State Watch Archives - 麻豆女优 Health News /series/state-watch/ 麻豆女优 Health News produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of 麻豆女优. Mon, 08 Jun 2026 23:12:06 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.5 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 State Watch Archives - 麻豆女优 Health News /series/state-watch/ 32 32 161476233 Medicaid Work Rules Surprise States /podcast/what-the-health-449-medicaid-work-rules-exemptions-june-4-2026/ Thu, 04 Jun 2026 18:30:00 +0000 /?p=2244767&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2244767 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner 麻豆女优 Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of 麻豆女优 Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

New rules out this week from the Trump administration for implementing work requirements for adult Medicaid recipients surprised many state officials. The rules make it more difficult for states to determine who should be exempt from the requirements, including by stipulating that having a serious condition such as HIV or cancer does not automatically excuse an enrollee from having to engage in 80 hours per month of paid work, volunteering, or school attendance.

Meanwhile, a separate rule would give political appointees far more power over who gets health and science grant funding, and what political activities grant recipients can participate in. This would be a dramatic change 鈥 currently most decisions are made by career scientists and outside peer reviewers and based solely on scientific merit rather than whether they advance an administration’s political agenda.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 麻豆女优 Health News, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Liz Essley Whyte of The Wall Street Journal.

Panelists

Margot Sanger-Katz photo
Margot Sanger-Katz The New York Times
Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico
Liz Essley Whyte photo
Liz Essley Whyte The Wall Street Journal

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • The Medicaid work requirement was pitched as a massive money-saver for the federal government because, supporters argued, it will keep people who shouldn’t be eligible for the program from being on the rolls. But it is becoming clear that implementing the policy is going to cost states tens of millions of dollars in new hires, contracts, communication campaigns, and tech systems. State officials say this is coming when budget pressures are already high.
  • The White House has advanced long-anticipated draft regulations designed to give political appointees the final word on federal research grants. The regulations, which have been close to the heart of Office and Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and were included in Project 2025, would empower the federal branch to pull back funding if political appointees find grantees doing work at odds with the president’s agenda.
  • In a move that went somewhat unnoticed, President Donald Trump on Friday gave his official endorsement to a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that calls for cutting the number of vaccines recommended for every American child. It’s not clear what impact Trump’s action will have 鈥 the changes that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tried to make have been put on hold by federal courts.
  • A final rule issued this past week for the No Surprises Act makes changes designed to improve communication between insurers and providers. The rule does not, however, get at what’s emerged as the law’s biggest problem: When disputes between doctors and insurers reach arbitration, doctors are the overwhelming winners. And it is costing millions. Fixing the underlying issues would probably require legislative attention.

Also this week, Rovner interviews 麻豆女优 Health News reporter Lauren Sausser, who wrote the latest “Bill of the Month,” about a patient with a temporary memory problem and a less forgettable $59,000 hospital bill. If you have an outrageous or inscrutable medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: 麻豆女优 Health News and The Associated Press’ “Festering Infections to Untreated Cancer: ICE Detainees Describe Medical Neglect Across US,” by Rae Ellen Bichell, Claire Galofaro, Maia Rosenfeld, Renuka Rayasam, Aaron Kessler, and Byron Tau.

Liz Essley Whyte: The Wall Street Journal’s “,” by Christopher Weaver and Anna Wilde Mathews.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “,” by Simar Bajaj.

Margot Sanger-Katz: ProPublica’s “,” by Alec MacGillis and Ken B. Morales.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • Politico’s “,” by Robert King and Alice Miranda Ollstein.
  • The New York Times’ “,” by Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff.
  • The Washington Post’s “,” by Lauren Weber.
click to open the transcript Transcript: Medicaid Work Rules Surprise States

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.] 

Julie Rovner: Hello, from 麻豆女优 Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for 麻豆女优 Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 4, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. Today, we are joined via video conference by Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times. 

Margot Sanger-Katz: Hello, everybody. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Olstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi, there. 

Rovner: And we welcome to our podcast panel this week Liz Essley Whyte of The Wall Street Journal. Happy to have you join us. 

Liz Essley Whyte: Thanks for having me, Julie. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with my colleague Lauren Sausser, who wrote the latest 麻豆女优 Health News “Bill of the Month.” It’s about a woman with a temporary memory problem who probably wishes she could forget about a $59,000 hospital bill. But first, this week’s news. 

So, it’s been almost a full year since President [Donald] Trump signed the big budget bill that would reduce Medicaid spending by nearly a trillion dollars over the next decade, and this week we got the much-anticipated regulation outlining what states have to do in order to implement the new Medicaid work requirements for low-income adults on the program by next Jan. 1. And it’s safe to say that these rules 鈥 which are interim final rules, by the way, so that means they technically take effect immediately 鈥 are not what states were expecting. I want to break this down in pieces, but first, let’s talk about what a heavy lift this was going to be for the 43 states that are required to put these rules into effect.  before the rules came out, right? 

Ollstein: Yes, this is being pitched as a massive money saver, that was how it was framed. It’s being scored that way in the original bill in order to pay for a bunch of other things: tax cuts, etc. 

Rovner: I would say it is a money saver for the federal government, right? 

Ollstein: Well, that is the promise, that it will save money by reducing the number of people covered by Medicaid. And so proponents of this frame it as cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse, arguing that the only people who are going to get booted off of Medicaid are the people who deserve to be booted off of Medicaid, because in this piece of it they’re not working or volunteering or going to school or caring for a sick relative. We looked at, yes, this is aimed at saving federal money, but it is currently costing states millions or tens of millions of dollars to implement. It is extremely expensive to implement. States are having to hire a lot of people, they’re having to create, you know, brand-new tech systems that, or upgrade their old tech systems that they didn’t have before. And a lot of state officials told us that this is coming at really the worst time for them. They’re already losing other federal funding, they are really struggling, they’re having to make lots of cuts to social services. And so there just isn’t a lot of extra money to go around. And yet they have to spend all this money to implement these rules. And, especially, Democratic officials were telling us that, Look, we wouldn’t mind having to invest this money if it were going to lead to covering more people or offering people better, more comprehensive coverage. But they really resent having to spend this money in order to cover fewer people in the future.  

Rovner: So, let’s get to the rules themselves. As I like to explain, there are two big things that states are going to have to do here: first, to determine which Medicaid recipients are exempt from that community engagement requirement 鈥 to work, volunteer, or attend school 80 hours per month 鈥 and second, to determine if those who are not exempt are actually meeting the requirements. And these new rules make both of those harder for states, right, Margot? 

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, I think it’s been like this huge freak-out among states over these last few weeks, because there were a lot of rumors flying around, but I think there was just this concern, like, Whoa, if they make major changes right now, it’s going to be even harder for us to implement. And for states that were, as Alice said, some of these blue states that were trying to minimize the coverage losses under the Medicaid work requirement, I think they were worried, Well, they’re only going to make it stricter; they’re only going to make it harsherWhy would they be changing things now? And so, , it turns out that is, in fact, what they did, that there were a number of policy choices where they decided to apply a stricter standard than what states had been told before this week. 

