Researchers say the children at about a mile away pay the price. They discovered the students there and at other elementary schools near major pollution sites in Pennsylvania had than other children in the state.

Residents and environmental advocates saw reason for hope and relief in the form of a designed to tamp down on coke oven plant pollution. But even before it took effect, President Donald Trump granted in the U.S. — including the one in Clairton — a from the standards.

Trump and Republicans have sought to align themselves with the Make America Healthy Again movement’s populist ideals, such as improving Americans’ food choices and reducing corporate harm to the environment. But the administration is ratcheting up its attacks on the very environmental protections that MAHA followers hold dear.

Taken together, these anti-environmental initiatives will lead to more pollution-related illnesses and higher health care spending, health researchers say. They could also have political ramifications, eroding MAHA’s support for GOP candidates in the November midterm elections if followers believe the party is more beholden to industry than to the movement’s agenda.

, including about a quarter of Republicans, support rolling back environmental regulations, according to a poll by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Some MAHA supporters believe voters will support Republicans because the Trump administration is delivering on other goals important to the movement.

“MAHA has a pretty diverse set of policy goals, ranging from medical freedom to food and the environment,” said David Mansdoerfer, who served in Health and Human Services leadership during Trump’s first term. “In totality, the Trump administration has strongly delivered on much of the MAHA agenda.”

While MAHA voters have been upset at some of the administration’s actions that promote industry, it’s hard to know how that may play out in the midterms, said Christopher Bosso, a professor of public policy and politics at Northeastern University. Many were disillusioned by a Trump they viewed as promoting glyphosate, which HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has .

“The glyphosate thing really ticks off a lot of them; they’re really upset,” Bosso said. “Kennedy said it was poison. If it is a poison, why aren’t we regulating it? That’s where the tension plays out.”

The situation with the Clairton coke plant and the others granted exemptions from regulations underscores the potential public health risks. Six of the 11 factories had “high priority” violations of the Clean Air Act as of last May, according to a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News analysis. Five coke oven plants logged major violations every quarter for at least three years straight.

“Poisoning continues to some of the most vulnerable residents of Allegheny County,” , who had lived in nearby Glassport, Pennsylvania, said at a about the coke plant.

Environmental Protection Agency spokesperson Brigit Hirsch said the president gave companies extra time because the technology needed to meet a new standard isn't ready yet.

“Forcing plants to comply before the tools exist doesn't make the air cleaner, it just shuts down facilities and kills jobs with nothing to show for it,” Hirsch said.

But environmental groups disagree that the plants were unable to comply at a reasonable cost, and they say the exemption from the EPA requirements shows the Trump administration is prioritizing the coal industry at the expense of public health.

“The Trump administration’s relentless actions to dismantle lifesaving environmental protections are a gut punch to the administration’s own promise to Make America Healthy Again,” said Cathleen Kelly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Hard Times in Clairton

Sprawled across , the Clairton plant operates ovens in which coal is heated to as much as 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit to make up to 4.3 million tons annually of the carbon-rich fuel known as coke. The product is used in blast furnaces to produce iron.

It’s a dirty operation. The process leads to hazardous emissions of that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says can lead to anemia and leukemia, as well as , which can trigger severe asthma.

The Clairton operation has had repeated problems with its emissions and operations, including and of toxic chemicals. The plant has received more than from the Allegheny County Health Department since 2022, stemming largely from a fire in 2018 that led to high emissions, and violated the Clean Air Act in each of the last , with the last compliance monitoring in July 2025, according to the EPA.

Nippon Steel Corp. last year acquired U.S. Steel, which now operates as a subsidiary. The company didn’t respond to an email seeking comment. U.S. Steel said it spends $100 million annually on environmental compliance at Clairton.

“Environmental stewardship is a core value at U. S. Steel, and we remain committed to the safety of our communities,” spokesperson Andrew Fulton said in a written statement.

Clairton was once bustling with movie theaters, a mix of grocery stores, and riverside parks, with a dance pavilion and . But the decline of steel hit hard. The town’s population dwindled from more than in the mid-20th century to as of 2024. until they were razed and replaced with signs saying to keep out. The 1978 movie , which depicts a hardscrabble industrial town, is partly set there. Today, about 33% of residents live in poverty.

While the plant brings jobs and revenue, residents of the town and the surrounding areas have long complained about health problems they attribute to its emissions.

“My parents are gone. My mom had cancer, my dad,” , a Clairton resident, said at a 2025 County Council meeting. “I lost a lot of loved ones and seen other ones pass because of this mill.”

Pediatric allergist looked into asthma rates among 1,200 children who attended school near major pollution sites in the area — including students at Clairton Elementary School. They had nearly triple the national rate of asthma, with the highest rate among African American youth, according to she led.

“We were shocked,” she said. “It was double or triple what we expected. The people are proud of their industrial background. We need steel, but they’re not running a good enough operation.”

A found children with asthma living near the coke plant had an 80% higher chance of missing school when sulfur dioxide pollution was elevated.

Allegheny County, which includes Clairton and Pittsburgh, is home to a number of industrial plants, and to increased deaths, chronic heart disease, and adverse birth outcomes. It was ranked in the top 1% of counties in the nation for cancer risk from stationary industrial air pollutants in a 2018 .

