It’s one of the many parts of the 25-bed rural hospital that need updating, former CEO Ron Wiens said.

He said the hospital, an essential service in its namesake town of nearly 800 residents in the state’s sprawling north-central high plains, needs at least $1 million for deferred maintenance, including a failing HVAC system. But the facility has struggled to make payroll each month and can’t afford to make all the fixes, Wiens said.

Built by farmers and ranchers in 1965, Big Sandy Medical Center began with nine beds. Today, a similar community effort — donations and grants to plug financial holes each year — keeps it afloat.

Wiens, who recently left his position at the hospital, said he wishes Big Sandy could get funding from Montana’s share of the $50 billion federal Rural Health Transformation Program to renovate the hospital and direct payments to help secure its future. The state received more than $233 million in its first-year award.

But the hospital may not get the kind of help he sought.

That’s because the five-year program focuses on new, creative ways to improve access to rural health care, not on directly funding services and renovations. And Montana is one of at least 10 states whose leaders say projects launched under the federal program could lead rural hospitals to cut services so they can continue to afford to offer emergency and other essential care.

Congressional Republicans created the fund as a last-minute sweetener to their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law last summer. The funding was intended to offset disproportionate fallout anticipated in rural communities from the law, which is expected to slash Medicaid spending .

includes programs to make it easier for rural residents to get medical care and live a healthy lifestyle. For example, it says funding can be used to start community gardens, train paramedics to make home visits, open school-based clinics, or bring mobile clinics to rural areas.

rural Montana hospitals can receive payments for implementing recommendations, “including right-sizing select inpatient services” to match demand. In some cases, it says, right-sizing might mean “downsizing.” The state says hospitals will have input and recommendations will be specific to each facility.

“That’s what has all the hospitals on pins and needles, words like restructuring, reducing inpatient beds. Everybody is going, ‘What is this going to look like?’” Wiens said.

The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services declined to answer questions about how it will carry out its right-sizing efforts.

A Lifeline of Care

Big Sandy cattle rancher Shane Chauvet doesn’t want any services cut.

He credits Big Sandy Medical Center with saving his life after a flying piece of metal nearly cut off his arm during a windstorm a few years back.

“I looked over, saw it coming, and whack!” Chauvet recalled.

His wife drove him to the hospital, where they frantically pounded on the ER door while Chauvet’s blood pooled on the ground.

Because of the storm, staffers worked on Chauvet with no power and no ability to summon a helicopter. He was then taken by ambulance 80 miles through intense rain and hail to a larger hospital.

Chauvet understands the state’s plan doesn’t call for eliminating emergency care, but he worries that reducing other services would set off a downward spiral for the hospital and his town.

In Oklahoma, realigning clinical services could mean “shutting down service lines,” to the federal program. And in Wyoming, any facility that receives funding must agree to “reduce unprofitable, duplicative or nonessential service lines,” .

Monique McBride, business operations administrator at the Wyoming Department of Health, said the department interprets right-sizing as helping rural hospitals provide essential services — such as emergency departments, ambulance services, and labor and delivery units — while maintaining long-term, financial stability.

“This might involve limiting some elective procedures that could be done at lower cost in higher-volume facilities. The main distinction here is time-sensitive emergencies vs. ‘shoppable’ services,” she said.

A New Lease on Life?

Seven of the 10 states — Nebraska, North Dakota, Tennessee, Kansas, Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington — where rural hospital service cuts are on the table say they’ll help pay for hospitals to convert to Rural Emergency Hospitals. The recently created federal designation requires hospitals to halt inpatient services and offers enhanced payments to help them maintain emergency and outpatient care.

At least 15 additional states wrote that they’ll use the federal funding to right-size, evaluate, or adjust services — which could mean adding or taking away services, or transitioning them to a telehealth or outpatient setting.

Brock Slabach, chief operations officer of the National Rural Health Association, said, “There’s a proper concern from rural hospital administrators that this funding is not going to where it was intended.”

He said cutting services that lose money could backfire in the long run. For example, he said, halting labor and delivery care might drive more people out of small towns, further reducing hospitals’ patient numbers and revenue.

The type of hospital services that states will assess matters, said Tony Shih, a senior adviser at the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit focused on making health care more equitable.

“If the end result is that high-margin services are taken away from local hospitals with nothing given back in return, it can be financially harmful,” he said.

Shih noted that states’ plans to add more outpatient care could prove beneficial for patients. It’ll take time to know which states help stabilize rural hospitals, he said.

Rural hospital leaders say they know which changes would keep their facilities open and that states shouldn’t suggest or mandate service cuts and other changes on their behalf.

Josh Hannes, who oversees rural health policy at the Colorado Hospital Association, said “top-down” directives won’t work.

He said the association’s members believe they can find efficiencies and are eager to collaborate. But “a state agency shouldn’t be making those determinations,” he said.

Hannes said members are worried Colorado’s plan to classify rural health facilities as a “hub, spoke, or telehealth node” will compel service reductions. The classification will help determine “which services are sustainable locally and which are best provided regionally or through telehealth,” .

Spokespeople for the Colorado and Oklahoma health departments said no facility will be forced to end services. But Oklahoma spokesperson Rachel Klein said some facilities might choose to do so as part of a broader effort to make sure they’re meeting community needs while remaining financially stable.

“A hospital might shift certain services to a nearby regional provider with higher patient volume and specialized staff while expanding other local services,” such as primary, outpatient, or community-based care, she said.

Wiens and Darrell Messersmith, CEO of Dahl Memorial Hospital in the southeastern Montana town of Ekalaka, said they worry the only way hospitals will get their share of funding is to cut services or become Rural Emergency Hospitals that don’t offer inpatient services.

“I would hate to see things shift toward a pack-and-ship facility,” Messersmith said. “Right now, we function quite well as an inpatient facility.”

Not all Montana health leaders are worried.

Ed Buttrey, president and CEO of the Montana Hospital Association, said he thinks his state’s plan could help rural hospitals become financially sustainable and survive Medicaid cuts. Buttrey is also a Republican state lawmaker.

Chauvet, the Big Sandy rancher, said his perspective on whether remote towns like his should have a hospital is forever changed because of his accident.

“I always would say, ‘Oh, they’re nice to have,’ but now I look at the hospital and say, ‘That’s essential to our community,’” he said.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

La legislación prohibiría que los gobiernos estatales y locales obligaran a estos centros a practicar abortos. También a derivar o informar a pacientes sobre estos servicios o a explicar opciones de anticoncepción. Y permitiría que estas organizaciones demandaran a la entidad gubernamental que violara la ley.

Los legisladores de Wyoming el 4 de marzo una ley llamada Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act (). Propuestas similares se presentaron este año en y . En una norma de este tipo ya fue promulgada en 2025.

La Ley CARE es una “legislación modelo” creada por la , un grupo de defensa legal cristiano conservador y antiabortista.

Una legislación similar, la , fue presentada en el Congreso el año pasado, pero no ha avanzado fuera del Comité de Energía y Comercio de la Cámara de Representantes.

El proyecto de ley de Wyoming considera que los centros de embarazo, muchos vinculados a organizaciones religiosas, necesitan protección legal porque enfrentan “ataques sin precedentes” después de que la Corte Suprema anulara Roe vs. Wade, la decisión judicial de 1973 que protegía el derecho al aborto en todo el país. Según el texto, varias legislaturas estatales han presentado proyectos de ley que de libertad de expresión y asociación de estos centros.

Sin embargo, quienes los critican afirman que los centros de crisis de embarazo se presentan falsamente ante los consumidores como clínicas médicas, aunque no están sujetos a las leyes estatales y federales que regulan los centros de salud y protegen a los pacientes.

“En todo el país, los funcionarios del gobierno apuntan cada vez más, cada vez más, contra los centros de atención para embarazadas”, argumentó Valerie Berry, directora ejecutiva de en Cheyenne, durante una audiencia en la Legislatura sobre el proyecto de ley de Wyoming. “Esta legislación no busca crear división. Busca proteger las libertades constitucionales, la libertad de expresión y la libertad de conciencia”.

Por su parte, durante la audiencia, el expresó su preocupación por otorgar a los centros de embarazo un nivel de protección que otras empresas privadas no tienen.

“Ya cuentan con medidas de protección”, reflexionó. “Lo que me preocupa es que se les otorguen medidas de protección adicionales”.

En 2022, Wellspring Health Access, la única clínica en Wyoming que realiza abortos, en un ataque intencional.

“Nosotros somos los que proporcionamos información precisa sobre salud reproductiva y por eso sufrimos las consecuencias”, dijo a �鶹Ů�� Health News Julie Burkhart, presidenta y fundadora de Wellspring Health Access.