So what are the biggest examples of this? I think there are two. One is that the work requirement doesn’t apply to everyone. The Republicans in Congress basically said we want people, adults without young children and without disabilities, to be engaged in their communities 鈥 to work, volunteer, go to school a minimum number of hours each month if they want to stay eligible for Medicaid. But we understand that there are certain people who are going to have trouble doing that, and so we want to have exceptions for those people. So not everyone has to do the work requirement, a bunch of people don’t have to. And the biggest category of this was a category that Congress called “medical frailty.” The idea was these are people who have medical problems that, like, might make it hard for them to work, or who might really suffer if they lost their health insurance. So, depending on who you talk to, that was what Congress was trying to protect with that exception. And what CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] had been telling states over these last few months is: Put together a list of diagnoses of serious illnesses, and you can data match, you know, you have people in your Medicaid system already. OK, if they had cancer, if they have HIV, if they have Parkinson’s disease, that’s a serious illness. Those people are medically frail. You can just automatically exempt them, and then you don’t have to check their work hours. 

Rovner: That’s what Nebraska is already doing, right? Because they’re one of the states that have started this early. 

Sanger-Katz: Correct. Yeah, so Nebraska is already live with its work requirement. And, again, Nebraska, even more so than these other states, got tons of guidance from CMS, because they were so excited to go first, and they wanted to do everything right. They wanted to be a good example. And I think CMS wanted them to demonstrate, OK, you can like do this policy. Yeah, they had a list, I think they had like 300 pages of diagnostic codes, you know, like all these diseases. If you have these diseases, we’re gonna exempt you, then you don’t have to demonstrate work hours. If you don’t, OK, like, then you’re gonna have to prove that you’re working or volunteering or going to school. 

So what the rule said is, like, that’s not good enough. It is not good enough to have cancer 鈥 that in order to be exempted from having to demonstrate that you are working, you have to prove that you have cancer, and that your cancer is creating a problem that would make it hard for you to work. And the rule creates a standard where states are going to have to evaluate not just what diseases people have, which might be easy to do using medical records, for at least people who are already enrolled and who have been getting medical care, but instead that they have to make something like a disability determination, which is something that the states were really not ready for, that they don’t really have the staff to do or the training to do, and that cannot be easily automated on the back end right now. I think there’s not an easy way for them to go into the medical record and decide whether or not someone’s illness is serious enough that it would impair their ability to work. And the language that they use in the rule, the standard, is not actually really like the standard in other programs that have work requirements, so the states have no experience with the standard.  

And, as it turns out, doctors don’t really have any experience with this standard either. So, you know, when you are making a workman’s comp claim, for example, like the doctors have forms, there’s a system, they understand what it means to be too sick to work because of an injury that would preclude you from workman’s comp. And in SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], it turns out, there’s also a standard if you’re unable to work, you could get out of the work requirements. But that is slightly different. And so I think there is this real concern by states that they just like actually don’t know how to do this. There might be some AI [artificial intelligence] solution where they’re data mining in the medical records and trying to figure out if they have these codes, and these codes, like, maybe there’s a way to prove that someone is sick enough. What most people that I’ve talked to said is that basically this is going to be a system that’s largely going to be achieved with doctors’ notes. Doctors have to be willing to do this thing that they’ve never done before, and they’re, you know, having to sign that someone can’t work, and that’s going to be a lot of frictions in that process. And then there’s going to have to be a caseworker on the other end who is going to have to look at those doctors’ notes and is going to have to read them and decide whether the doctor has specified the impairment such that it is in compliance with the work requirement. 

So this is just a lot of like administrative headache. I think there are reasonable arguments for wanting to have this standard given what Congress’ intent was, that they wanted to have a work requirement. The point was they wanted people who could work to work, and they wanted people to be exempted who could not work. I think not everyone in Congress agrees with that, but I think some of them do. But I think the reality of how you actually do this in real life is much, much more complicated than that. There is no, like, godlike state that can just see how sick you are and can make these determinations. And so I think that states are really worried about this. They’re worried about how they’re going to get in compliance with this, they’re worried about all the changes they’re going to have to make to the systems that they’ve already built. And I think that a lot of advocates for people with Medicaid, and a lot of disease groups, advocates for people with serious illnesses, are very worried that many, many more people are going to lose coverage, and particularly people who are medically frail. You know, if you think about, say, a person with HIV, they may be in treatment and getting their medicines, and they might even have undetectable levels of HIV in their blood, and they are perfectly capable of working right now. But if they lose their health insurance and they lose their access to their prescription drugs, they fall out of treatment, their health condition could worsen pretty substantially. And I think we can all think of lots of other diseases that are like that. I think cancer is a good example. You know, some people are living with cancer, and it’s kind of like a chronic disease, but it’s because they’re getting regular care. If they lose their treatment&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;they lose their treatment for many other diseases we can think of that are like this. Depression, you know, certain kinds of mental health problems, if people fall out of treatment, that actually could impair their ability to work, and that causality could run in the opposite direction. So, I think this is a big change. 

And then the other change that they made is more technical, but it was like, how are people going to prove various things under this law? And a lot of states were just expecting people would be able to sign a statement and say, I am caring for a disabled relative&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;you can trust me, I’m signing under penalty of perjuryThis is what I’m doing. Or I volunteered 12 hours last month, you know, I’m just going to sign this under penalty of perjury. Because there’s not a good way to check. 

Rovner: And for the first year, that’s OK, right? They’re taking these attestations&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;

Sanger-Katz: For the first year, they’re going to allow it. And then after the first year, they’re going to allow it for medical frailty only 鈥 once. So if you sign up for Medicaid in 2028 and you claim that you’re too sick to work, you can sign a form that says that, but then, within the next six months, before you renew your coverage, you’re going to have to come back with some kind of medical record with some kind of doctor’s note that proves it. So you know these are some pretty big changes, and Trump administration officials said, you know, our view is this is consistent with [what] the law is for, which is to ensure that people are working and are engaged in their communities if they’re capable of doing it. They also said that this prohibition on people just signing statements is a way to avoid fraud, because why wouldn’t people just sign a statement saying that they didn’t have to do this work requirement if they could? But I think this is going to have real implications in the real world. It’s going to create a huge administrative headache for states. It’s probably going to impair a lot of people from getting coverage who would have otherwise been covered if CMS had stayed the course with what it had been telling states before. 

Rovner: So, I know my inbox is full of reactions from groups across the medical spectrum. Alice and Liz, I assume you guys are hearing lots of feedback about this, too. 

Ollstein: Absolutely. I mean, just like Margot said, there just isn’t really a good way to do this, trying to automate it and base it on medical claims, like 1) States don’t have that built yet, the different systems don’t, quote unquote, “talk to each other” in that way. But also, you know, just because someone used a certain number or kind of health services in a year doesn’t necessarily tell you whether they can work or not. You know, lots of people who are too sick to work maybe haven’t had the medical services, and someone who had a lot of medical services maybe can work fine. But then again, leaving it up to individual doctors who are not trained to make this determination, who don’t have the time to have a bunch of extra appointments just to do this, and who are more used to doing this for 鈥 Margot gave a few examples, but something some doctors brought up to me was like short-term disability, like evaluating, like, this is the number of weeks someone needs to recover from X surgery. So like that’s a determination a doctor feels qualified to make. Whether someone can work any job, I mean, that’s just not really something they can confidently say. I mean, working a job in a factory is not the same as working an email job, and what kind of jobs are available in this person’s area? It’s just a huge mess. 