Clairton has an age-adjusted cancer death rate of 170 per 100,000 people, higher than the broader county’s rate of 150 deaths per 100,000 people, based on a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News analysis of .

The American Lung Association in 2025 gave the county an F rating for its particle pollution levels. PennEnvironment, an environmental group that was party to a settlement with U.S. Steel involving the Clairton plant, says the coke operation caused of toxic releases in 2021, which amounted to 60% of all such releases in the county that year.

From 2020 through 2025, the Clairton plant racked up more in fines from Clean Air Act penalties than any other coke oven facility nationwide, costing U.S. Steel over $10 million, according to EPA facility reports.

“We are deeply concerned with exemptions, which allow air toxics to affect public health,” Allegheny County Health Department spokesperson Ronnie Das said in a statement.

The Clairton plant provides and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue to the area. The jobs help generate nearly $3 billion in annual economic output, according to estimates from the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association.

Some community members and advocacy groups hoped air quality would improve after the coke plant was sold. has pledged to upgrade facilities in the Monongahela River Valley.

Politics, Waivers, and Environmental Concerns

Under the Biden-era rule, coke plants were supposed to start meeting from the lids and doors of ovens that heat coal. They would also have had to monitor for benzene at their property lines and take steps to lower emissions of the carcinogen if they exceeded certain levels. Compliance deadlines were set for July 2025.

The Trump administration, which has sought to revive the coal industry, intervened. Last year, it , including coke plants such as Clairton’s, to seek from issued in 2024 by the EPA.

Then Trump in November went further, granting all coke plants a two-year compliance break.

The reprieve was necessary, the EPA spokesperson Hirsch said, because the requirements would have meant extra costs for the industry when standards already in effect work “extremely well” at reducing pollution.

Hirsch also said the agency under Trump is protecting the environment, pointing to action the administration has taken to called PFAS, prevent lead poisoning, strengthen chemical safety, and protect Americans’ food and water supply.

“We are building a future where the next generation of Americans is the healthiest in our nation's history, and they inherit the cleanest air, land and water in the world,” Hirsch said.

However, the administration has taken several steps that environmental advocates say weaken health protections.

The president's executive order on glyphosate, an herbicide the World Health Organization has linked to cancer, which touched off a furor among MAHA enthusiasts who said they felt betrayed. The EPA has decided to stop considering the of reducing pollution when making policy decisions, instead focusing on the cost to industry of complying with rules. The agency also rescinded the legal and scientific basis that had long established as dangerous to public health.

The actions have rankled some MAHA enthusiasts who counted on the administration to tackle chronic disease, especially among children. A petition to Trump on with more than 15,000 signatures called for the removal of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, it said supported corporations over MAHA goals.

Some MAHA enthusiasts have sounded off on social media.

“No one should believe that MAHA is being upheld at the EPA at this point,” , a leader of American Regeneration, which focuses on a conservation approach to farming, said Feb. 8 on X.

, host of a , also aired her concerns on X, saying “there is something really freaking spooky going on at the EPA and I refuse to let the American people be gaslit into thinking they’re upholding the MAHA agenda.”

“A significant number of people who supported Trump are worried these rollbacks are going to hurt their health,” said , a Democratic strategist and the founder of the communications firm Third Degree Strategies. “The MAHA voters, especially women, are very sensitive to this. Republicans have put themselves in a bind.”

MAHA supporters shouldn’t be surprised by a Trump administration that doesn’t prioritize environmental protections over industry, because the president has always championed fossil fuels, said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a nonpartisan election forecasting newsletter published by the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

The coke plant exemptions have disappointed some community members, environmental groups, and regulators concerned about public health and emissions.

Nearly 300,000 people live within 3 miles of the 11 active coke plants across the U.S., according to EPA data compiled by the Environmental Defense Fund.

Weakening environmental rules has helped boost Trump with the U.S. coal industry. In February, mining industry executives and lobbyists gathered at the White House, .

Coal miners, including some in white hard hats bedecked with American flags, with a bronze-colored trophy emblazoned “The Undisputed Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal.”

At the event, Trump praised their work. “We love clean, beautiful coal,” he said.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

A from the Office of Personnel Management could dramatically change which personally identifiable medical information the agency obtains, giving it the power to see prescriptions employees had filled or what treatment they sought from doctors. The regulation would require 65 insurance companies that cover more than 8 million Americans — including federal workers, retired members of Congress, mail carriers, and their immediate family members — to provide monthly reports to OPM with identifiable health data on their members.

The proposal is prompting unease from insurers as well as health policy and legal experts, who are concerned about the legality of OPM acquiring such a sweeping database of sensitive health information, and the agency’s ability to safeguard it.

OPM could use the data to analyze costs and improve the system, said Sharona Hoffman, a health law ethicist at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio.

“But,” she said, “they are going to get very, very detailed and granular data about everything that happens. The concern here is the more information they have, they could use it to discipline or target people who are not cooperating politically.”

OPM spokespeople did not respond to repeated requests for comment. The agency’s notice asks insurers that offer Federal Employees Health Benefits or Postal Service Health Benefits plans to furnish “service use and cost data,” including “medical claims, pharmacy claims, encounter data, and provider data.” It says the data will “ensure they provide competitive, quality, and affordable plans.”

The notice, posted and sent to insurers in December, does not instruct them to redact identifying information — a burdensome process that they would need federal guidance to complete.