, profesora de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de California en Davis, dijo que la legislación propuesta eximiría a los centros de crisis de embarazo de tener que cumplir con los estándares a los que están obligadas las organizaciones médicas. También borraría la línea entre la defensa de una causa y la práctica médica, agregó. Y agregó que iniciativas de este tipo pueden ofrecer a los republicanos un mensaje de campaña potencialmente útil de cara a las elecciones legislativas de mitad de mandato.

“El Partido Republicano necesita una estrategia de comunicación para mostrar que se preocupa por las mujeres, incluso si prohíbe el aborto y aunque no quiera destinar recursos estatales a ayudar a las personas antes y después del embarazo”, explicó Ziegler. “La estrategia consiste en delegar eso en los centros de asesoramiento sobre el embarazo, lo que, por supuesto, aumenta el incentivo para protegerlos”.

Legislación modelo

La Alliance Defending Freedom es el mismo grupo que , que desde 1973 protegía el derecho al aborto a nivel nacional. El grupo redactó la , una legislación modelo para prohibir el aborto desde las 15 semanas, que fue la base de una ley de Mississippi de 2018 que condujo al caso Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization a partir de la cual la Corte Suprema anuló el fallo Roe.

La alianza dijo que sus abogados no estaban disponibles para comentar la estrategia de la organización respecto al CARE Act. En el proyecto de ley, el grupo afirmó que los esfuerzos federales, estatales y locales están apuntando contra los centros de atención del embarazo en un “claro intento de socavar y obstaculizar” su trabajo y cerrarlos.

En los últimos años, algunos han sido blanco de vandalismo y amenazas.

Pero los ataques que la legislación modelo se propone abordar principalmente son los esfuerzos legales y regulatorios de algunos estados que buscan mayor supervisión de estos centros, incluida una ley de California que exige que informen claramente a los pacientes sobre sus servicios. Esa ley fue anulada cuando la Corte Suprema falló a favor de los centros de crisis, avalando el argumento de que la norma violaba sus derechos de la Primera Enmienda.

Este año, la Corte Suprema que decidirá si los estados pueden citar a estas organizaciones para obtener información sobre donantes y datos internos.

De todos modos, es poco probable que los centros de crisis de embarazo enfrenten ese tipo de medidas regulatorias en los estados conservadores donde se está considerando esta legislación. Un legislador de Wyoming lo reconoció durante la audiencia del comité en febrero.

Diferentes servicios

En esa misma audiencia, quien encabeza el comité que patrocina el proyecto de ley, presentó la medida como “muy importante, especialmente con nuestro ‘desierto de maternidad’”, refiriéndose a la falta de acceso a servicios de atención de salud materna.

Algunos centros de crisis de embarazo pueden contar con pocos profesionales con licencia, pero son la minoría. Muchos ofrecen recursos gratuitos, como pañales, ropa para bebé y otros artículos, a veces a cambio de aceptar asesorías o clases de crianza.

Las clínicas de Planned Parenthood, en contraste, ofrecen una variedad de servicios de salud, como pruebas y tratamiento para infecciones de transmisión sexual, atención primaria y exámenes para detectar cáncer cervical. Además, están reguladas como organizaciones con licencia médica.

Desde que el fallo Roe fue anulado, el movimiento por el derecho al aborto ha enfrentado desafíos importantes. La ley de los republicanos, One Big Beautiful Bill Act, que el presidente Donald Trump promulgó el verano pasado, a proveedores de abortos. Esa medida contribuyó a que Planned Parenthood tuviera que cerrar el año pasado.

Para 2024, operaban en todo el país, según un mapa creado por investigadores de la Universidad de Georgia, en comparación con las que ofrecían abortos a finales de 2025.

, una organización de investigación afiliada a la organización contra el aborto SBA Pro-Life America, ha sugerido que los centros de embarazo podrían ayudar a llenar el vacío dejado por el cierre de clínicas de Planned Parenthood.

Ziegler aseguró que eso dejaría a las pacientes expuestas a riesgos médicos.

El creciente poder de los centros

Las iniciativas anteriores en , Colorado y Vermont para regular los centros de crisis de embarazo surgieron a raíz de la preocupación por denuncias de , y dudas sobre la .

En 2024, un en cinco estados que investigaran si los centros estaban engañando a las pacientes haciéndoles creer que su información personal estaba protegida bajo la Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), y que averiguaran  cómo estaban utilizando la información de los pacientes.

Los tribunales, incluida la Corte Suprema, han fallado con frecuencia que argumentan que estos intentos de regulación violan sus derechos de la Primera Enmienda a la libertad de expresión y la libertad religiosa.

Los centros de crisis para embarazadas también han recibido una avalancha de fondos desde que se revocó Roe.

Al menos incluidos centros de crisis de embarazo, según el Lozier Institute.

Seis estados distribuyen una parte de sus fondos federales del programa Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) —pagos en efectivo destinados a familias de bajos ingresos con niños— a centros de crisis de embarazo. Texas, Florida, Tennessee y Oklahoma han proporcionado decenas de millones de dólares para estas organizaciones.

Un análisis encontró que los centros de crisis de embarazo también recibieron entre 2017 y 2023, incluidos fondos del paquete de ayuda de 2020 promulgado como ley durante el primer mandato de Trump en medio de la pandemia de covid.

A pesar de los desafíos que enfrentan las clínicas que ofrecen abortos, Burkhart, directora del centro Wellspring en Wyoming, dijo que es importante seguir garantizando la atención a quienes la necesitan. Ella ha ayudado a abrir clínicas en zonas rurales de otros estados conservadores y ha señalado que esas clínicas siguen recibiendo pacientes.

“Eso me demuestra que, sin importar tu religión o tu partido político, hay momentos en la vida de las personas en los que necesitan atención de salud reproductiva brindada por profesionales calificados”, dijo. “Eso incluye el aborto”.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The legislation would prohibit state and local governments from requiring crisis pregnancy centers to perform abortions, provide referrals for abortion services, or inform patients about such services or contraception options. It also would allow crisis pregnancy centers to sue the violating government entity.

Wyoming lawmakers of the Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act, or , on March 4. Other versions have advanced in and this year. One was in 2025. The CARE Act is “model legislation” created by the , an anti-abortion, conservative Christian legal advocacy group.

A similar proposal, the , was introduced in Congress last year but hasn’t moved out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

La mujer de 59 años, que vive en Harrisburg, Carolina del Norte, cerró el año pasado su escuela de artes circenses sin fines de lucro porque ya no veía lo suficientemente bien como para estar al día con todo el papeleo administrativo. Luego trabajó un tiempo haciendo masas en una pizzería. Ahora clasifica materiales reciclables, como latas y botellas, en un lugar de conciertos local. Es su principal fuente de ingresos, pero el trabajo no es durante todo el año.

“Este lugar me conoce, y este lugar me quiere”, dijo Kelley sobre su empleador. “Aquí no tengo que explicar por qué no puedo leer”.

Kelley vive en una casa rodante y sobrevive con menos de $10.000 al año. Dice que eso es posible, en parte, gracias a su cobertura de salud de Medicaid, que le cubre medicamentos para la artritis y la ansiedad, y le permite ir al doctor para controlar su hipertensión.

Pero le preocupa perder esa cobertura el año que viene, cuando entren en vigencia nuevas reglas que exigirán a millones de personas como ella trabajar, hacer voluntariado, ir a la escuela o realizar otras actividades que califiquen durante al menos 80 horas al mes.

“Ahora mismo tengo miedo”, dijo.

Antes de que se promulgaran los cambios para acceder a esta cobertura, legisladores republicanos sugirieron que hombres jóvenes y desempleados estaban abusando del programa gubernamental de salud que ofrece cobertura médica a millones de personas con bajos ingresos o con alguna discapacidad.

Medicaid no está pensado para “hombres de 29 años sentados en el sofá jugando videojuegos”, dijo Mike Johnson, presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, .

Pero en realidad, los adultos de entre 50 y 64 años, especialmente las mujeres, son quienes probablemente por las nuevas reglas, según explicó Jennifer Tolbert, subdirectora del Programa sobre Medicaid y Personas sin Seguro de �鶹Ů��, una organización sin fines de lucro de información sobre salud de la cual �鶹Ů�� Health News forma parte.

Para Kelley y otras personas, los requisitos laborales crearán obstáculos para mantener su cobertura, explicó Tolbert. Muchos podrían perder Medicaid, poniendo en riesgo su salud física y financiera.

A partir de enero de 2027, unos 20 millones de estadounidenses de bajos ingresos en 42 estados y el Distrito de Columbia tendrán que cumplir con los requisitos de actividad para obtener o conservar esta cobertura.

Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, Carolina del Sur, Tennessee, Texas y Wyoming no ampliaron sus programas de Medicaid para cubrir a más adultos de bajos ingresos bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA), por lo que no tendrán que implementar las reglas de trabajo.

La no partidista Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso, prevé que las reglas de trabajo resulten en al menos 5 millones de personas menos bajo Medicaid en la próxima década.