Rovner: So, is there any chance the administration is going to back off? There is public comment being taken now until, I think, July. Or will Congress perhaps step in and say this is not what we intended, or does somebody get to sue here? I mean, or this is what’s called an interim, I’m saying, an interim final rule, so it’s not set in concrete yet. 

Sanger-Katz: I mean, I would not be at all surprised if we see lawsuits, but I think we’ll see something else happen first, which is: The law says the states have to get ready to go by&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;Dec. 31, 2026, to be ready to go live in January. But it says if they encounter a hardship, if they’ve been making good-faith effort towards getting ready for the work requirement, and they’ve encountered some hardship, and they, like, can’t make the deadline, they can apply for a waiver, basically a two-year extension from CMS. The Trump administration has been extremely clear to states about this all the way along, basically saying, You are not going to get these, we are not going to grant them, like, you know, maybe if there’s like a volcano that goes off in your state and the entire mainframe that holds your Medicaid enrollment system is melted, like, we’ll talk. But I think a lot of states now, especially some of these blue states that are really concerned about this stuff, I think that they are going to apply now, which they might not have done before. And I think if they are denied, I could see some lawsuits around that waiver process to just say, Look, like, you just changed the rules very late. There’s no practical way that we can get this done in time. We have been proceeding in good faith, and, you know, we need more time. So, I think that there could be litigation. I also think they did have this temporary policy for 2027 around self-attestation, which I think does help states get out of some of these, like, really tricky technical issues in the first year. I don’t know, like maybe there could be some further extension of that. But I don’t know. I’m curious, Alice, what, or Liz, what you think. But I am not holding out much expectation that Congress is going to make major changes here. 

Ollstein: Well, and because of the January deadline, making changes could solve one problem and create another. Because states already feel like they don’t have enough time, and they already feel like the rules of the game are being changed in the middle of the game. You know, what they had been spending months preparing for now has to change because of this guidance. If it changes yet again, and they have even less time to adapt and make a new change&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;like you said, they’re making hires, they’re trying to make contracts based on this, and so even as advocacy groups, and even states ask for additional changes, additional changes could make it even harder to implement in time. 

Rovner: All right, well, let us move on, because there’s lots more news. Speaking of new regulations, a proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget would basically make all grant funding from the U.S. Treasury subject to political appointee approval. Currently, most grant-level awards are determined by career scientists and peer reviewers, who make decisions based on scientific merit. Under this new policy, grants would have to, quote, “demonstrably advance the president’s policy agenda.” At the same time, the new 400-page document includes many new rules for grant recipients, including universities and other entities, including limiting their ability to engage in so-called issue advocacy and allowing the revocation of grant funds if recipients take actions that are not deemed by administration political officials to be in, quote, “the public interest.” Now, all this isn’t totally new. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought has been talking about this literally for years. It was laid out in Project 2025 as well as in several executive orders that have been issued by President Trump, which is why I think it’s getting relatively little attention, given the pretty earth-shaking changes that it envisions. Still, putting it out in an actual proposed regulation raises the stakes here, doesn’t it? 

Whyte: Yeah, I would echo that. This has been on Russ Vought’s radar for many years. If you talk to folks, you know, who know him and know his thinking, this all comes down to this thinking about the executive branch and its role in the Constitution, and how there shouldn’t really be independent agencies or branches of the executive branch that aren’t doing what the president wants. And so that is manifested in this regulation that says you can’t promote anti-American values, contribute to illegal immigration, things like that, that are policy priorities of this administration, and a new filter that’s going to be applied to all federal grant-making, once this is finalized. And it’s a distillation of that theory about the executive branch that is now coming out in practice. 

Rovner: Although going back to what we were just talking about with the Medicaid work requirements, I mean, the idea of having to have a political appointee involved at this extremely micro level in the hundreds of thousands of grants that the federal government issues every year. I mean, some of it is the ideology, but some of it is just the logistics. I know that this has been part of the problem of getting money out the door at the National Institutes of Health 鈥 is that normally money that just sort of flowed when it was approved by career workers now has to wait for the approval of a political appointee, and there are not enough political appointees to approve all of these things, and people aren’t getting their money. So, I mean, this is a logistical logjam, as well as an ideological one, right? 

Sanger-Katz: And we’ve seen some evidence of this. The Department of Homeland Security has had an informal policy like this, where the director was personally approving any expenditure, I think, more than 100 鈥攏ow, I’m forgetting. 

Rovner: $100,000, yeah, I think it was. 

Sanger-Katz: There was some threshold, and it did lead to this huge backlog, because you know this is a busy person who has a lot of other things to do. And it was leading to a lot of money not getting spent that had been authorized by the staff members who thought it was appropriate. And I think there’s also potential for corruption with this kind of system, where you have these bottlenecks where very few people are making all the decisions about where money goes, because then there is an obvious focus on where you send your lobbying efforts to try to get favorable outcomes in contracting and in grant-making. 

Whyte: Yeah, the concern from the science and public health organizations is that the merit of the scientific grant will no longer matter, that how good the science is won’t be the chief thing. 

Rovner: Yeah, that this is all about, you know, promoting the president’s agenda. I’m just wondering what Republicans will feel about this when Democrats, you know, take back the administration and try to do the same thing. 

Whyte: I think that’s exactly the concern that a lot of conservatives on the Hill have, which is, you know, all of this is fine and well, but you’re not going to like it when the tables turn. 

Rovner: Yeah, that was 鈥 that’s what I said, you know, when the Affordable Care Act passed, I said, there’s an awful lot of places where it says the secretary shall, or the secretary may, or the secretary will. I said, you know, the secretary’s not always going to be somebody who supports this. That&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;turned out to be a correct prediction.  

Moving on, the idea of this administration playing down its vaccine skepticism was so last month. Last Friday, President Trump issued an executive order basically endorsing Health and Human Services Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.]’s revamp of the childhood vaccine schedule, and ordering the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] to review it and, quote, “take any appropriate steps to update said schedule.” What happened to “This isn’t popular, so we’re not going to push it,” or is doing this on a Friday afternoon how the administration is trying to placate the MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] movement, but not really make big headlines here? I also 鈥 this is another story that I think kind of flew below the radar. 

Whyte: Yeah, it’s funny because HHS can’t really say anything about this executive order due to their litigation ongoing, and so it’s just kind of out there. But it’s totally unclear to everybody why or what it’s expected to do, given that the court has put everything regarding the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on hold, and there currently is no ACIP. So what exactly the White House was intending with this remains pretty opaque, I think. 

Rovner: Like a lot of things, although I have started to, you know, like, pay attention on Friday afternoons again. Meanwhile, our podcast colleague  about how the anti-vax movement is trying to achieve its goal through the courts by arguing that vaccine mandates that lack religious exemptions are unconstitutional. And one of those cases is likely to reach the Supreme Court at some point in the not-too-distant future. What would it mean to public health if the court were to actually strike down the ability of states to impose vaccine mandates, which is one of the possible outcomes here? Or, as the groups claim, is this just about getting the five states that don’t have religious exemptions from vaccines into alignment with the rest of the states? 