Instead, it states that insurers are legally permitted to disclose “protected health information” to OPM. Several experts in health policy and law consulted by Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News said they interpreted the request to mean the Trump administration was seeking identifiable data.

The ask comes a year into a Republican administration that has been defined by haphazard mass layoffs and firings of thousands of federal workers, who say they were in acts of or for the . Under President Donald Trump, the government has also routinely tested the legal bounds of sharing sensitive and personally identifiable tax or health information across government agencies in its efforts to carry out mass immigration arrests or pursue identify fraud.

“You can anticipate a scenario where this information on 8 million Americans is now in the hands of OPM and there’s a real concern of how they use it,” said Michael Martinez, senior counsel at Democracy Forward, an advocacy organization that filed a public comment opposing OPM’s proposal in February. Martinez previously worked at OPM.

“They’ve given no information about how they would treat that information once they have it,” he said.

Among Martinez’s concerns is how the administration might use information about employees who have sought abortions — 41 states have some type of abortion ban — or transgender treatment, medical care that the Trump administration has tried to curb.

The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union representing federal workers, did not respond to requests for comment.

Martinez and others who reviewed the notice for Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News said the proposal was so vague that they were uncertain, exactly, what medical records OPM wants to access.

At the very least, they said, the proposal would allow the agency to access the medical and pharmaceutical claims of patients with their identifying information, such as names and birth dates. Claims data also includes diagnoses, treatments, visit length, and provider information.

OPM’s request to view “encounter data” could allow the agency to look at “anything and everything,” Hoffman noted.

That could include detailed medical records, such as a doctor’s notes or after-visit summaries.

Jonathan Foley, who worked at OPM advising on the Federal Employees Health Benefits program during the Obama and Biden administrations, said he doubts the agency has the capability to ingest such minutiae.

The agency, however, could easily begin collection of personally identifiable medical and pharmaceutical claims information from insurers, he said.

Foley said he sees a benefit to OPM having broader access to de-identified claims data. In recent years, OPM has ramped up its analysis of claims data, which has allowed it to examine prescription drug costs and encourage plans to offer federal workers cheaper alternatives. He’s worried, though, that the Trump administration’s proposal goes too far, because it appears to seek identifiable data.

“It’s kind of shocking to think of them having protected health information without having strict guardrails,” he said.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, requires certain organizations that maintain identifiable health information — such as hospitals and insurers — to protect it from being disclosed without patient consent.

Those entities can disclose such information without consent only in specific scenarios, with a justification that it is deemed “reasonable” or “necessary.” Even then, HIPAA mandates that they provide only the minimum amount of information required.

OPM argues in its notice that it is entitled to the information from insurers “for oversight activities.”

But several people who reviewed the notice questioned whether OPM’s explanation for requesting the information is sufficient.

“The language in it seems quite broad and encompasses potentially a lot of information and data and is sort of light on justification,” said Jodi Daniel, a digital health strategist who helped develop the legal framework for HIPAA privacy rules over two decades ago.

Several major insurers that offer federal employee health plans — including the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Kaiser Permanente, and UnitedHealthcare — declined to comment on their plans to comply with the notice or offer insight on where plans to implement the data sharing stood.

Only one insurer individually weighed in with a public comment on OPM’s plan. In March, CVS Health executive Melissa Schulman urged the federal agency to reconsider its proposal.

“OPM’s request raises substantial HIPAA compliance issues,” Schulman wrote, arguing that federal law allows the agency to examine records but not to collect data. Insurers would be breaking the law by providing personal health information for OPM’s “vague and broad general purposes,” she added.

Schulman, who did not respond to additional questions from Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News, also raised concerns about a lack of data privacy protections. She noted that insurers could be liable for security breaches or other situations “where consumer health information is inappropriately shared and outside of our control.”

In 2015, OPM announced the personal records of roughly 22 million Americans had been in a data breach that has been blamed on the Chinese government.

The Association of Federal Health Organizations, which represents CVS Health and dozens of other federal health plan carriers, also weighed in with a 122-page comment opposing the notice. In it, AFHO Chair Kari Parsons emphasized that insurance carriers are bound by HIPAA to safeguard personal health information.

Federal law requires carriers “to furnish ‘reasonable reports’ OPM determines to be necessary,” Parsons wrote, “not to furnish the individual claims data of every individual.”

This isn’t the first time OPM has requested detailed data from insurers. In the AFHO comment, Parsons noted OPM had made a similar proposal in 2010, prompting HIPAA concerns. She described how, after several years of negotiations with AFHO, they discussed — but OPM never finalized — an agreement in 2019 for carriers to share de-identified data with OPM.

But since then, Parsons wrote, OPM has collected such detailed information on enrollees and their families that, with OPM’s new request, the agency may be able to trace even de-identified records to individuals.

OPM has not provided any update since closing comments in March. The agency would need to publish a final decision before anything officially changes.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Yet about 82% of the comments are identical to a letter that appeared on the website of a secretive advocacy group called , a data analysis by Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News has found. 

The “” group does not reveal its funders or much else — other than to say it is “dedicated to protecting and strengthening Medicare Advantage” and is “powered by hundreds of thousands of local advocates nationwide.” 