, estas reglas son el principal factor de pérdida de cobertura dentro de la ley presupuestaria republicana, la cual recorta cerca de $1.000 millones para compensar reducciones de impuestos que benefician principalmente a personas con mayores ingresos y para aumentar la seguridad fronteriza.

“Estamos hablando de ahorrar dinero a costa de vidas humanas”, dijo Jane Tavares, investigadora en gerontología de la Universidad de Massachusetts en Boston. “El requisito de trabajo es solo una herramienta para lograr eso”.

Andrew Nixon, vocero del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos, dijo que exigir a los “adultos sin discapacidades” que trabajen garantiza la “sostenibilidad a largo plazo” de Medicaid, mientras protege a las personas más vulnerables.

Las personas con discapacidades, quienes cuidan a familiares, personas embarazadas o en posparto, veteranos con discapacidades totales y otras personas que enfrentan dificultades médicas o personales están exentas de la regla de trabajo, indicó Nixon a �鶹Ů�� Health News.

La expansión de Medicaid ha sido un salvavidas para adultos de mediana edad que, de otro modo, no tendrían seguro médico, . Medicaid cubre a 1 de cada 5 estadounidenses de entre 50 y 64 años, dándoles acceso a atención médica hasta que califican para Medicare a los 65 años.

Entre las mujeres beneficiarias de Medicaid, las que tienen entre 50 y 64 años enfrentan más desafíos para conservar su cobertura que las más jóvenes, y suelen tener una mayor necesidad de servicios de salud, explicó Tolbert.

Estas mujeres de mediana edad tienen menos probabilidades de trabajar el número requerido de horas porque muchas son cuidadoras familiares o tienen problemas de salud que limitan su capacidad para trabajar, agregó.

Tavares y otros investigadores hallaron que de la población total de Medicaid que se considera “apta para trabajar” no trabaja. Este grupo está compuesto en su mayoría por mujeres muy pobres que han salido de la fuerza laboral para convertirse en cuidadoras. Entre ellas, 1 de cada 4 tiene 50 años o más.

“No son adultos jóvenes saludables simplemente perdiendo el tiempo”, escribieron los investigadores.

Además, dificultar el acceso a la cobertura de Medicaid “podría en realidad dificultar que estas personas trabajen”, ya que sus problemas de salud no recibirían tratamiento, advirtió Tolbert. De todas formas, si este grupo pierde la cobertura, sus condiciones crónicas igual necesitarán atención, señaló.

Muchos adultos empiezan a tener problemas de salud antes de ser elegibles para Medicare.

Si las personas mayores no tienen recursos para tratar sus problemas de salud antes de los 65 años, llegarán más enfermas a Medicare, lo que podría generar mayores costos para ese programa, apuntaron expertos en políticas de salud.

Muchas personas de entre 50 y principios de los 60 años ya no trabajan porque son cuidadoras de tiempo completo de hijos o familiares mayores, explicaron defensores, quienes se refieren a este grupo como “la generación sándwich”.

La ley presupuestaria republicana permite que algunos cuidadores queden exentos de las reglas de trabajo de Medicaid, pero las excepciones son “muy limitadas”, dijo Nicole Jorwic, directora de programas del grupo Caring Across Generations.

Le preocupa que personas que deberían calificar para una exención queden fuera por errores o complicaciones.

“Vamos a ver a más cuidadores familiares enfermándose, dejando de atender su propia salud y a más familias enfrentando crisis”, dijo Jorwic.

Paula Wallace, de 63 años, residente de Chidester, Arkansas, dijo que trabajó la mayor parte de su vida adulta y ahora dedica sus días a cuidar a su esposo, quien tiene cirrosis avanzada.

Después de años sin seguro, recientemente obtuvo cobertura gracias a la expansión de Medicaid en su estado, lo que significa que tendrá que cumplir con los nuevos requisitos laborales para conservarla. Pero le cuesta imaginar cómo podrá hacerlo.

“Como soy su única cuidadora, no puedo salir a trabajar fuera de casa”, dijo.

Su esposo recibe beneficios del Seguro por Incapacidad del Seguro Social, explicó, y la ley dice que ella debería quedar exenta de los requisitos de trabajo como cuidadora de tiempo completo de una persona con discapacidad.

Pero las autoridades federales aún no han emitido instrucciones específicas sobre cómo definir esa exención. Y la experiencia de Arkansas y Georgia —los únicos estados que han implementado programas de trabajo en Medicaid— muestra que muchas personas beneficiarias tienen dificultades para navegar sistemas de beneficios complejos.

“Estoy muy preocupada”, dijo Wallace.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The 59-year-old, who lives in Harrisburg, North Carolina, closed her nonprofit circus arts school last year because she could no longer see well enough to complete paperwork. She then worked making dough at a pizza shop for a bit. Currently, she sorts recyclable materials, including cans and bottles, at a local concert venue. It is her main source of income ― but the work isn’t year-round.

“This place knows me, and this place loves me,” Kelley said of her employer. “I don’t have to explain to this place why I can’t read.”

Kelley, who lives in a camper, survives on less than $10,000 a year. She says that’s possible, in part, because of her Medicaid health coverage, which pays for arthritis and anxiety medications and has enabled doctor visits to manage high blood pressure.

But she worries about losing that coverage next year, when rules take effect requiring millions of people like Kelley to work, volunteer, attend school, or perform other qualifying activities for at least 80 hours a month.

“I’m scared right now,” she said.

Before the coverage changes were signed into law, Republican lawmakers suggested that young, unemployed men were taking advantage of the government health insurance program that provides coverage to millions of low-income or disabled people. Medicaid is not intended for “29-year-old males sitting on their couches playing video games,” House .

But, in reality, adults ages 50 to 64, particularly women, are likely to be , said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at �鶹Ů��, a health information nonprofit that includes �鶹Ů�� Health News. For Kelley and others, the work requirements will create barriers to keeping their coverage, Tolbert said. Many could lose Medicaid as a result, putting their physical and financial health at risk.

Starting next January, some 20 million low-income Americans in 42 states and Washington, D.C., will need to meet the activity requirements to gain or keep Medicaid health coverage.

Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming didn’t expand their Medicaid programs to cover additional low-income adults under the Affordable Care Act, so they won’t have to implement the work rules.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts the work rules will result in at least 5 million fewer people with Medicaid coverage over the next decade. Work rules are the largest driver of coverage losses in the GOP budget law, which slashes nearly $1 trillion to offset the costs of tax breaks that mainly benefit the rich and increase border security, .

“We’re talking about saving money at the expense of people’s lives,” said Jane Tavares, a gerontology researcher at the University of Massachusetts Boston. “The work requirement is just a tool to do that.”

Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said requiring “able-bodied adults” to work ensures Medicaid’s “long-term sustainability” while safeguarding it for the vulnerable. Exempt are people with disabilities, caregivers, pregnant and postpartum individuals, veterans with total disabilities, and others facing medical or personal hardship, Nixon told �鶹Ů�� Health News.

Medicaid expansion has provided a lifeline for middle-aged adults who otherwise would lack insurance, according to . Medicaid covers 1 in 5 Americans ages 50 to 64, giving them access to health coverage before they qualify for Medicare at age 65.

Among women on Medicaid, those ages 50 through 64 are more likely to face challenges keeping their coverage than their younger female peers and are likely to have a greater need for health care services, Tolbert said.

These middle-aged women are less likely to be working the required number of hours because many serve as family caregivers or have illnesses that limit their ability to work, Tolbert said.

Tavares and other researchers found that of the total Medicaid population is considered “able-bodied” and not working. This group consists largely of women who are very poor and have left the workforce to become caretakers. Among this group, 1 in 4 are 50 or older.

“They are not healthy young adults just hanging out,” the researchers stated.

Plus, making it harder for people to maintain Medicaid coverage “may actually undermine their ability to work” because their health problems go untreated, Tolbert said. Regardless, if this group loses coverage, their chronic health conditions will still need to be managed, she said.

Adults often start wrestling with health issues before they’re eligible for Medicare.

If older adults don’t have the means to pay to address health issues before age 65, they’ll ultimately be sicker when they qualify for Medicare, costing the program more money, health policy researchers said.

Many adults in their 50s or early 60s are no longer working because they’re full-time caregivers for children or older family members, said caregiver advocates, who refer to people in the group as “the sandwich generation.”

The GOP budget law does allow some caregivers to be exempted from the Medicaid work rules, but the carve-outs are “very narrow,” said Nicole Jorwic, chief program officer for the group Caring Across Generations.

She worries that people who should qualify for an exemption will fall through the cracks.

“You’re going to see family caregivers getting sicker, continuing to forgo their own care, and then you're going to see more and more families in crisis situations,” Jorwic said.

Paula Wallace, 63, of Chidester, Arkansas, said she worked most of her adult life and now spends her days helping her husband manage his advanced cirrhosis.