Sanger-Katz: I think there is pretty strong evidence from the studies of state policies over the years that having really limited exemptions on mandatory vaccination really increases the number of kids who get vaccinated, that the more ways there are to kind of wiggle out of the requirement, the more parents will choose one of those options. And the narrower the exceptions, the fewer will. So, there are clearly some parents who really, really care about this issue and who do qualify for one of these exemptions. But I think there’s a larger number of parents who are maybe ambivalent or have kind of weakly held preferences not to vaccinate; if they’re not really being forced to do it, they won’t do it. If they are really being forced to go through a lot of administrative burden to prove that they need an exception, then they tend to vaccinate. And so I think this is an exception that almost every state already has, but I think that the evidence is relatively clear that opening up more exceptions in those states that don’t have them now, probably on the margin, will lead to fewer kids getting vaccinated in those states. 

Whyte: Yeah, the five states that don’t allow religious exemptions to vaccine mandates are West Virginia, California, New York, Connecticut, and Maine. So that would be, you know, an immediate effect there. But then I think we can expect from a Supreme Court precedent, if one is set, that other states, state legislatures, local school districts would perhaps expand the religious exemptions they have now, or make them easier. We’ve seen that how much friction there is when you get a religious exemption really matters. So, like, do you have to just sign a form, click a box, or do you have to go meet with someone and prove that you, you know, have sincerely held beliefs on this matter? And those kind of friction points matter a lot too. 

Rovner: Yeah, I just, I couldn’t help thinking, as I was reading this story, about going back to the Dobbs case, the abortion case, which was not originally intended or filed as one that was going to overturn Roe, and makes me wonder what the Supreme Court might do, even if the question that’s raised is, you know, about these religious exemptions, could they go on and overturn 鈥 I think that precedent was from 1905 that said that states can have vaccine mandates 鈥 and wondering whether a) that’s possible, and b) that’s likely. 

Sanger-Katz: It’s always hard to predict what the Supreme Court is going to do. 

Rovner: Always. 

Sanger-Katz: It’s really up to them. They’re an idiosyncratic group of people who get the final say on a lot of things. 

Whyte: I thought it was interesting, Lauren’s story was great, and one of the things it pointed out is that what the Supreme Court did is specifically give instructions to this lower court to go back and look at this question about religious exemptions for vaccine mandates using a case that happened in Maryland, where the Supreme Court found that the school district could not mandate that kids participate in lessons with LGBTQ content that would conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs. So in other words, the families had a religious right to not have to participate into that in school. And the Supreme Court is asking, is there a similar right that a family would have to not have to participate in vaccination to attend school? So that’ll be an interesting question, and it could, as we said, you know, have big impacts across the states and how school districts handle vaccine mandates for kindergartners. 

Rovner: Although I think this will take a while to play out. And before we leave the subject of vaccines, an update to our discussion from a couple of weeks back about the global vaccine alliance known as Gavi, which the U.S. owes some $600 million appropriated by Congress. That’s money that’s been held up by HHS Secretary RFK Jr. At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said his agency, which has historically been in charge of Gavi for the U.S. government, said that it is, quote, “sort of at a stage where we are going to re-engage. We need to drive this to an outcome.” Was that his polite way of saying that he plans to give Gavi the money that Congress allocated to it, and RFK Jr.’s concerns be damned? 

Whyte: I think a lot of people are reading it that way. You know, the State Department has a very practical view on these things. I also thought the way that Rubio phrased how they were giving Secretary Kennedy a large amount of deference because of his strongly held views on this matter was a very interesting insight into how the Cabinet works and how Trump has instructed his top officials to work together. And I think part of the problem here is that they’re just running into the practicalities of not having an Ebola vaccine. And so the State Department is going to have to do what it feels must be done. 

Rovner: Yeah, it was just a little peek behind the curtain of this intra-agency squabble that’s going on. We’ll wait and see if that happens. 

Whyte: I should say that they don’t have a vaccine for this newest outbreak that is going on. They, you know, the older Ebola vaccine, it was not appropriate to treat this one or to prevent this. 

Rovner: All right. We’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

All right. Our theme this week seems to be federal rulemaking. So, here’s another one. The Trump administration has issued final rules attempting to fix the arbitration system created in the, quote, “No Surprises Act” 鈥 that it is safe to say has not worked as it was designed by Congress. Margot, remind us what went haywire with the process that’s actually in practice [to] dramatically increase what providers get paid, and will these new rules make it all better?  

Sanger-Katz: So this is a system supposed to solve the problem of surprise medical billing when you, say, go to the emergency room and some doctor treats you, and it turns out that that doctor didn’t take your insurance and sends you a huge bill. So the law did away with that, basically said no one is allowed to send you a huge bill in that situation, and then it created a system on the back end for the insurance company and the doctor to kind of fight it out and figure out what the doctor was going to get paid if they didn’t have a contract with that insurance company. And the expectation of Congress was that this is a system that would be used fairly rarely, that most of the time this would be negotiated between the parties; they would just decide on a price and work it out, but every once in a while there would be a rare case where they would need to litigate their dispute. And it would go, they set up this arbitration system where a neutral arbiter, usually a lawyer, but not always, would hear arguments from each side and decide who had the more reasonable position, and would have to choose between the two bids. They couldn’t negotiate any further, but, you know, the doctor would say, This was a very complicated case, I deserve $10,000. And the insurance company would say, No, no, no, like, normally for this kind of visit we pay $500. And the arbitrator would have to decide which is more reasonable: $10,000 or $500. 

What’s happened, I think, to the surprise of a lot of people, is that instead of 17,000 of these cases going to arbitration, which is what CMS expected when the law passed, more than a million are going through a year. There has just been an explosion of cases coming through the system. Lots and lots of medical disputes are now being decided using this process, and the doctors are winning almost all of the time. I think in the last quarter for which there is data, 88% of these arbitration claims are being decided in favor of doctors. And because of that, the doctors, in many cases, have started getting more aggressive in what they ask for. Because they keep winning, there is not really an incentive to say that price is normally $500. They’re much more likely now to ask for $10,000 than early on in the system, where maybe they were asking for $1,000. And so we’re seeing some really eye-popping awards. Not all of them; there are a fair number of awards that are, you know, within a reasonable number of multiples of what the normal price is. But there are an increasing number where doctors are just getting huge, huge, huge increases over what you would expect. And my colleague Sarah Kliff and I wrote a story a few weeks ago about a plastic surgeon in New York and New Jersey who was routinely collecting fees of hundreds of thousands of dollars for breast reduction surgeries that he had previously accepted payments of around $10,000 from the same insurer prior to this law going into place. So big problems. Lots of complaints from insurers, as you can imagine, and also from employers who, in many cases, are actually paying the bills for their workers’ health insurance directly, because they have these self-insured ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974] plans. 