“Our campaign provides information and offers tools for concerned Americans to use to reach decision makers,” spokesperson Darren Grubb said in an email. The group has spent more than $3.1 million on hundreds of Facebook ads since September 2024, according to , a database of the social media company’s online ads. 

There’s no doubt health insurers are unhappy with a from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, to keep Medicare Advantage reimbursement rates essentially flat in 2027 — far less than they expected from the Trump administration. 

Medicare Advantage plans offer seniors a private alternative to original Medicare. The insurance plans enroll about members, more than half the people eligible for Medicare. 

CMS is set to announce a final rate decision by early next month. The agency solicited on the proposal from Jan. 26 through Feb. 25 to give interested parties and the public a chance to air their views. As of March 12, CMS said it had received 46,884 comments but had posted only 16,422 online. 

Medicare Advantage Majority, which says the rate proposal amounts to a “cut” in services and warns of dire consequences for seniors should it go through, accounted for at least 13,522 of the 16,422 published comments as of March 12. 

Critics warn that these sorts of campaigns may create a misleading impression of grassroots support, especially when it’s not clear who is financing them. 

“It puts a different spin on a massive groundswell of comments to know all are being driven by one specific organization,” said Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform for Issue One, a group that seeks to limit the influence of money on government policy and legislation.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Yet about 82% of the comments are identical to a letter that appeared on the website of a secretive advocacy group called Medicare Advantage Majority, a data analysis by Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News has found.

The “” group does not reveal its funders or much else — other than to say it is “dedicated to protecting and strengthening Medicare Advantage” and is “powered by hundreds of thousands of local advocates nationwide.”

“Our campaign provides information and offers tools for concerned Americans to use to reach decision makers,” spokesperson Darren Grubb said in an email. The group has spent more than $3.1 million on hundreds of Facebook ads since September 2024, according to , a database of the social media company’s online ads.

There’s no doubt health insurers are unhappy with a from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, to keep Medicare Advantage reimbursement rates essentially flat in 2027 — far less than they expected from the Trump administration.

Medicare Advantage plans differ from traditional Medicare because private insurance companies administer them. The insurance plans enroll about members, more than half the people eligible for Medicare. The plans offer things like vision and drug coverage, but Medicare Advantage insurers restrict the hospitals and doctors that patients can use and require prior approval for various procedures.

CMS is set to announce a final decision by early next month on the rate proposal. The agency solicited on the proposal from Jan. 26 through Feb. 25 to give interested parties and the public a chance to air their views.

Medicare Advantage Majority, which says the rate proposal amounts to a “cut” in services and warns of dire consequences for seniors should it go through, accounted for at least 13,522 of the 16,422 comments published as of March 12.

The proposed rate plan “puts my access to care at risk,” the group’s template letter to policymakers reads in part. “If the investment made by Washington in the Medicare Advantage program is nearly flat year-over-year, I could lose benefits I rely on every day, including affordable prescriptions, capped out of pocket costs, and access to trusted doctors and specialists.”

“Medicare Advantage is not optional for me. The cost protections alone have saved me thousands of dollars and made my health care manageable. Without this program, I would face higher costs, fewer providers, and fewer benefits at a time when I can least afford it,” the letter states.

Critics warn that these sorts of campaigns may create a misleading impression of grassroots support, especially when it’s not clear who is financing them.

“It puts a different spin on a massive groundswell of comments to know all are being driven by one specific organization,” said Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform for Issue One, a group that seeks to limit the influence of money on government policy and legislation.

“There’s no way for the public to know what wealthy donors or special interests are funding dark money groups like this,” he said. “That means there’s no scrutiny of who’s really calling the shots.”

Some health care policy experts, who have long argued that the government overpays Medicare Advantage plans by tens of billions of dollars every year, believe industry groups or their surrogates routinely overstate possible negative impacts of rate decisions they don’t like.

“The plans always say that the sky is falling,” said Matthew Fiedler, a health care policy expert with the Brookings Institution. “The industry has a lot of money at stake here. They try to exert pressure on policymakers any way they can.”

At the same time, even critics concede that some of the millions of people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans could face service cuts if insurance companies are not satisfied with government payments.

“It is legitimate for people to be worried,” said Julie Carter, counsel for federal policy at the Medicare Rights Center, a group that advocates for older adults and people with disabilities.

Her group argues that Medicare Advantage plans have never attained expected cost savings and instead have been overpaid for years at least partly due to “actions to maximize profits.” She said the health plans “are supposed to be saving money, not taking extra.”

People struggling to pay health care bills may have little use for the policy debate in Washington.

“If it wasn’t for being able to have this program, I really wouldn’t be able to afford any kind of medical services, to be honest,” said EsterAlicia Rose, 75, who works at the front desk of a hotel in Pagosa Springs, Colorado. She said she signed the Medicare Advantage Majority form letter to reach policymakers.

Kathy Lovely-Marshall, 66, a retired nurse who lives in Brookville, Ohio, did too. She said she receives “a lot of perks” from her plan, such as dental care, eyeglasses, and prescriptions.

“All those things are a big plus as far as I am concerned,” she said. “I’m very happy with the plan I have.”

But Corenia Branham, 90, a widow and cancer survivor who lives in Alum Creek, West Virginia, said she wants nothing to do with Medicare Advantage plans run by private health insurance companies. She said she didn’t turn in any of the four form letters under her name, which were posted online by CMS on Feb. 23 and signed, “Miss Corenia Branham Branham.” It’s not clear why her last name is signed twice.