After years of being uninsured, she recently gained coverage through her state’s Medicaid expansion, which means she’ll have to comply with the new work requirements to keep it. But she’s having a hard time seeing how that will be possible.

“With me being his only caregiver, I can’t go out and work away from home,” she said.

Wallace’s husband receives Social Security Disability Insurance, she said, and the law says she should be exempt from the work rules as a full-time caregiver for someone with a disability.

But federal officials have yet to issue specific guidance on how to define that exemption. And experience from Arkansas and Georgia ― the only states to have run Medicaid work programs ― shows that many enrollees struggle to navigate complicated benefits systems.

“I’m very concerned,” Wallace said.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Then 25 years old and six months pregnant, she drove herself to the emergency room in Ronan, Montana, on the Flathead Indian Reservation, where an ambulance transferred her to a larger hospital 60 miles away in Missoula. Once she arrived, the staff couldn’t detect her baby’s heartbeat. Swaney began to bleed heavily. She delivered a stillborn baby and was hospitalized for several days. At one point, doctors told her to call her family. They didn’t expect her to survive.

“It certainly changed my life — the experience — but my life has not been a bad life,” she told �鶹Ů�� Health News.

Though her experiences were nearly 50 years ago, Swaney, a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, said Native Americans continue to receive inadequate maternal care. The data appears to support that belief.

In 2024, the most recent year for which data for the population is available, Native American and Alaska Native people had the among major demographic groups, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In response to this disparity, Native organizations, the CDC, and some states are working to boost tribal participation in state maternal mortality review committees to better track and address pregnancy-related deaths in their communities. Native organizations are also considering ways tribes could create their own committees.

State maternal mortality review committees investigate deaths that occur during pregnancy or within a year after pregnancy, analyze data, and issue policy recommendations to lower death rates.

According to , deaths among Native American and Alaska Native people were considered preventable.

Our matriarchs, our moms, are what carries a nation forward.

Kim Moore-Salas

State committees have received federal money through the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, which President Donald Trump signed in 2018.

But the money is scheduled to dry up on Jan. 31, when the short-term spending bill that ended the government shutdown expires.

Funding for the committees is included in the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2026. That bill must be approved by the House, Senate, and president to take effect.

Native American leaders said including members of their communities in maternal mortality review committee activities is an important step in addressing mortality disparities.

In 2023, tribal leaders and federal officials met to discuss four models: a mortality review committee for each tribe, a committee for each of the 12 Indian Health Service administrative regions, a national committee to review all Native American maternal deaths, and the addition of Native American subcommittees to state committees.

Whatever the model, tribal sovereignty, experience, and traditional knowledge are important factors, said Kim Moore-Salas, a co-chair of the Arizona Maternal Mortality Review Committee. She’s also the chairperson of the panel’s American Indian/Alaska Native mortality review subcommittee and a member of the Navajo Nation.

“Our matriarchs, our moms, are what carries a nation forward,” she said.

Mental health conditions and infection were the leading underlying causes of pregnancy-related death among Native American and Alaska Native women as of 2021, according to the CDC report analyzing data from 46 states.

The CDC found an estimated 68% of pregnancy-related deaths among Native American and Alaska Native people happened within a week of delivery to a year postpartum. The majority of those happened between 43 days and a year after birth.

The federal government has a responsibility under signed treaties to provide health care to the 575 federally recognized tribes in the U.S. through the Indian Health Service. Tribal members can receive limited services at no cost, but the agency is underfunded and understaffed.

A that analyzed data from 2016 to 2020 found that approximately 75% of Native American and Alaska Native pregnant people didn’t have access to care through the Indian Health Service around the time of giving birth, meaning many likely sought care elsewhere. More than 90% of Native American and Alaska Native births occur outside of IHS facilities, . For those who did deliver at IHS facilities, a from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that 56% of labor and delivery patients received care that did not follow national clinical guidelines.

The 2024 study’s authors also found that members of the population were less likely to have stable insurance coverage and more likely to have a lapse in coverage during the period close to birth than non-Hispanic white people.

Cindy Gamble, who is Tlingit and a tribal community health consultant for the American Indian Health Commission in Washington, has been a member of the state’s maternal mortality review panel for about eight years. In the time she’s been on the state panel, she said, its composition has broadened to include more people of color and community members.

The panel also began to include suicide, overdose, and homicide deaths in its data analysis and added racism and discrimination to the risk factors considered during its case review process.

Solutions need to be tailored to the tribe’s identity and needs, Gamble said.

“It’s not a one-size-fits-all,” Gamble said, “because of all the beliefs and different cultures and languages that different tribes have.”

Gamble’s tenure on the state committee is distinctive. Few states have tribal representation on maternal mortality review committees, according to the National Indian Health Board, a nonprofit organization that advocates for tribal health.

The National Council of Urban Indian Health is also the participation of Urban Indian health organizations, which provide care for Native American people who live outside of reservations, in state maternal mortality review processes. As of 2025, the council had connected Urban Indian health organizations to state review committees in California, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.

Native leaders such as Moore-Salas find the current efforts encouraging.

“It shows that state and tribes can work together,” she said.

In March 2024, Moore-Salas became the first Native American co-chair of Arizona’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee. In 2025 she and other Native American members of the committee developed guidelines for the American Indian/Alaska Native subcommittee and reviewed the group’s first cases.

The subcommittee is exploring ways to make the data collection and analysis process more culturally relevant to their population, Moore-Salas said.

But it takes time for policy changes to create widespread change in the health of a population, Gamble said. Despite efforts around the country, other factors may hinder the pace of progress. For example, maternity care deserts are growing nationally, caused by rapid hospital and labor and delivery unit closures. Health experts have raised concerns that upcoming cuts to Medicaid will hasten these closures.

Despite her experience and the ongoing crisis among Native American and Alaska Native people, Swaney hopes for change.

She had a second complicated pregnancy soon after her stillbirth. She went into labor about three months early, and the doctors said her son wouldn’t live to the next morning. But he did, and he was transferred about 525 miles away from Missoula to the nearest advanced neonatal unit, in Salt Lake City.

Her son, Kelly Camel, is now 48. He has severe cerebral palsy and profound deafness. He lives alone but has caregivers to help with cooking and other tasks, said Swaney, 73.

He “has a good sense of humor. He’s kind to other people. We couldn’t ask for a more complete child.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

“That’s what I’m trying to avoid,” said Ferguson, who still calls Quincy Jackson III her baby. She remembers a boy who dressed himself in three-piece suits, donated his allowance, and graduated high school at 16 with an academic scholarship and plans to join the military or start a business.

Instead, Ferguson watched as her once bright-eyed, handsome son sank into disheveled psychosis, bouncing between family members’ homes, homeless shelters, jails, clinics, emergency rooms, and Ohio’s regional psychiatric hospitals.

Over the past year, The Marshall Project – Cleveland and �鶹Ů�� Health News interviewed Jackson, other patients and families, current and former state hospital employees, advocates, lawyers, judges, jail administrators, and national behavioral health experts. All echoed Ferguson, who said the mental health system makes it “easier to criminalize somebody than to get them help.”

State psychiatric hospitals nationwide have largely lost the ability to treat patients before their mental health deteriorates and they are charged with crimes. Driving the problem is a meteoric rise in the share of patients with criminal cases who stay significantly longer, generally by court order.

Patients Wait or Are Turned Away

Across the nation, psychiatric hospitals are short-staffed and consistently turn away patients or leave them waiting with few or no treatment options. Those who do receive beds are often sent there by court order after serious criminal offenses.

In Ohio, the share of state hospital patients with criminal charges jumped from about half in 2002 to .

The surge has coincided with a steep decline in total state psychiatric hospital patients served, down 50% in Ohio in the past decade, from 6,809 to 3,421, according to the . During that time, total patients served nationwide dropped about 17%, from 139,434 to 116,320, with state approaches varying widely, from adding community services and building more beds to closing hospitals.

Ohio Department of Behavioral Health officials declined multiple interview requests for this article.

The decline in capacity at state facilities unfurled as a spate of local hospitals across the country shuttered their psychiatric units, which disproportionately serve patients with Medicaid or who are uninsured. And the financial stability of is likely to deteriorate further after Congress passed President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which slashes nearly $1 trillion from the federal Medicaid budget over the next decade.

The constricted flow of new patients through state hospitals is “absolutely” a crisis and “a huge deal in Ohio and everywhere,” said retired Ohio Supreme Court Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton. As co-chair of the state attorney general’s , Lundberg Stratton has spent decades searching for solutions.

“It hurts everybody who has someone who needs to get a hospital bed that’s not in the criminal justice system,” she said.

‘It’s Heartbreaking’

Quincy Jackson III’s white socks stuck out of the end of a hospital bed as police officers stood watch.