This rule that just came out is not getting at the real, like, meat of the system, how the arbitration works, and what&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;how the arbitrators make their decisions. But it’s dealing with, like, a lot of, like, technical issues about, you know, how do you submit paperwork? What kind of information do you provide? Is it all in one computer system? How can you make sure that you have identified the right insurance company? And what are the administrative fees that you pay when you want to initiate one of these claims? And so this is a very hot issue. I wrote this one story, and, like, everyone is just really worked up about it. The doctors are really worked up about it, the insurers are really worked up about it, the arbitrators are really worked, you know, everyone feels strongly about this law, and whether it’s going well or not well, or what changes or they want or don’t want. Everybody loved this rule. As far as I can tell, there have been, like, basically no complaints about this rule. The one complaint I’ve seen is that they lowered the fee to file a new case, and so I think people who feel like there are too many of these cases would like it to be a little harder to file a new case. But, in general, it seems like these were expected, helpful, technical upgrades that are just going to make the process work a little bit more smoothly and deal with some of the annoying administrative headaches. 

Rovner: But not address the deeper problem. 

Sanger-Katz: The bigger issues, I think, really do require the involvement of Congress. If Congress wants to revisit the law and change the way that this overall system is structured, they’re probably going to have to write new legislation. And I’m not sure how large the appetite is for that right now. 

Rovner: Yeah, I’m not going to hold my breath on that one. All right, that’s as much news as we have time for this week. Now, we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Lauren Sausser, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast 麻豆女优 Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month.” Hi, Lauren. 

Lauren Sausser: Hi. 

Rovner: So, this month’s patient got caught in one of those fights between the insurance company and the hospital, and, of course, it turned out to be harder to untangle it than it should have been. Tell us who she was, what happened to her, what kind of care she needed. 

Sausser: Sure, so Jan Anderson is a 65-year-old woman who splits her time between Arizona and Washington state. And Jan was hiking with her husband about a year ago in Arizona. They were in Sedona. And later that afternoon 鈥 it might have even been pushing into early evening 鈥 she started repeating herself. So she asked her husband, Did we hike today? And he said, Yes, we hiked. And then a few seconds later she asked the exact same question, Did we hike today? And it was clear almost immediately that Jan needed to be seen. So her husband drove her to a freestanding ER in the Sedona area, and that facility assessed her but was not equipped to deal with patients who might be experiencing stroke. They didn’t know what was happening with Jan at this point, so she was airlifted to a hospital in the Phoenix area, where she was admitted. And they ran a bunch of different tests and images, and it turns out she wasn’t having a stroke, she was having, she was experiencing an episode of something that’s called temporary [transient] global amnesia 鈥 which, the good news is, is benign, and as the name suggests, temporary. But her hospital bill ended up being quite a lot, even though it was less of an emergency than they originally thought. 

Rovner: Well, of course, that’s what they always tell you: If you’re having symptoms, you should go to the emergency room. So, she did have insurance, right? So, why did the hospital in Phoenix think that she didn’t? And how much was the bill? 

Sausser: OK, so the total bill was $59,181. That’s just for the care she received at the hospital in the Phoenix area. She did have insurance. She was insured through Molina [Healthcare], and it was a plan that she had purchased through the federal healthcare.gov marketplace. For some reason, though, her insurance information was not transferred from that freestanding ER in Sedona to the facility where she was airlifted in the Phoenix area. So it was a mistake, but that second facility billed her as if she was a self-pay patient with no health insurance. 

Rovner: Now, once the hospital did figure out that she had insurance, why did the insurance company then still reject the claim? 

Sausser: It took a while to get some answers on this, but eventually Jan learned that Molina was not going to cover the cost of that care she received in Phoenix, because the Phoenix hospital had not sought prior authorization for her to be admitted. Now, under the federal No Surprises Act, emergency services are supposed to be paid for in-network without prior authorization. In this case, the insurer was saying Yes, we do cover emergency services without prior authorization, but in this case her care team was recommending that she be admitted. And the insurer argued that the insurance company needed to be notified before that happened. 

Rovner: So, I know I ask this question all the time: Why didn’t the No Surprises bill [Act] get the patient out of the middle of this obvious insurance company hospital dispute?  

Sausser: This&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;in this case, the No Surprises Act kind of worked. Jan received a bill pretty early on saying she owed about $15,000 of that $59,000 total charge. After she told the hospital that she did indeed have coverage, that bill was suspended. There was no one technically knocking on her door pressuring her to pay any amount of the charges she had accumulated in the Phoenix hospital. But every time she would log on to her patient portal, she would see these outstanding charges. The hospital didn’t understand why the insurance company wouldn’t pay. The insurance company was saying she needed to have had prior authorization, and these charges just weren’t disappearing, and so eventually she started reaching out to insurance commissioners, lawmakers, trying to get someone to pay attention, because she was worried at some point she might owe the hospital $59,000. She couldn’t get these charges resolved, and didn’t understand why. 

Rovner: And what eventually happened? 

Sausser: Well, she eventually contacted us. And, as is often the case when journalists get involved with these health insurance issues, the ball started moving. So Molina started talking to the hospital in the Phoenix area, the Phoenix-area hospital has assured Jan that she will not be billed for any of the $59,000. Even if Molina doesn’t pay, the hospital has assured her that they will write off the balance and that she will not be billed. Jan has asked for that assurance in writing. As of the last time I spoke to her, she hasn’t gotten that, but she has been told she will not have to pay any of it. 

Rovner: So, what’s the takeaway here? I mean, it sounds like, you know, she did everything right, and it seems to be resolved. 

Sausser: It seems to be resolved, although the last I heard the $59,000 in charges haven’t necessarily gone away. I spoke with a patient billing expert about this, and the advice that she gave in a situation like this, you know, when you have a hospital stay, you get all sorts of paperwork in the mail afterward. You get paperwork from the insurer, you get paperwork from the provider. This billing expert recommends that you look at the patient responsibility portion of your explanation of benefits. Now that’s a document that you will get from your insurance company. It should list the charges that the hospital has billed, but it should also list the portion of those charges that the patient is responsible for. In Jan’s case, her explanation of benefits clearly stated that she was not responsible for any of it. Now, that didn’t mean that those $59,000 in charges was automatically disappearing, as this story shows. More than a year later, it’s still not resolved. But it shows you that the insurance company is saying you are not responsible for this bill, in this case. The billing expert that I spoke to recommended that the patient mail or email the explanation of benefits from the insurer to the hospital and show that the patient responsibility is zero, in order to get that balance cleared.  

Rovner: We’ll see if this happens. Lauren Sausser, thank you so much. 

Sausser: Of course, thanks for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Alice, why don’t you start us off this week? 

Ollstein: Yeah, I have a very interesting piece from The New York Times by Simar Bajaj, and it’s called “.” And it is about the trend we’re seeing under the MAHA movement, largely, you know, expressed by Secretary Kennedy, back towards putting a lot of focus on personal responsibility, personal lifestyle choices, and less focus on policy and environmental factors. And it’s, you know, digging into the history of that on a few different fronts, both with, you know, infectious diseases, but also with things like obesity. And it is talking about basically how we’re seeing a return to a system that didn’t really work before, which is, you know, basically browbeating and shaming people into healthier behaviors that did not work in the past. And yet we are sort of attempting to revive that, and part of that is a reaction to the fact that trying to move away from that also hasn’t seemed to work either. So it really explores these, the different history of these approaches in public health. 

Rovner: That’s why public health will continue to be studied. Margot. 