Branham said she’s not on Medicare Advantage and doubts she could count on it for needed care.

“I wouldn’t recommend it to nobody,” she said. “I sure don’t want anything to do with it.”

Grubb, the Medicare Advantage Majority spokesperson, disputed that account. He said Branham responded to an ad on Facebook. On Feb. 6, she “completed the form with her information and chose to send her comment to CMS as well as to her representatives in Congress and the White House,” he said.

Other Medicare Advantage advocacy groups have stepped up ad campaigns as the rate decision looms.

The Better Medicare Alliance, whose “allies” include a range of health insurers, health care providers, and consumers, is urging seniors to “Tell Washington to Stand Up for Medicare Advantage.”

“We’ve mobilized beneficiaries to write letters and make phone calls, and we’ve run digital ads on streaming platforms,” spokesperson Susan Reilly said.

Reilly said that this year roughly 3 million seniors “were forced to find new coverage” because plans either shuttered operations or left some areas.

She also said Medicare Advantage plans have “scaled back” benefits such as offering transportation to medical appointments, nutrition support, and dental and vision coverage, while over the past two years beneficiaries have faced an average $900 increase in out-of-pocket maximums.

“We do view this as especially serious,” Reilly said. “This isn’t a single bad year; it’s the cumulative effect of years of underfunding and policy disruption from the previous administration that has left the program increasingly vulnerable.”

As of March 12, CMS said it had received 46,884 comments but had posted only 16,422 online.

CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden said the agency would make more comments public “as soon as practicable.”

“The agency focuses on reviewing the substance of timely submissions and does not speculate on volume, sentiment, or potential impact of comments while the comment period is open/under review,” she said in a statement.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Bostic learned of a federal program designed to help people who suffer rare vaccine reactions.

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created in 1986 after a flood of vaccine injury lawsuits drove drugmakers from the market. Congress aimed to offer a faster and more generous path to compensation for people injured by vaccines, while shielding manufacturers from liability. The VICP, commonly known as vaccine court, is taxpayer-funded. The government pays any award to claimants as well as attorneys fees.

Bostic filed a claim in 2022 for compensation to cover her son’s spiraling medical bills. She then contacted the Carlson Law Firm, which referred her to Arizona-based attorney Andrew Downing — who now serves as a senior adviser to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Downing declined to comment and HHS did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

Downing, who has represented hundreds of plaintiffs in vaccine court in Washington, D.C., signed on to take their case, according to reviewed by Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News. They agreed Downing would pursue the claim before the VICP.

Bostic shared documents and medical records as he requested them. Months passed as she waited for news on her son’s case.

After several months of making court filings, Downing told her it was time to opt out of the vaccine program and sue the drugmaker. When she refused to opt out, he withdrew from the case.

The government paid Downing $445 an hour for representing Bostic, for program attorneys with his experience, according to court records.

Three years later, Bostic said, she hasn’t received a dime for her son’s injury. Thomas, now 18, endures debilitating pain that doctors say may never go away.

Rather than help them work through the program, Bostic feels that Downing steered them away from it and toward a lawsuit against the manufacturer. The VICP ultimately dismissed her case.

Bostic was furious that the court paid Downing anything.

“Y’all could’ve gave that to me for my son,” she said. “How dare y’all.”

In Business With Washington

In June, Kennedy’s HHS also awarded Downing’s law firm, Brueckner Spitler Shelts, a to consult on an overhaul of the VICP. The contract has grown to $410,000. Downing is the only attorney listed on the firm’s website who has practiced in vaccine court.

Kennedy has routinely questioned vaccine safety and saying it shields drug companies from some liability “.” As a personal injury lawyer, Kennedy previously spearheaded civil litigation against vaccine maker Merck.

Downing and about a dozen other lawyers have transferred hundreds of clients from the vaccine program to civil suits, where the financial rewards — for patients and their lawyers — could run far higher, according to a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News analysis of court records and program data. They’ve collected millions of taxpayer dollars in attorneys fees from vaccine court while launching precisely what it was designed to avoid: lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers.

This shift in legal strategy has fueled Kennedy’s crusade against Merck, and it could end up hurting some vaccine-injured clients, several experts said.

University of California Law-San Francisco professor Dorit Reiss has studied vaccine court for over a decade and has tracked the rise of anti-vaccine forces in American politics. She said VICP attorneys who are also suing vaccine makers have “incentives to direct more people” to lawsuits, “when it might not be in their best interest.”

A Delicate Balance

Kennedy has criticized the VICP as a barrier to accountability. But for Bostic, vaccine court offered an opportunity to hold the government to its promise of caring for casualties of widespread immunization.

Like any medication, vaccines can have side effects. Serious reactions to routine shots are rare, but for the unlucky few who bear this burden, the government promises recourse through its administrative program.

Vaccine court aims to strike a balance between protecting public health and helping individuals who may pay its price. The no-fault program allows claimants with vaccine-related injuries to get help without showing that the vaccine maker did anything wrong, even when the evidence doesn’t meet courtroom standards.

The program has made more than 12,500 awards, totaling roughly $5 billion in compensation. Historically, nearly half of claims have been resolved with some kind of award.