At 5 feet, 7 inches tall, Jackson has a stocky build and robotic stare. Staff at Blanchard Valley Hospital in Findlay, Ohio, had called for help, alleging Jackson had assaulted a security guard.

“I’m sick; I take medication,” Jackson said to the officers, according to law enforcement body camera footage. His hands were cuffed behind his back as he lay on the bed, a loose hospital gown covering him.

Ferguson called it one of his “episodes” and said her son experienced severe psychosis frequently. In one incident, she said, Jackson “went for a knife” at her home.

From December 2023 through this July, Jackson was arrested or cited in police reports on at least 17 occasions. He was jailed at least five times and treated more than 10 times at hospitals, including three state-run psychiatric facilities. A recent psychiatric evaluation noted that Jackson has been in and out of community and state facilities since 2015.

Jackson is among a glut of people nationwide with severe mental illness who overwhelm community hospitals, courtrooms, and jails, eventually leading to backlogs at state hospitals.

High-Profile Incidents

That dearth of care is often cited by families, law enforcement authorities, and mental health advocates after people struggling with severe mental illness harm others. In the past six months, at least four incidents made national headlines.

In August, a homeless reportedly diagnosed with schizophrenia fatally stabbed a woman on a train. Also in August, police said a with a history of mental health issues killed three people, including a child, at a Target store. In July, a homeless who family members said had needed treatment for decades attacked 11 people at a Walmart store with a knife. In June, police shot and killed a reportedly diagnosed with schizophrenia after authorities said he attacked law enforcement.

Mark Mihok, a longtime municipal judge near Cleveland, told a spring that he had never seen so many people with serious mental illnesses living on the streets and “now punted into the criminal justice system.”

37-Day Wait for a Bed

At Blanchard Valley Hospital, sheriff’s deputies had taken Jackson from jail for a mental health check. But Jackson’s actions raised concerns.

In the body camera video, a nurse said Jackson was “going to be here all weekend. And we’re going to be calling you guys every 10 minutes.”

The officer responded: “Yeah, well, if he keeps acting like that, he’s going to go right back” to the county jail.

Within minutes, Jackson was taken back to jail, yelling at the officers: “Kill me, motherf—–. Yeah, shoot them, shoot them. Pop!”

Statewide, Ohio has about 1,100 beds in its six regional psychiatric hospitals. In May, the median wait time to get a state bed was 37 days.

That’s “a long time to be waiting in jail for a bed without meaningful access to mental health treatment,” said Shanti Silver, a senior research adviser at the national nonprofit Treatment Advocacy Center.

Long waits, often leaving people who need care lingering in jails, have drawn lawsuits in several states, including , , and , where a large 2014 class action case forced systemic changes such as expansion of crisis intervention training and residential treatment beds.

Ohio officials noticed bed shortages as early as 2018. State leaders assembled task forces and . They launched community programs, crisis units, and a statewide emergency hotline.

Yet backlogs at the Ohio hospitals mounted.

Ohio Department of Behavioral Health Director LeeAnne Cornyn, who left the agency in October, wrote in a May emailed statement that the agency “works diligently to ensure a therapeutic environment for our patients, while also protecting patient, staff, and public safety.”

Eric Wandersleben, director of media relations and outreach for the department, declined to respond to detailed questions submitted before publication and, instead, noted that responses could be publicly found in a governor’s working group report .

Elizabeth Tady, a hospital liaison who also spoke to judges and lawyers at the May gathering, said 45 patients were waiting for beds at Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare, the state psychiatric hospital serving the Cleveland region.

“It’s heartbreaking for me and for all of us to know that there are things that need to be done to help the criminal justice system, to help our communities, but we’re stuck,” she said.

Ohio officials added 30 state psychiatric beds by in Columbus and are planning in southwestern Ohio.

Still, Ohio Director of Forensic Services Lisa Gordish told the gathering in Cleveland that adding capacity alone won’t work.

“If you build beds — and what we’ve seen in other states is that’s what they’ve done — those beds get filled up, and we continue to have a waitlist,” she said.

This year, Jackson waited 100 days in the and Montgomery County jail for a bed at a state hospital, according to jail records.

Ferguson said she was afraid to leave him there but could not bail him out, in part, she said, because her son cannot survive on his own.

“There’s no place for my son to experience symptoms in the state of Ohio safely,” Ferguson said.

Sick System

Patrick Heltzel got the extended treatment Ferguson has long sought for her son, but he stabbed a 71-year-old man to death before getting it.

The 32-year-old is one of more than receiving treatment in Ohio’s psychiatric hospitals.

“People need long-term care,” Heltzel said in October, calling from inside Heartland Behavioral Healthcare, near Canton, where he has lived for more than a decade after being found not guilty by reason of insanity of aggravated murder. Inpatient care, he said, helps patients figure out what medication regimen will work and deliver the therapy needed “to develop insight.”

As he spoke, the sound of an open room and patients chatting filled the background.

“You have to know, ‘OK, I have this chronic condition, and this is what I have to do to treat it,’” Heltzel said.

As the ranks of criminally charged patients in Ohio’s hospitals have increased over the past decade, the shift has had an impact on patient care: The hospitals have endangered patients, have become more restrictive, and are understaffed, according to interviews with Heltzel, other patients, and former staff members, as well as documents obtained through public records requests.

Escapes and a Lockdown

Katie Jenkins, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness Greater Cleveland, said the shift from mostly civil patients, who haven’t been charged with a crime, to criminally charged patients has changed the hospitals.

“It’s hard in our state hospitals right now,” she said. Unfortunately, she said, patients who have been in jail bring that culture to the hospitals.

In the first 10 months of 2024, at least nine patients escaped from Ohio’s regional psychiatric hospitals — compared with three total in the previous four years, according to .

, two female patients at Summit Behavioral Healthcare near Cincinnati escaped after one lunged at a staff member. In another, a man broke a window and climbed out.

Most of the escapes, though, were not violent. Days after a patient at Northcoast during a trip to the dentist in a Cleveland suburb, state officials stopped allowing patients to leave any of the six regional hospitals.

to leaders at the hospitals said officials had seen “similarities across multiple facilities,” raising significant concern about “ensuring patient and public safety.”

For Heltzel, the inability to go on outings or to his mother’s house on the weekends was a setback for his treatment. In 2024, when the lockdown began, he had more freedom than most patients at the psychiatric hospitals, regularly leaving to go to the local gym and attend off-site group therapy.

His mother signed him out each Friday to go home for the weekend, where he drove a car and played with his 2-year-old German shepherd, Violet. On Sundays, Heltzel was part of the “dream team” at church, volunteering to operate the audio and slides.

Federal records reveal that, at Ohio’s larger state-run psychiatric hospitals, including Summit and Northcoast, patients and staff have faced imminent danger.

In 2019 and 2020, federal investigators responded to patient deaths, including two suicides in six months at Northcoast. One hospital employee told federal inspectors, “The facility has been understaffed for a while and it’s getting worse,” according to . “It is very dangerous out here.”

Disability Rights Ohio, which has a federal mandate to monitor the facilities, in October against the department. The advocacy group, alleging abuse and neglect, asked for records of staff’s response to a Northcoast patient who suffocated from a plastic bag over their head. At the end of October, the court docket showed the parties had settled the case.

Retired sheriff’s deputy Louella Reynolds worked as a police officer at Northcoast for about five years before leaving in 2022. She said the increase in criminally charged patients meant the hospitals “absolutely” became less safe. Her hip still hurts from a patient who threw her against a cement wall.

Reynolds said officers should be able to carry weapons, which they don’t, and that more staff are needed to handle the patients. Mandatory overtime was common, she said, and often staff would report to work and not “know when we would get off.”

A Disaster That Wasn’t Averted

Back at Heartland, Heltzel requested conditional release. The judge denied the release request.

Heltzel said it was devastating. He grew up Catholic and said, “I was kind of looking for absolution.”

Now, Heltzel said he is practicing acceptance. “Acceptance is all the more important to practice when you don’t agree with something,” Heltzel said, adding, “I’m a ward of the state.”

He still hopes to be released: “I just do what I can to move forward.”

Heltzel, like Jackson, had been hospitalized before and released.

In early 2013, Heltzel said, he asked his dad to kill him. “And he refused and I did smack him,” he said. Heltzel was sent to Heartland for a short stay — about 10 days, according to his mother, Jan Dyer. She recalled “begging” the hospital staff to keep him.

Heltzel said he remembers not being ready to leave: “I was still sick, and I was still delusional.” Back at home, he said, he had a “sense of existential dread, like that all this horrible stuff was going to happen.” He stopped taking his medication.

Within weeks, Heltzel killed 71-year-old Milton A. Grumbling III at his home, placing him in a chokehold and stabbing him repeatedly, according to . He beat him with a remote control and then left, taking a Bible from the home, as well as a ring. Delusional with schizophrenia, Heltzel believed that Grumbling had sexually abused him in another life, according to the records.

