system — the lack of upfront prices. To anyone who’s gotten a bill three months after treatment only to find mysterious charges, the idea seemed intuitive.

“You’re able to go online and compare all of the hospitals and the doctors and the prices,” Trump said in 2019 at an event unveiling the price transparency policy.

But amid low compliance and other struggles in implementing the policy since it took effect in 2021, the available price data is sparse and often confusing. And instead of patients shopping for medical services, it’s mostly health systems and insurers using the little data there is, turning it into fodder for negotiations that determine what medical professionals and facilities get paid for what services.

“We use the transparency data,” said Eric Hoag, an executive at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, noting that the insurer wants to make sure providers aren’t being paid substantially different rates. It’s “to make sure that we are competitive, or, you know, more than competitive against other health plans.”

Not all hospitals have fallen in line with the price transparency rules, and many were slow to do so. A study conducted in the policy’s first 10 months found only about a third of facilities had complied with the regulations. The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services notified 27 hospitals from June 2022 to May 2025 that they would be fined for lack of compliance with the rules.

The struggles to make health care prices available have prompted more federal action since Trump’s first effort. President Joe Biden took his own thwack at the dilemma, by requiring increased data standardization and toughening compliance criteria. And in early 2025, working to fulfill his promises to lower health costs, Trump tried again, signing a new executive order urging his administration to fine hospitals and doctors for failing to post their prices. CMS followed up with a regulation intended to up the fines and increase the level of detail required within the pricing data.

So far, “there’s no evidence that patients use this information,” said Zack Cooper, a health economist at Yale University.

In 2021, Cooper co-authored a paper based on data from a large commercial insurer. The researchers found that, on average, patients who need an MRI pass six lower-priced imaging providers on the way from their homes to an appointment for a scan. That’s because they follow their physician’s advice about where to receive care, the study showed.

Executives and researchers interviewed by KFF Health News also didn’t think opening the data would change prices in a big way. Research shows that transparency policies can have mixed effects on prices, with one 2024 study of a New York initiative finding a marginal increase in billed charges.

The policy results thus far seem to put a damper on long-held hopes, particularly from the GOP, that providing more price transparency would incentivize patients to find the best deal on their imaging or knee replacements.

These aspirations have been unfulfilled for a few reasons, researchers and industry insiders say. Some patients simply don’t compare services. But unlike with apples — a Honeycrisp and a Red Delicious are easy to line up side by side — medical services are hard to compare.

For one thing, it’s not as simple as one price for one medical stay. Two babies might be delivered by the same obstetrician, for example, but the mothers could be charged very different amounts. One patient might be given medications to speed up contractions; another might not. Or one might need an emergency cesarean section — one of many cases in medicine in which obtaining the service simply isn’t a choice.

And the data often is presented in a way that’s not useful for patients, sometimes buried in spreadsheets and requiring a deep knowledge of billing codes. In computing these costs, hospitals make “detailed assumptions about how to apply complex contracting terms and assess historic data to create a reasonable value for an expected allowed amount,” the American Hospital Association told the Trump administration in July 2025 amid efforts to boost transparency.

Costs vary because hospitals’ contracts with insurers vary, said Jamie Cleverley, president of Cleverley and Associates, which works with health care providers to help them understand the financial impacts of changing contract terms. The cost for a patient with one health plan may be very different than the cost for the next patient with another plan.

The fact that hospital prices might be confusing for patients is a consequence of the lack of standardization in contracts and presentation, Cleverley said. “They’re not being nefarious.”

“Until we kind of align as an industry, there’s going to continue to be this variation in terms of how people look at the data and the utility of it,” he said.

Instead of aiding shoppers, the federally mandated data has become the foundation for negotiations — or sometimes lawsuits — over the proper level of compensation.

The top use for the pricing data for health care providers and payers, such as insurers, is “to use that in their contract negotiations,” said Marcus Dorstel, an executive at price transparency startup Turquoise Health.

Turquoise Health assembles price data by grouping codes for services together using machine learning, a type of artificial intelligence. It is just one example in a cottage industry of startups offering insights into prices. And, online, the startups’ advertisements hawking their wares often focus on hospitals and their periodic jousts with insurers. Turquoise has payers and providers as clients, Dorstel said.

“I think nine times out of 10 you will hear them say that the price transparency data is a vital piece of the contract negotiation now,” he said.

Of course, prices aren’t the only variable that negotiations hinge on. Hoag said Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota also considers quality of care, rates of unnecessary treatments, and other factors. And sometimes negotiators feel as if they have to keep up with their peers — claiming a need for more revenue to match competitors’ salaries, for example.

Hoag said doctors and other providers often look at the data from comparable health systems and say, “‘I need to be paid more.’”

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).