If patients aren’t satisfied with the outcome or don’t get a ruling within 240 days, they may leave the administrative program and sue the vaccine maker in civil court. Plaintiffs could potentially win larger awards. Lawyers could obtain higher fees, which they can’t in vaccine court.

But winning a civil suit is far more difficult, in part because plaintiffs have a greater burden of showing the vaccine caused their injury and that the maker was at fault. Since the VICP was created, no vaccine injury lawsuit has won a judgment in regular court, records show.

That hasn’t stopped some lawyers from trying. After the requisite 240 days, they have transferred hundreds of VICP claims into civil litigation against HPV vaccine manufacturer Merck, the Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News analysis found.

The lawyers who represented those claims include Downing and other VICP attorneys with ties to Kennedy, court records show. Those include Kennedy advisers and people who work in the law office of his longtime personal lawyer Aaron Siri or with Children’s Health Defense, the anti-vaccine outfit Kennedy founded, as well as a former Kennedy co-counsel in suits against Merck over its HPV vaccine, Gardasil.

Downing, whose describes him as “one of the preeminent litigation attorneys in the Court of Federal Claims,” has not won an HPV vaccine injury claim in the past five years, records show. Vaccine court did compensate dozens of HPV vaccine claims in that time, but most — including nearly all of Downing’s — were withdrawn upon reaching the opt-out period.

VICP data and court records show that over the past five years, Downing and other lawyers withdrew roughly 400 Gardasil claims from vaccine court before a ruling was issued. The plaintiffs received nothing from the program. Hundreds of these cases joined the litigation against Merck, according to court records.

Once the opt-out period arrived in Bostic’s case, Downing informed her that he was preparing to withdraw her son’s claim and move the case back to the original law firm for a lawsuit against Merck.

“That,” he wrote in an email, “was the plan all along.”

Fighting for Compensation

Thomas, who hopes to enroll in community college and become a computer programmer, has intermittent numbness in his fingers and stabbing sensations in his arm nearly every day. The pain often radiates across his back or up his neck, and he’s developed migraines. Once an active kid who dreamed of playing basketball professionally, he now spends his time playing video games and trying to sleep during lulls in his pain.

Bostic’s claim on behalf of her son made him one of about 1,000 people who have filed with vaccine court for HPV vaccine injuries. More than 200 have received compensation — just over one for every million shots given. Court records show program awards were typically $50,000 to $100,000, with some also covering past medical bills or future health care expenses.

Richard Hughes IV, a health care attorney and former pharmaceutical executive who teaches vaccine law at George Washington University Law School, reviewed Thomas’ records and said cases like his were exactly what the vaccine program was designed to address.

“That just seems straightforward,” Hughes said of Thomas’ claim. “That should have gotten compensated.”

Bostic wanted the federal agencies that had approved and recommended Gardasil to answer for her son’s injuries. The single mother hoped compensation from the program would allow Thomas to see specialists including neurologists, afford natural treatments, and enroll in physical therapy.

“He would have had the best of the best health care,” she said.

When Downing took their case, Bostic said, he told her during a phone call that vaccine court’s $250,000 limit on pain and suffering was too low for her son’s injury. Bostic said Downing advised she could get more money by suing Merck, though that could take longer.

“I said, ‘No, that will take years. My son needs help now,’” Bostic recalled.

Bostic said she told Downing she wanted a fund set up for Thomas’ health care as soon as possible.

In the following weeks, Bostic sent paperwork to Downing’s office but had difficulty getting in touch with him, email and text messages show. Downing’s show a gap in his work on the case from late September until mid-November.

In November 2022, Downing emailed Bostic, “The opt out date for K.T.’s case is set for April 23, 2023. At that point, we will be in a position to opt K.T.’s case out of the Vaccine Program and move the case back over to the Carlson Law Firm for handling in the Merck litigation.”

Bostic said she was confused at the time by that language. But she remembers being emphatic in a follow-up phone call with Downing, repeatedly telling him she would not opt out.

After that, Bostic said, she didn’t hear from Downing for months despite calling his office and leaving messages with secretaries.

Downing’s billing records show that he and his paralegals spent fewer than nine hours on Bostic’s case in that stretch. This included time spent requesting, reviewing, and filing medical records, as well as drafting and filing extension requests. The billing records did not include any communication with Bostic during that time.

The court granted each of Downing’s extension requests, pushing back the deadline a month at a time.

In April 2023, Downing sent Bostic an email noting that 240 days had passed, so he could drop their government claim and they could sue Merck.

“Gardasil cases do not receive very fair treatment in the Vaccine Program,” Downing wrote, adding that he would withdraw as her attorney if Bostic stayed in the program.

Bostic chose to stick with vaccine court, later telling the vaccine court judge by email that she’d advised her attorney “I was not trying to become a millionaire.”

That exchange of emails in April is when Bostic said she learned Downing was already representing plaintiffs in lawsuits over Gardasil. The litigation encompassed hundreds of other patients who — most of them under Downing’s counsel — had filed VICP claims in recent years.

Running out the 240-day clock, critics say, is allowed but subverts the program’s intent.

Some legal experts criticize the way Downing handled Bostic’s case.

“They trusted him to file the VICP case,” Reiss said. “It’s his job to zealously advocate for his clients. In this case, his clients want to go through VICP. It’s his job to fight for them in VICP, not to wait for 240 days.”