A family member of the man he killed told the judge in 2023 that Heltzel should “stay in prison,” according to .

In denying his conditional release, judges cited Heltzel’s failure to take medication before killing Grumbling.

Jenkins, who said she worked at a state hospital for nine years before becoming the lead advocate for NAMI Greater Cleveland, said psychiatric medications can take as long as six weeks to become fully effective.

“So clients aren’t even getting stabilized when they’re being hospitalized,” Jenkins said.

‘He’s Not a Throwaway Child’

In a July interview, Jackson said inconsistent care or unmedicated time in jail “worsens my symptoms.” Jackson was on the phone during a stay at a state psychiatric hospital.

Without medicine, “my head hurts, to be honest,” Jackson said, before asking to get off the phone because he was hungry. It was lunchtime. “Can you get the information from my mom?” Jackson said. “She has the records.”

After Jackson hung up the phone, Ferguson explained that “he says the food is excellent, so he does not want to miss it.” And, she added, the hospital staff had not yet seen the explosive side of her son.

In early September, after 45 days at Summit — his longest stay yet at a state psychiatric hospital — Jackson returned to the Montgomery County jail facing misdemeanor charges because of with staff at a Dayton behavioral health hospital. In court, Ferguson said, her son struggled to explain to the judge why he was there. On a video call from the jail days later, she saw him playing with his hair and ears.

“That tells me he’s not OK,” Ferguson said.

Before Jackson’s diagnosis more than a decade ago, Ferguson said, her son wasn’t a troublemaker. He had goals and dreams. And he’s still “loved and liked by a lot of people.”

“He’s not a throwaway child,” she said.

 is a nonprofit news team covering Ohio’s criminal justice systems.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Brader, de 27 años y residente de Bloomington, Indiana, tiene un marcapasos y una enfermedad dolorosa en las articulaciones. Además, sufre una lesión en la columna que le fusionó las vértebras del cuello, lo que le impide girar la cabeza.

La agencia estatal de Medicaid considera a Brader como “médicamente frágil”, lo que le da acceso a un conjunto ampliado de beneficios, como terapia física.

Pero nuevas reglas federales exigirán que más de 18 millones de personas beneficiarias de Medicaid en todo el país demuestren, a partir de 2027, que trabajan, hacen voluntariado o estudian al menos 80 horas al mes para mantener su cobertura.

Brader está exenta mientras siga siendo considerada médicamente frágil.

Pero ante la falta de directrices claras a nivel federal, los estados deben llegar a un acuerdo sobre cómo definir la fragilidad médica, una decisión de gran impacto que podría hacer que muchas personas pierdan el acceso a Medicaid, según funcionarios estatales, defensores del consumidor y expertos en políticas de salud.

“Estoy aterrada”, dijo Brader. “Ya he luchado mucho para conseguir esta atención médica”.

Mucho en juego

La ley One Big Beautiful Bill Act del presidente Donald Trump recortará casi $1.000 billones de dólares a Medicaid a lo largo de la próxima década. Buena parte de esos ahorros proyectados provendrían de dejar de cubrir a quienes no califiquen bajo las nuevas reglas laborales.

Esos recortes ayudan a financiar otras prioridades del Partido Republicano, como más seguridad fronteriza y recortes de impuestos que benefician sobre todo a personas con altos ingresos.

Legisladores conservadores han argumentado que Medicaid —el programa de seguro médico del gobierno para personas de bajos ingresos o con discapacidades— ha crecido demasiado, especialmente tras su expansión a más personas adultas de bajos ingresos bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA, por sus siglas en inglés). También afirman que exigirles trabajar a los beneficiarios es una medida de sentido común.

La nueva ley fiscal y presupuestaria de Trump ofrece excepciones a varias personas que podrían tener dificultades para cumplir con las reglas laborales, incluyendo aquellas consideradas “médicamente frágiles”. La ley define ciertas condiciones como fragilidad médica, por ejemplo, ceguera, discapacidad y adicciones. Pero no incluye muchas otras.

En su lugar, la norma exime a quienes tengan una “condición médica seria o compleja”, un término cuya interpretación puede variar según el estado.

Funcionarios estatales señalan que necesitan más claridad para asegurar que las personas que no pueden trabajar por razones de salud mantengan su derecho a Medicaid. También les preocupa que, incluso con una definición clara, muchas personas enfrenten el reto burocrático de tener que probar constantemente  que son médicamente frágiles, lo cual es difícil si no se puede acceder a una atención médica adecuada.

“Hay mucho en juego”, dijo Kinda Serafi, socia de la firma consultora Manatt Health.

Los nuevos requisitos laborales afectarán a beneficiarios de Medicaid en 42 estados y en Washington, DC. Ocho estados —Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, Carolina del Sur, Tennessee, Texas y Wyoming— no expandieron sus programas de Medicaid para incluir a más personas adultas de bajos ingresos, por lo que no tendrán que implementar estas reglas.

Según la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (Congressional Budget Office), una entidad no partidista, se espera que estas reglas laborales de Medicaid sean el en la próxima década.

El 44% de las personas adultas cubiertas por los programas de Medicaid en estados que lo ampliaron tienen , según �鶹Ů��.

Un desafío para los estados

Las agencias estatales de Medicaid se apresuran a implementar las nuevas reglas con poca orientación del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de Estados Unidos (HHS, por sus siglas en inglés) que aún no ha emitido directrices específicas. Andrew Nixon, vocero de la agencia, dijo que la definición federal de “médicamente frágil” se aclarará el próximo año.

En última instancia, serán los estados los que tengan que decidir quién está lo suficientemente enfermo como para quedar exento de los requisitos laborales. Y no será fácil para el personal estatal ni para los sistemas informáticos hacer ese seguimiento.

Cada año, los sistemas estatales de elegibilidad evalúan a millones de personas solicitantes para determinar si califican para Medicaid y otros programas gubernamentales. Ahora, esos mismos sistemas también tendrán que verificar si personas nuevas o ya inscritas cumplen con los requisitos laborales.

Jessica Kahn, socia en la firma consultora McKinsey & Co., ha instado a los estados a comenzar desde ya a planear cómo adaptar sus sistemas para verificar el estatus laboral. Los estados pueden hacer “muchísimo” incluso sin esperar directrices federales, dijo Kahn —quien fue funcionaria federal de Medicaid— durante una reciente audiencia de asesoría sobre el programa. “El tiempo se acaba”.

Las personas encargadas de Medicaid a nivel estatal evalúan este reto.

“La fragilidad médica es algo muy complejo”, dijo Emma Sandoe, directora de Medicaid en Oregon, durante un panel reciente. Las condiciones que impiden trabajar, como los trastornos de salud mental, son difíciles de demostrar, explicó.

Un estado podría intentar usar información de los expedientes médicos de una persona, por ejemplo, para determinar si es médicamente frágil. Pero esa información puede no reflejar con claridad la salud de alguien, especialmente si no tiene acceso regular a servicios médicos.

Es una tarea difícil para sistemas de elegibilidad que históricamente no han tenido que revisar registros médicos para evaluar solicitudes, señaló Serafi, de Manatt Health.

“Esto es completamente nuevo para los sistemas de inscripción, y simplemente no están preparados”, añadió.

Grupos de cabildeo que representan a compañías privadas de seguros médicos que administran Medicaid en varios estados también han pedido a las autoridades federales que definan claramente qué significa ser médicamente frágil, para que se aplique de manera uniforme.

En una carta enviada el 3 de noviembre, las organizaciones Planes de Salud Medicaid de Estados Unidos (MHPA, en inglés) y la Asociación de Planes Afiliados a la Comunidad (ACAP, en inglés) recomendaron que se permita a las personas solicitantes calificar para la exención simplemente al indicar en su solicitud que tienen condiciones que las hacen médicamente frágiles. Según las dos organizaciones, implementar con éxito estas exenciones será “crucial” dada la “gravedad de los riesgos para la salud que implica perder cobertura” para estas poblaciones.

Algunos funcionarios estatales temen que haya consecuencias imprevistas por estas reglas laborales para personas con enfermedades crónicas.

Jennifer Strohecker, quien recientemente renunció como directora de Medicaid en Utah, reiteró la gravedad de este asunto, especialmente para personas con diabetes afiliadas a Medicaid.

Explicó que, si bien pueden llevar una vida funcional con insulina, eso podría cambiar si pierden la cobertura por no cumplir con los requisitos laborales.

Actualmente, el hecho de que alguien sea considerado médicamente frágil depende en gran medida del lugar donde viva.

Por ejemplo, en Arkansas, las personas deben indicar en sus solicitudes de Medicaid si tienen una discapacidad, son ciegas o necesitan ayuda para realizar actividades diarias.

Según Gavin Lesnick, vocero del Departamento de Servicios Humanos de Arkansas, aproximadamente el 6% de las 221.000 personas inscritas en el programa de expansión de Medicaid del estado se consideran médicamente frágiles.