Sanger-Katz: I want to suggest an article in ProPublica from Alec MacGillis called “.” I’ve been interested in the public health problem of gun deaths for many years, and I have to admit that Alec in the story has tackled an issue that I just wasn’t watching. I think it’s, like, one of these other things that has a little bit slipped beneath the radar, because the Trump administration makes so much news. But they, through the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which regulates firearms and firearms dealers, has really loosened up a lot of the restrictions that the Biden administration had put in place to try to prevent the trafficking of illegal guns onto the streets of American cities, where a lot of crime happens. And the story sort of looks at those policy changes and what it means for gun dealers and for people who buy guns. And I think it is too soon to tell whether these policy changes will have an effect on violence and gun deaths on the streets. I think it takes, in many cases, a long time for illegal guns to kind of get out there and be used for crimes. But we have been in this period of really merciful reduction in the crime rate and the murder rate in many American cities for the last few years, and I do think that Alec raises the question that if we are seeing more guns on the streets of the future, whether those declines can be sustained.  

Rovner: Liz. 

Whyte: My choice is from my colleagues Anna Wilde Mathews and Christopher Weaver at The Wall Street Journal, and it’s entitled “.” And it’s a really great look at how there are all these providers that have really exploited this new and growing segment of therapy for kids with autism, which is obviously a growing diagnosis, such that you have, you know, this mom in New Jersey who hears that she can get a no-out-of-pocket-cost treatment for her son and has someone come a few days a week, three or four hours of therapy, and winds up with a bill for more than $900,000, which is obviously a nightmare. So we had previously looked, The Wall Street Journal had, [at] Medicaid billing abuse with these autism therapy services, and found that it was a huge issue. And then this is a look at kind of the private insurance sector, where all these providers are charging private insurance a lot, and when an insurer says, No, we’re not going to pay that, some of these bills end up falling on the families, which is really tragic. About 40 large employers, covering 3.5 million people, their expenses for autism therapy doubled from 2021 to 2025, to $108 million. The Wall Street Journal looked at a bill that was $30,000 for one kid to get autism therapy for one day; it’s actually quite insane. So, kudos to my colleagues for writing about this.  

Sanger-Katz: Can I share one fact from this article that really struck me? 

Rovner: Sure. 

Sanger-Katz: One of the things that these reporters did that I thought was so smart is they documented the growth in the autism services workforce. So, the number of people who are providing this kind of behavioral therapy to children with autism is now larger than the workforce of the U.S. Postal Service. That’s according to a tweet from Derek Thompson, who compared the numbers. But it is kind of astonishing, the growth, not just in the Medicaid spending, not just in private insurance spending, not just in some of these unjustifiable bills that individuals have faced, but also that this is now a huge part of the American workforce is serving in this specific industry right now.  

Rovner: And if this story sounds familiar, it’s because we had a different autism therapy abuse story last week as one of our extra credits. It was written by Margot here, and Sarah Kliff. Yeah, a burgeoning source for reporters to plumb. My extra credit this week is a joint investigation between my colleagues here at 麻豆女优 Health News and the AP. It’s called “Festering Infections to Untreated Cancer: ICE Detainees Describe Medical Neglect Across US.” The team of six reporters and analysts dug through court records to document that hundreds of immigration detainees in 33 states have filed suit, charging that they were denied adequate medical care. Quoting from the story, “Requests for help went unanswered for weeks, blood sugars rose, infections festered, cancers remained untreated, detainees collapsed and had seizures.” And there’s not even anyone to complain to. Officially, the administration shut down the office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman earlier this year. The story is really infuriating and worth reading in its entirety. 

OK, that is this week’s news. Thanks to our editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. We also had production help this week from Taylor Cook. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts 鈥 as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me on X , or on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging these days? Alice. 

Ollstein: I am on Bluesky , and on X . 

Rovner: Liz. 

Whyte: I am , and on X , and Signal: JournoLiz.80. 

Rovner: Margot. 

Sanger-Katz: I am @sangerkatz at , and on Signal. If you want to send me tips, I’m @sangerkatz.01. 

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Taylor Cook Audio producer
Stephanie Stapleton Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From 麻豆女优 Health News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

麻豆女优 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 麻豆女优鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-449-medicaid-work-rules-exemptions-june-4-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2244767&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2244767
Louisiana鈥檚 Reporting Law Chills Immigrant Medicaid Applications /medicaid/immigrants-medicaid-children-applications-louisiana-crackdown-citizenship/ Thu, 04 Jun 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2244790 Yolibeth’s 4-year-old daughter scrambled headfirst onto a cushy leather love seat at their home near New Orleans and pushed a hairbrush into the hands of Miriam Romero, a health coordinator who works with the family. Romero placed the girl in her lap and started brushing her dark hair.

Yolibeth, a 38-year-old single mother who moved to South Louisiana from Honduras 15 years ago, watched them, smiling. The daughter is the youngest of five children living in this mixed-status household. Yolibeth and her two oldest kids don’t have legal immigration status, but the other three 鈥 ages 4, 9, and 13 鈥 were born in the U.S. and are citizens.

All of her U.S.-born kids were enrolled in Medicaid at birth, which made it affordable for her to take them to the doctor for regular checkups when they were little. Her oldest two, ages 15 and 17, have never had health insurance, so Yolibeth relies on low-cost community clinics when she can afford it.

But now she worries that healthcare access for all of her children is slipping away. Yolibeth has been waiting for months to hear whether any of her children’s Medicaid renewal applications  has been approved. She fears they will be denied because of a new Louisiana law targeting noncitizen Medicaid enrollees, even though she isn’t applying for herself. She worries particularly about her 4-year-old’s access to routine care and required childhood vaccines.

“鈥奍 cannot access the same services, and so my child is not getting what she needs to grow healthy,” Yolibeth said in Spanish as her daughter giggled on the love seat.

Verite News and 麻豆女优 Health News agreed to not use Yolibeth’s full name, because she is worried about repercussions related to her immigration status.

Two women stand side-by-side, each with an arm around the other, and face away from the camera toward a building.
Romero (left) welcomes a community member to Familias Unidas en Acción’s office in New Orleans in April. (Christiana Botic/Verite News and CatchLight Local/Report for America)

Romero, who works for a local immigrant advocacy group, said that in a single week she received calls from eight immigrant families who had been denied after applying for Medicaid on behalf of children who are citizens.

“Because of the law that passed in Louisiana, children are losing their Medicaid every day,” Romero said in Spanish. “The more time that goes by, the more children are impacted by it.”

Romero said that all children from mixed-status families are likely to be denied Medicaid by the end of the year.

Missing Out on Care

Nationally, many immigrants said they skipped or delayed healthcare last year, citing issues including costs, struggles finding services, and fears about their or a family member’s immigration status, by 麻豆女优 and The New York Times. Immigrants without legal status were the most likely to skip or delay care for themselves or their children. An increasing number of immigrants avoided applying for programs like Medicaid, too scared to risk drawing attention to their or a family member’s immigration status, even if they were eligible.

In Louisiana, where about a third of residents are enrolled in Medicaid, the has added to those fears. The law requires the Louisiana Department of Health to verify Medicaid applicants’ U.S. citizenship, terminate coverage for applicants with “unsatisfactory” proof of status, and report those applicants to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Since the measure passed in Louisiana, similar bills have passed in North Carolina, Wyoming, Indiana, and Tennessee. At least three other states were considering similar measures this year.