When Downing joined HHS as a senior adviser to Kennedy, court records show, he handed off his remaining vaccine court cases to other attorneys in firms involved in the litigation against Merck.

A New Approach

The vaccine program has long faced criticism for giving claimants too little, too late. Even VICP advocates see the need for reform, with eight officials deciding a growing , driving up wait times. The cap on pain and suffering payments has not changed since 1986. But the court can award further compensation like a fund for lifetime medical care that can reach millions.

Most vaccine-injured individuals are better off in the administrative program than in civil litigation, legal experts said.

Renée Gentry, director of GWU’s Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic and a founding member of the Vaccine Injured Petitioners Bar Association, has represented hundreds of families alleging vaccine injuries. Most of them, she said, aren’t focused on big payouts; rather, they “want their kid taken care of or they want to be taken care of.”

For claims that often fail in vaccine court, however, Gentry said a lawsuit may be the best option. According to Gentry, HPV vaccine claims like Thomas’ are particularly challenging to win in the VICP.

“If you’re not going to win, then you want those clients to have at least an opportunity at something,” she said.

For Mark Sadaka, a prominent vaccine court lawyer representing some claims in Merck litigation, sending clients to regular court is a last resort.

Sadaka said certain Gardasil injury claimants, such as those alleging mental rather than physical harm, might be better off in litigation. But by sticking it out in the VICP, Sadaka has won HPV vaccine injury claims that were the first of their kind, including for narcolepsy, alopecia, and even a deadly arrhythmia.

“He’s going to get taken care of for the rest of his life,” Sadaka said of his client who won compensation for narcolepsy in 2023. “And he doesn’t have to pay me anything.”

Sadaka, like all program lawyers, gets an hourly rate from the VICP. He said that he could make much more money representing the same claims in traditional litigation, since he could get a cut of any awards.

“It’s a better thing for me to file in regular court and get a higher fee, but for the client, sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn’t,” Sadaka said. “My role is to explain both sides in gross detail for them and give them as much information as possible so they can make an informed decision.”

According to Sadaka, some lawyers in the VICP automatically advise their clients to leave vaccine court and file a lawsuit.

“If they can extract settlements, they’re going to be very happy to put that money in their pockets,” Hughes noted.

Winning a lawsuit or reaching a major settlement could also spell trouble for nationwide vaccine access, replaying the events that gave rise to vaccine court in the 1980s.

Some vaccine lawyers and policymakers believe Kennedy and his colleagues might welcome a return to those days.

“If they can bring down the system, that’s a feather in their cap,” Hughes said.

Lawyers cannot win contingency fees in vaccine court. They get paid for time spent on reasonable claims whether they win or lose. Downing made more than $1 million representing clients before the VICP in recent years, according to court records.

A shows that since fiscal year 2020, the program has paid scores of attorneys about $280 million — including over $43 million for cases they did not win.

In each of the last two fiscal years, lawyers got roughly $9 million for VICP claims in which their clients got nothing. That was more than the program had ever previously paid to attorneys for unsuccessful claims, according to vaccine court data.

‘Learning How To Cope’

After discovering her attorney would not pursue VICP compensation for her son, Bostic decided to advocate for Thomas herself.

“Please help me,” she wrote in a letter to the court.

VICP staff gave Bostic extra time to find a new lawyer and gather records.

The following months proved difficult for the family. Bostic was hospitalized with a life-threatening condition. Her mother’s health declined. She was laid off and lost her family’s health insurance.

By the time Bostic could take Thomas to a pediatric neurologist to get medical records for his VICP case, she said, the doctor had moved hours away to Orlando.

Bostic repeatedly missed deadlines and failed to communicate with program staff as required, court records show. Emails, docket entries, and letters suggest she may have misunderstood some court orders and not received others.

When Thomas’ medical records remained incomplete for another year, the presiding official dismissed Bostic’s claim, writing that while he had sympathy for what she and her son had endured, “the case cannot be allowed to remain pending indefinitely.”

Thomas said he can no longer play basketball with friends. He can’t even help his mother carry groceries into the house.

“I got to live with this, and there’s pain,” he said.

Bostic now works from home as a bank fraud analyst. With an income just above the cutoff for government assistance, she puts in overtime in hopes of affording health insurance for Thomas and her six other children.

“People are asking, ‘How’s your son doing?’” Bostic said. “I normally say, ‘Still the same. We just learning how to cope with it.’”

Methodology

The Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News analysis began with court records for cases in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which includes vaccine court. We first identified all cases since 2006 (when the HPV vaccine was introduced) in which the “nature of suit” field explicitly mentioned human papillomavirus, or in which “nature of suit” was categorized as “other” vaccine injury/death and the case text included the word “papillomavirus.” The latter made up about 10% of identified cases, mostly claims filed before the HPV vaccine was added to the program or claims involving multiple vaccines. We cross-referenced the number of cases with data from VICP reports to verify completeness.

After identifying the relevant vaccine court cases, we pulled these claims’ filing and closing dates and took the difference to find the number of days that each case spent in vaccine court. To estimate total attorneys fees awarded for these claims, we added the fee amounts recorded in dozens of the VICP rulings and derived a minimum estimate based on the number of such cases.