En West Virginia, el estado acepta la designación de fragilidad médica cuando una persona la reporta por cuenta propia.

En Dakota del Norte, el proceso es más estricto. Quienes solicitan deben completar un cuestionario sobre su salud y presentar documentación adicional, como notas del historial médico y planes de tratamiento. Más de la mitad de las solicitudes fueron rechazadas el año pasado, según Mindy Michaels, vocera del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos.

La Administración de Servicios Familiares y Sociales de Indiana, que gestiona Medicaid en ese estado, se negó a ofrecer entrevistas y dijo que no podía comentar sobre casos individuales, como el de Brader.

Brader teme que la burocracia adicional la haga perder otra vez su cobertura de Medicaid. Contó que en 2019 fue expulsada temporalmente del programa por no cumplir con las reglas laborales del estado, cuando Indiana determinó que su trabajo como estudiante no contaba como empleo.

“Siempre que he intentado recibir ayuda del estado de Indiana, ha sido una pesadilla burocrática”, dijo.

Mientras los estados esperan una guía federal, Kristi Putnam —miembro del conservador Instituto Cicero y ex secretaria del Departamento de Servicios Humanos de Arkansas— dijo que, incluso si un estado crea una lista extensa de condiciones que califican como fragilidad médica, siempre habrá que poner un límite.

“No se puede crear una política de exenciones que lo cubra todo”, afirmó.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Trump administration, which has promised “radical transparency,” that it plans to publish the “project summary” for states that win awards. Following the lead of federal regulators, many states are withholding their complete applications, and some have refused to release any details.

“Let’s be clear,” said Alan Morgan, chief executive of the National Rural Health Association. “The hospital CEOs, the clinic administrators, the community leaders: They’re going to want to know what their states are doing.” The NRHA’s members include struggling rural hospitals and clinics, which would benefit from the Trump administration’s Rural Health Transformation Program.

Morgan said his members are interested in what states propose, which of their ideas are approved or rejected, and their budget narratives, which detail how the money could be spent.

Improving rural health care is an “insanely complicated and difficult task,” Morgan said.

The five-year Rural Health Transformation Program was approved by Congress in a law — the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — that also drastically cuts Medicaid spending, on which rural providers heavily depend. It’s being watched closely because it’s a much-needed influx of funds — with a caveat from the Trump administration that the money be spent on transformational ideas, not just to prop up ailing rural hospitals.

The law says half of the $50 billion will be divided equally among all states with an approved application. The rest will be distributed through a points-based system. Of , $12.5 billion will be allotted based on each state’s rurality. The remaining $12.5 billion will go to states that on initiatives and policies that, in part, mirror the Trump administration’s “” objectives.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly promised to open the government to the American people. His agency has devoted to “radical transparency.”

“We’re working to make this the most transparent HHS in its 70-year history,” in written testimony to lawmakers in September when releasing information about the rural health program.

Grant applications are “not released to the public during the merit review process,” Howden said, adding, “The purpose of this policy is to protect the integrity of evaluations, applicant confidentiality, and the competitive nature of the process.”

Democrats and many health care advocates are concerned politics will affect how much money states get.

“I am very concerned about retaliation,” said Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.). Because Democrats control her state’s politics, “our application might not be as seriously considered as other states that have Republican leadership,” she added.

Illinois’ Democratic members of the U.S. House to CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz in November asking for “full and fair consideration” of their state application. Illinois officials have not yet released their state’s proposal to �鶹Ů�� Health News, which has a pending public records request.

Heather Howard, a professor of the practice at Princeton University, said she is “pleasantly surprised at how transparent the states have been.”

Howard directs the university’s State Health and Value Strategies program, which the rural health fund, and praised most states for publicly posting their project summaries.

“To me, it speaks to the intense interest in this program,” Howard said. Her team, reviewing about two dozen state summaries, found themes including expansion of home-based and mobile services, increased use of technology, and workforce development initiatives like scholarships, signing bonuses, and child care assistance for high-demand positions.

“I think it’s exciting,” Howard said. “What’s great here is the experimentation we’re going to learn from.”

Telerobotics appeared in Georgia’s and Alabama’s applications, she said, including a proposal to use robotic equipment for remote ultrasounds.

Another theme that “warms my heart,” Howard said, was the effort among states to create advisory groups or committees, including in Idaho, where work groups are expected to focus on technology, workforce development, tribal collaboration, and behavioral health.

All 50 states submitted applications to federal regulators by the Nov. 5 deadline and awards will be announced by the end of the year, according to CMS.

As of late November, nearly 40 states had released their project narrative, the main part of the application, which describes proposed initiatives, according to �鶹Ů�� Health News tracking. More than a dozen states have also released their budget narratives.

Also as of late November, only a handful of states — Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Wyoming — had released all parts of the application.

�鶹Ů�� Health News filed public records requests for states’ complete applications. Some states have refused to release any of their application materials.

Nebraska, for example, rejected a public records request, saying its application materials are “proprietary or commercial information” that “would give advantage to business competitors.”

Kentucky shared its application summary but said the remainder of the application is a “preliminary draft” not subject to release under state laws.

Erika Engle, a spokesperson for Hawaii Gov. Josh Green, said the governor “is committed to transparency” but declined to share any of the state’s proposal.

Hawaii and other states are still processing formal public records requests.

The rural health program is part of the July law projected to reduce federal Medicaid spending in rural areas by 10 years.

Those cuts are expected to affect rural health facilities’ bottom lines, threatening their ability to stay open. A recent Commonwealth Fund report found that rural areas continue to to primary care. But the guidelines for the rural health program say states can use only 15% of their new funding to pay providers for patient care.

Between the Medicaid cuts and funding boost from the new program, “there’s real opportunity for national policy to impact rural, both in the negative and the positive potentially,” said Celli Horstman, a senior research associate at the New York-based policy think tank who co-authored the report.

Among the publicly available rural health transformation proposals, Democratic-leaning states show support, or are willing to adopt, some of the administration’s goals but will lose out on points from eschewing others.

For example, New Mexico said it would introduce legislation requiring students to take the Presidential Fitness Test and physicians to complete continuing education courses on nutrition. But it won’t prevent people from using their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits to buy “non-nutritious” foods such as soda and candy.

Many states want to invest in technology, including telehealth, cybersecurity, and remote patient monitoring equipment. Other themes include increasing access to healthy food, improving emergency services, preventing and managing chronic illnesses, and enlisting community health workers and paramedics for home visits.

Specific proposals include:

• Arkansas wants to spend $5 million through its “FAITH” program — Faith-based Access, Interventions, Transportation, & Health — to enlist rural religious institutions to host education and preventive screening events. Congregations could also install walking circuits and fitness equipment.
• Alaska, which historically relied on dogsled teams to bring medication to remote areas, is looking to test the use of "unmanned aerial systems" to speed up pharmacy deliveries to such communities.
• Tennessee wants to increase access to healthy activities by spending money on parks, trails, and farmers markets.
• Maryland wants to start mobile markets and install refrigerators and freezers to improve access to fresh, healthy food that often spoils in rural areas with few grocery stores.

State Sen. Stephen Meredith, a Republican who represents part of western Kentucky, said he still expects rural hospitals to close despite his state’s rural health transformation program.

“I think we’re treating symptoms without curing the disease,” he said after listening to a presentation on Kentucky’s proposal at .

Morgan, whose organization represents rural hospitals likely to close, said the state’s ideas may sound good.

“You can craft a narrative that sounds wonderful,” he said. “But then translating the aspirational goals to a functioning program? That’s difficult.”

�鶹Ů�� Health News staffers Phil Galewitz, Katheryn Houghton, Tony Leys, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, Maia Rosenfeld, Bram Sable-Smith, and Lauren Sausser contributed to this report.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

El gobierno de Trump, que ha prometido “transparencia radical”, afirmó en un documento de que planea publicar el “resumen de proyectos” de los estados que obtengan fondos. Siguiendo el ejemplo de los reguladores federales, muchos estados ocultan sus solicitudes completas, y algunos se han negado a revelar cualquier detalle.

“Seamos claros”, dijo Alan Morgan, director ejecutivo de la Asociación Nacional de Salud Rural (NRHA, por sus siglas en inglés). “Los directores de hospitales, los administradores de clínicas, los líderes comunitarios: todos van a querer saber qué están haciendo sus estados”.

Entre los miembros de la NRHA se incluyen hospitales y clínicas rurales con dificultades económicas, a los que prometieron beneficiar con el Programa de Transformación de la Salud Rural del gobierno de Trump.

Morgan señaló que sus miembros están interesados en saber qué proponen los estados, qué ideas son aprobadas o rechazadas y cuáles son sus justificaciones presupuestarias, que explican cómo podría gastarse el dinero.