State Rep. Chance Keith Henry, a Republican who sponsored the Louisiana bill, did not return calls or emails from Verite News seeking comment on the effects of the law. He said in last year’s state House floor debate that he didn’t anticipate any chilling effect on immigrants seeking healthcare. He also said that children born in the U.S. to parents without legal status would still receive Medicaid.

“This is making sure that American citizens and our taxpayers are taken care of and not illegal immigrants,” he said in the May 2025 floor debate.

State health officials said Medicaid applicants can’t be reported to ICE under the law without a formal investigation request by “the appropriate authorities.” Otherwise, reporting applicants without their consent would violate federal Medicaid and privacy laws.

But immigrant rights advocates say the law has had a chilling effect on applications and has led to immigrant families losing healthcare and resources they qualify for.

They said cutting off that access compounds the fear created by immigration enforcement crackdowns in states including and Minnesota, and by federal policy changes such as between ICE and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and for Medicaid.

Advocates said it’s unclear whether the new law has led to any detainments or deportations of people applying for Medicaid or other public benefit programs. But Aaron Moseley-Saldívar, a legal and public policy adviser with the Louisiana Organization for Refugees and Immigrants, said the legislative and policy changes act as a deterrent to immigrant families, even if they qualify for Medicaid as a legal resident, refugee, or asylum seeker, or have another form of legal status.

“鈥奝eople are not applying for things that they probably otherwise would be eligible for, because they are intimidated by these laws and they’re worried that they’re going to get caught up in the system,” Moseley-Saldívar said. “鈥奩ou have a large amount of people in Louisiana that are not leaving their homes at all, because they’re afraid of policies like this.”

Moseley-Saldívar said he believes the Louisiana law and similar policies are primarily aimed at removing people from state services. The state legislature passed a on May 27 to build on the 2025 law. It seeks to further narrow which noncitizens are qualified for public benefits in Louisiana, even though such restrictions for Medicaid are typically governed at the federal level.

The Louisiana Department of Health’s on the new law does not contain any data on applicants reported to ICE since the law took effect last August. But by February of this year, the state had terminated the coverage of 87% of enrollees who had unverified immigration or citizenship status as of June 2025.

From July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, according to the report, 1% of the 1.6 million people in Louisiana enrolled in Medicaid weren’t citizens, and fewer than 4,000 had an unclear immigration status.

A view from outside looking into a building through a door with screen where a woman stands with her hand to the door as if she's about to push it open.
Romero says that all children from mixed-status families in Louisiana are likely to be denied Medicaid by the end of the year. (Christiana Botic/Verite News and CatchLight Local/Report for America)

鈥楢 Double-Edged Sword’

Late last year, more than 600 people lined up at 4 a.m. outside a Louisiana Organization for Refugees and Immigrants health fair, hoping to receive a free health checkup, said Sharon Njie, the nonprofit’s communications and strategic partners director. The fair was scheduled to begin at 9 a.m.

“鈥奧e had to start calling the doctors to see if they could come there at 7 a.m., because these people have been waiting for two hours in the cold,” Njie said. “We were so overwhelmed.”

Romero said some families in the New Orleans area have been waiting six months to vaccinate their children at one of the free events put on by healthcare providers. But she said fewer free health events for children have been scheduled, and even fewer for adults. For many of the residents she works with, Romero said, preventive care such as a Pap smear or prostate screening is out of reach.

“The challenge right now is a double-edged sword of people not going to the doctor out of fear but also ending up in an emergency that is too hard to treat,” Romero said. “It’s a life-or-death situation.”

For families with no other option, Njie and Romero try to connect people to doctors sympathetic to the immigrants’ plight and willing to absorb the cost of care or offer a discount, such as medical providers who are immigrants themselves.

But that does not address the systemic problems of immigrant access to healthcare created by the state law and federal immigration policies, or the lower quality of care for those who seek it. For example, one local New Orleans clinic, Luke’s House, caters to Spanish-speakers and immigrants, though it’s staffed largely by medical students, Romero said, so the level of care isn’t the same.

A close-up of hands holding several colorful brochures.
Romero says some families in the New Orleans area have been waiting six months to vaccinate their children at one of the free events put on by healthcare providers. (Christiana Botic/Verite News and CatchLight Local/Report for America)

While she waits for word on three of her kids’ Medicaid applications, Yolibeth secured a free insurance plan for them on the Louisiana Affordable Care Act marketplace, she said. But she hasn’t found any doctors who will accept the coverage, she said, leaving them effectively uninsured.

When her 13-year-old son recently fell ill, she wanted to take him to a pediatrician. But she said she couldn’t afford the $200 the appointment would have cost, plus any tests and medication.

Without a doctor’s note to provide proof of his illness, she said, she had to send her sick son to school, potentially exposing other children to a virus. Earlier in the school year, she was called into the school’s office after he missed five days because of illness. In Louisiana, truancy can be punishable with parental fines, community service, or jail.

Romero said if enough school is missed because of sickness, a criminal case could lead to family separation.

“That is unthinkable,” she said. “All because a family could not afford to take a child to see the doctor as opposed to these things being guaranteed to begin with.”

麻豆女优 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 麻豆女优鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/medicaid/immigrants-medicaid-children-applications-louisiana-crackdown-citizenship/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2244790&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2244790
Michigan Found a Way To Reduce School Vaccine Waivers. Until It Backfired. /public-health/vaccinations-school-vaccine-waivers-michigan-measles-covid-lockdowns/ Wed, 03 Jun 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2237612 PORT HURON, Mich. 鈥 State health officials urged parents in several counties to vaccinate babies against measles ahead of schedule this spring as cases multiplied in Michigan. The outbreaks of the highly contagious virus 鈥 which can lead to brain swelling, deafness, and death 鈥 came as parents are opting school-age kids out of vaccinations at a record-high rate.

It’s a situation state officials have spent more than a decade trying to avoid. For years, they’ve been trying to make it harder for parents to send their kids to school unvaccinated.

But those efforts have backfired in places like St. Clair County, in Michigan’s conservative Thumb region. Remington Nevin, the county’s medical director, has declared “a new era of vaccine choice.” Local parents there can now bypass the usual protocols and get school vaccine waivers via email, days after they fill out a brief digital form.

State health officials aren’t fighting it.

A man sits in front of a microphone with a name placard in front of him that reads "Dr. Remington Nevin, Medical Director"
Remington Nevin is the medical director for the St. Clair County Health Department in Michigan. The county is the first in the state to make vaccine waivers available to parents entirely online. Parents who have “felt pressured” into getting vaccines “are going to experience a new era of vaccine choice in St. Clair County,” Nevin said at a January board meeting. (Kate Wells/麻豆女优 Health News)

In fact, Michigan’s health agency has been helping more than 30 counties move away from a state policy once credited with sharply reducing the number of parents who opted their kids out of shots.

In 2015, the state started requiring parents seeking waivers to first attend a vaccine education session, in person, at their local health department.

But in the post-covid era, local health officials say, the sessions became hostile, ineffective, and sometimes even unsafe for staff. One high school called police last fall over an escalating dispute with parents who refused to obtain a state-recognized waiver for their children, with a sheriff’s deputy warning the parents that they could face criminal charges.