We then searched federal court records for litigation over Merck’s HPV vaccine, Gardasil, and pulled the names of the plaintiffs and attorneys involved. To gauge the scale of claims diverted from the VICP to litigation, we searched for each attorney in the Gardasil-related vaccine court cases and searched for the last name of each plaintiff in the titles of those cases.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

But there are strings attached.

In late December, President Donald Trump’s administration announced how much all 50 states would get under its new Rural Health Transformation Program, assigning them to use the money to fix systemic problems that leave rural Americans without access to good health care. Now, the clock is ticking.

Within eight months, states must submit revised budgets, begin spending, and show the money is going to good use. Federal officials will begin reviewing state progress in late summer and announce 2027 funding levels by the end of October.

The money — divided into unique allocations for each state, ranging from $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas — represents the first $10 billion installment from the five-year, $50 billion program. Congress created the fund as a last-minute sweetener in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer to offset the anticipated in rural communities from the statute’s nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid spending cuts over the next decade.

Federal officials crafted the fund to give states “space to be creative,” Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said on a call with reporters after announcing the funding Dec. 29. “Some states will fail, and we will learn from that.”

The money was divided according to a complicated formula.

In 2026, each state will receive an equal $100 million share for the first half of the money, plus additional funding from the second half. Oz’s staff steered payouts from the second portion based on each state’s rural score, as well as results from a “technical” scoring system for project proposals.

Within hours of the announcement, academics and researchers began to parse the awards to better understand why some states received more than others, including whether the awards reflected any partisanship or political favoritism.

At first glance, total awards do not appear to favor states governed by either Republicans or Democrats. But teased out the amount awarded for each state’s technical score, which is the part determined by the discretion of agency officials.

The analysis was performed at the University of North Carolina’s Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, which specializes in rural health. A Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News review of the Sheps Center data found that states with Republican governors tended to receive more money for the parts of their application based on the technical score. Democratic-controlled states crowded the bottom quarter of those technical score awards.

Overall, though, the state awards reveal wild variation in how much money each state will get per rural resident, almost a hundredfold difference between the top and bottom.

In an emailed statement to , a spokesperson for Arizona’s Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs accused the administration of shortchanging rural residents in the state, which was awarded $167 million this year from the program.

CMS spokesperson Chris Krepich said in an emailed statement to Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News that “politics played no role in funding decisions.”

On the December call, Oz pushed states to start working on policy actions championed by the administration — such as approving presidential fitness tests and restricting food benefits — that could require legislative approval.

Half of states promised to mandate the presidential fitness test, Oz said. Many states also proposed food waivers under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, which would limit low-nutrition items such as soda. He also said some states promised to teach health care professionals about nutrition. And others confirmed they will repeal certificate-of-need laws, which require companies to prove that new health facilities they want to open are necessary.

Krepich said CMS’ new Office of Rural Health Transformation is hiring program officers to serve as point people for three or four states. Many states are setting up their own offices to oversee the new funding.

Oz highlighted Alabama’s “big maternity initiative with robotics doing ultrasounds” and said states are tackling issues ranging from behavioral health to obesity.

A Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News review of state “” and “” released by CMS shows that many states plan to address the workforce challenges in rural areas. Delaware, for example, plans to use its funding to create the state’s first four-year medical school with a rural primary care track.

A third of states said they want to improve electronic health records, and every state mentioned telehealth.

Many state legislatures to distribute the funding to their state offices. Meanwhile, state officials are hiring staff, , and .

“I’m excited about what’s next,” said Terry Scoggin, former interim chief executive of the Texas Organization of Rural & Community Hospitals, or TORCH. Texas was awarded the biggest allocation. The money will bolster a rural hospital funding bill Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed last year, Scoggin said.

More than two dozen cash-strapped rural hospitals in Texas to clinics since 2005, a nationwide trend that hit the Lone Star State particularly hard. The state has the largest rural population in the United States. Texas’ allocation amounts to about $66 per rural resident, . By contrast, Rhode Island was granted about $6,300 per rural resident.

Scoggin said he has “a ton of concerns” about companies taking the money instead of it helping rural hospitals and residents. “I was blown away about how many for-profit companies reached out.” The companies have also called rural hospitals and asked to work with them to apply for state money, he said.

The awards should be judged on how they benefit rural residents because “the stated goal of the program is to improve rural health,” said Paula Chatterjee, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania who co-authored on the transformation fund.

Researchers at the Sheps Center conducted the analysis to estimate how much money states received from the technical score, which is the portion of funding based on the quality of their proposals and state policy actions that align with "Make America Healthy Again" priorities.

New Mexico won the least amount of technical funding, with less than 10% of its award based on the discretionary metrics. Alaska won the largest technical award, according to the Sheps Center data.

Texas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Hawaii rounded out the top five recipients of technical funding. In addition to New Mexico, the other lowest technical awards went to Michigan, New Jersey, Arizona, and California.

Mark Holmes, director of the Sheps Center, declined to comment on whether he saw any political bias in the awards but said the nuance in the final portion of discretionary awards based on technical scores is important because those dollars can be redistributed and potentially clawed back in future years.

“We can be fairly certain that every state will get at least a slightly, if not a vastly, different amount next year based on this re-pooling and reallocation piece,” Holmes said.

States now have a limited time to show they’re using the money effectively to secure future funding.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).