Mejorar la atención médica rural es una “tarea increíblemente complicada y difícil”, afirmó Morgan.

El Programa de Transformación de la Salud Rural, con una duración de cinco años, fue aprobado por el Congreso en una ley —la llamada One Big Beautiful Bill Act— que también reduce drásticamente el gasto de Medicaid, del cual dependen en gran medida los proveedores de salud en zonas rurales. Este programa está siendo observado con atención porque representa una inyección muy necesaria de fondos, aunque con la condición impuesta por el gobierno de Trump de que el dinero se utilice en ideas transformadoras y no simplemente para mantener a flote a hospitales rurales en crisis.

La ley indica que la mitad de los $50.000 millones se dividirá en partes iguales entre todos los estados con una solicitud aprobada. El resto se distribuirá en base a un sistema de puntos. , $12.500 millones se asignarán en función del nivel de “ruralidad” de cada estado. Los otros $12.500 millones se otorgarán a estados que obtengan en iniciativas y políticas alineadas, en parte, con los objetivos del gobierno de Trump bajo el lema “Hacer a Estados Unidos Saludable de Nuevo” ().

El secretario de Salud y Servicios Humanos, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., ha prometido en repetidas ocasiones abrir el gobierno al pueblo estadounidense. Su agencia tiene una dedicada a la “transparencia radical”.

“Estamos trabajando para que este sea el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS, por sus siglas en inglés) más transparente en sus 70 años de historia”, en un testimonio escrito al Congreso en septiembre.

Lawrence Gostin, profesor de derecho en salud pública en la Universidad Georgetown, dijo que el HHS está actuando “de manera totalmente opaca” y que el público tiene derecho a exigir “mayor apertura y claridad”. Sin transparencia, agregó, la población no puede evaluar las responsabilidades de esa agencia.

Catherine Howden, vocera de los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS, por sus siglas en inglés), dijo que la agencia seguirá las regulaciones federales que rigen los al publicar información sobre el programa de salud rural.

Las solicitudes de subvención “no se hacen públicas durante el proceso de evaluación por méritos”, dijo Howden, y agregó: “El propósito de esta política es proteger la integridad de las evaluaciones, la confidencialidad de los solicitantes y la naturaleza competitiva del proceso”.

Demócratas y algunos defensores de la atención de salud temen que las decisiones sobre la distribución del dinero tengan motivaciones políticas.

“Me preocupan las represalias políticas”, dijo la representante Nikki Budzinski, demócrata de Illinois. Como los demócratas controlan la política de nuestro estado, “nuestra solicitud podría no ser tomada tan en serio como la de otros estados liderados por republicanos”, agregó.

En noviembre, los legisladores demócratas de Illinois en la Cámara de Representantes enviaron al administrador de los CMS, Mehmet Oz, solicitando una “evaluación justa e integral” de la solicitud estatal. Las autoridades de Illinois aún no han comunicado su propuesta a �鶹Ů�� Health News, que presentó una solicitud de registros públicos.

Heather Howard, profesora en la Universidad de Princeton, dijo que le “sorprende gratamente la transparencia de muchos estados”.

Howard dirige el programa State Health and Value Strategies de la universidad, que el fondo de salud rural, y elogió a la mayoría de los estados por publicar sus resúmenes del proyecto.

“Esto demuestra el enorme interés que despierta el programa”, dijo Howard.

Su equipo, que revisó cerca de dos docenas de resúmenes estatales, identificó temas comunes como la expansión de servicios móviles y a domicilio, mayor uso de tecnología, y desarrollo de la fuerza laboral con becas, bonos por contratación y ayuda para cuidado infantil en puestos de alta demanda.

“Creo que es emocionante”, dijo Howard. “Considero muy valioso lo que podemos aprender de estas propuestas”.

Howard señaló que las solicitudes de Georgia y Alabama incluían el uso de telerrobótica: una propuesta para utilizar robots para realizar ecografías remotas.

Otro tema que “me entusiasma”, dijo, es el esfuerzo de los estados por crear grupos o comités asesores, como en Idaho, donde se espera que los grupos de trabajo se enfoquen en tecnología, desarrollo de fuerza laboral, colaboración con comunidades indígenas, y salud mental y conductual.

Los 50 estados presentaron sus solicitudes a los reguladores federales antes de la fecha límite del 5 de noviembre, y las resoluciones se anunciarán antes de que termine el año, según los CMS.

Hasta finales de noviembre, casi 40 estados habían hecho público su resumen del proyecto, que es la parte principal de la solicitud donde se describen las iniciativas propuestas, según un seguimiento de �鶹Ů�� Health News. Más de una docena de estados también publicaron sus presupuestos.

Un pequeño grupo de estados —Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nuevo México, Dakota del Norte, Carolina del Sur y Wyoming— publicó todos los componentes de la solicitud.

�鶹Ů�� Health News presentó solicitudes de registros públicos para obtener las peticiones completas de los estados. Algunos se negaron a entregar cualquier parte de sus materiales.

Nebraska, por ejemplo, rechazó la solicitud argumentando que su contenido es “información comercial o propietaria” que “podría beneficiar a competidores comerciales”.

Kentucky compartió el resumen de su solicitud, pero indicó que el resto es un “borrador preliminar” no sujeto a divulgación bajo las leyes estatales.

Erika Engle, vocera del gobernador de Hawaii, Josh Green, dijo que el gobernador “está comprometido con la transparencia”, pero se negó a compartir la propuesta del estado.

Hawaii y otros estados aún están procesando solicitudes formales de registros públicos.

Este programa de salud rural forma parte de la ley aprobada en julio que se prevé que reducirá el gasto federal de Medicaid en zonas rurales en durante los próximos 10 años.

Se espera que estos recortes afecten las finanzas de centros rurales, poniendo en riesgo su capacidad para seguir operando. Un informe reciente de Commonwealth Fund reveló que muchas áreas rurales siguen a atención primaria. Pero las normas del programa de salud rural indican que solo el 15% de los nuevos fondos puede utilizarse para pagar atención directa a los pacientes.

Entre los recortes a Medicaid y la nueva inversión del programa, “hay una verdadera oportunidad para que las políticas nacionales tengan un impacto en las zonas rurales, tanto de forma negativa como positiva”, señaló Celli Horstman, investigadora principal de la fundación en Nueva York y coautora del informe.

Entre las propuestas disponibles al público, los estados con gobiernos demócratas muestran disposición para apoyar algunos de los objetivos del gobierno, aunque también rechazan otros, lo cual podría restarles puntos.

Por ejemplo, Nuevo México indicó que presentará una ley para que los estudiantes tomen la Prueba Presidencial de Aptitud Física (Presidential Fitness Test) y que los médicos realicen cursos de educación continua sobre nutrición. Pero no impedirá que las personas usen sus beneficios del Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria (SNAP, por sus siglas en inglés) para comprar productos “no nutritivos” como sodas o dulces.

Muchos estados planean invertir en tecnología, como telesalud, ciberseguridad y equipos para monitoreo remoto de pacientes. Otros temas incluyen mejorar el acceso a alimentos saludables, fortalecer los servicios de emergencia, prevenir y tratar enfermedades crónicas, y recurrir a trabajadores comunitarios de salud y paramédicos para visitas domiciliarias.

Algunas propuestas específicas incluyen:

• Arkansas quiere gastar $5 millones en su programa “FAITH” —Acceso, Transporte y Salud Basados en la Fe— para que instituciones religiosas rurales organicen eventos de educación y pruebas preventivas. También se instalarían circuitos para caminar y equipos de ejercicio en las congregaciones.
• Alaska, que históricamente ha usado trineos de perros para entregar medicamentos en zonas remotas, quiere probar el uso de “sistemas aéreos no tripulados” para agilizar la entrega de medicinas.
• Tennessee quiere aumentar el acceso a actividades saludables con inversiones en parques, senderos y mercados agrícolas.
• Maryland propone abrir mercados móviles e instalar refrigeradores y congeladores para facilitar el acceso a alimentos frescos y saludables que suelen dañarse en zonas rurales con pocos supermercados.

El senador estatal Stephen Meredith, un republicano que representa una parte del oeste de Kentucky, dijo que espera que los hospitales rurales sigan cerrando, pese al programa estatal.

“Creo que estamos tratando los síntomas sin curar la enfermedad”, señaló después de escuchar una .

Morgan, cuya organización representa a hospitales rurales que probablemente cerrarán, dijo que las ideas del estado pueden sonar bien.

“Uno puede escribir una narrativa que suene maravillosa”, afirmó. “Pero traducir esas metas aspiracionales en un programa funcional, eso es más difícil”.

Los reporteros de �鶹Ů�� Health News, Phil Galewitz, Katheryn Houghton, Tony Leys, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, Maia Rosenfeld, Bram Sable-Smith y Lauren Sausser contribuyeron con este artículo.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).