In response, the state has helped create a hybrid waiver process for dozens of counties, allowing parents to take a brief vaccine education course online while still requiring they get their waivers signed in person. It’s part of a broader shift in strategy in a state that had some of the most polarizing and covid restrictions.

At Michigan schools where only 30% to 40% of students are now vaccinated, it is “simply not possible to keep diseases like measles at bay,” said , the state’s chief medical officer. “And when one of these measles cases ends up in a low-immunization community, that’s when the ember really has a chance to expand and become a wildfire.”

A Short-Lived Success Story

In 2014, Michigan had the in the country.

Health officials suspected some parents were just signing waivers during the stress of school registration, not because of a deeply held conviction.

“鈥極ops, I forgot to do this. I’m just going to sign a waiver and be done with it,’” said Norm Hess, executive director of the . “That’s not really the way we want parents to make decisions on this issue.”

Around that time, national headlines were focused on a Disneyland-linked measles outbreak in which were infected. California cracked down, becoming the first state in decades to end .

With Republicans then in control of the Michigan Legislature and governor’s office, health officials found a side door. They created an saying nonmedical waivers required certification by the local health department “that the individual received education on the risks of not receiving the vaccines being waived and the benefits of vaccination to the individual and the community.”

“We were not aware of the rule until the day it happened,” Suzanne Waltman, president of Michigan for Vaccine Choice, . “We thought it was a stealth move.”

At first, it seemed to work. Kindergarten waiver rates in 2015. “Kids were protected more from these vaccine-preventable diseases,” Hess said.

But after that year, waiver rates started rebounding. When the pandemic hit five years later, immunization rates plunged.

A portrait of a man wearing a black shirt standing in front of a bookcase
Juan Marquez is the medical director for Washtenaw and Livingston counties in Michigan. He says the in-person education sessions the state required for parents seeking vaccine waivers for their children became ineffective 鈥 and unsafe for staff. (Kate Wells/麻豆女优 Health News)

鈥楢n Unsafe Setting’ for Medical Staff

Juan Marquez is the medical director of a county where a measles outbreak sickened several people this spring, but even he wouldn’t want to do those in-person sessions again.

“It was really creating an unsafe setting, actually, for our nurses,” said Marquez, the medical director for two counties, Livingston and Washtenaw, just west of Detroit.

“Our nurses are just trying to do their job,” Marquez said. “And you can imagine, to have somebody yell at you or just say not nice things to your face and sit through that for hours is demoralizing.”

Washtenaw has had seven measles cases since March and is believed to be the source of an eighth case in a neighboring county. As of May 28, the state had a total of 14 cases this year.

Since the start of the pandemic, waiver requests in Michigan have been increasing.

Tensions over public health became especially high during the state’s covid lockdowns, which critics lambasted as too long and too strict. Republicans , and Donald Trump flipped the state in the 2024 presidential contest.

Some parents felt it was demeaning to have to go in for counseling sessions they perceived as judgmental.

Republican , who represents a district along the state’s southern border, recalled her session, speaking at a in Lansing last year. “I had a very negative experience there, simply because we made decisions as parents and did the research and made the choices that we felt were best for each one of our children.”

That resentment has also made it harder to do basic public health work, like contact tracing for measles cases, Marquez said.

Of the 10,000 vaccine waivers Marquez’s counties have given out in the past 10 years, he said, the education sessions changed the minds of maybe one or two people.

“If we’re not changing folks’ minds, can we do this in a safe way?” Marquez said. “So that was really the idea behind the hybrid model.”

A van with signage that says "Washtenaw County Health Department" is parked in a parking lot next to two orange traffic cones
Washtenaw County health officials used this van to test people for measles during an outbreak this spring, in an effort to reduce potential exposures. Seven people were sickened, including a child under 5. None of those individuals had been vaccinated for measles. (Kate Wells/麻豆女优 Health News)

The Workaround

At first, state immunizations director Ryan Malosh thought dropping the in-person requirement was a bad idea.

He was skeptical when Livingston County health officials said they wanted to replace in-person sessions with a 20-minute online course about the benefits of vaccines and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases.

State health department staffers were worried that if the waiver process became more convenient, more people would get exemptions, which could lead to more outbreaks. And because parents could get a waiver from any local health department, people from across the state might start flooding Livingston County with requests.

“We were worried that this could be sort of a sinkhole,” Malosh said.

It wasn’t. Parents took the online course, then made an appointment at the health department to get their nonmedical waivers signed. Waiver rates increased in Livingston County, but at the same rate they were rising in the rest of the state.

The exterior of an office building with a sign that says "State of Michigan, Department of Health & Human Services"
State health officials urged parents in seven Michigan counties, including Washtenaw, to vaccinate all babies 6 months and older for measles as cases mounted in the spring. Typically, the first dose of the measles vaccine wouldn’t be administered until children are 12 to 15 months old. (Kate Wells/麻豆女优 Health News)

So the state turned to the University of Michigan to create a standardized, online course that any county could use. Parents would go through a 20- to 30-minute course, answering questions about the content, and then be able to get their waivers signed at their local health department office.

Michael Rubyan, a public health associate professor at the university, worked with some 40 public health nurses from throughout the state to design it. They wanted it to be simple and fact-based: Here’s what you should know about these diseases. Here’s how vaccines work. And if there is an outbreak at your school, your kids may have to stay home if they’re not vaccinated.

No judgment. No pressure.

This needed to be a building block in a much longer relationship with local public health, the nurses said. And while this change alone probably won’t lead to a dramatic decrease in waivers, Malosh said, it may start to rebuild some trust. “That then opens the door for further conversations, which maybe then gets these folks vaccinated,” he said.

Hybrid May Not Be Enough

About a third of the state’s counties have adopted the hybrid approach, but the waiver system is still creating confusion and conflict.

Last fall, a dispute over the waiver process involving a St. Clair County family blew up into a local controversy, and school officials asked local law enforcement to get involved.

Although the family lived in St. Clair, the children attended high school in neighboring Macomb County. Macomb had already switched to the hybrid model, but the parents didn’t want to file the documents, because they didn’t want their children’s vaccination status to be known by local health officials at all.

The father, Andrew Eberly, said at a that getting a certified waiver “forces parents like me to register personal health decisions” with an agency they don’t trust. (Eberly did not respond to multiple attempts to contact him via email, via phone, and at his home.)

At one point during the ongoing conflict, school officials asked the sheriff’s department to intervene. A deputy’s conversation with Eberly on Nov. 5 was captured in body-camera footage obtained by 麻豆女优 Health News through a public records request.

The deputy described the counseling requirement as a set of “stupid hoops.”

“I know it’s super inconvenient to go into the health department, go through their stupid 10-minute class for them to tell you something you already know, to sign the waiver,” the deputy said.

But the deputy went on to warn Eberly that if they continued taking their kids to school, despite being repeatedly informed they couldn’t be enrolled without a state-recognized waiver, then they could be charged with contributing to the truancy of minors.

The clash became a local cause célèbre. Nevin, the St. Clair medical director, seized on it 鈥 and the state’s falling immunization rates 鈥 at a public health board meeting as proof that people who mistrust the state’s public health establishment “have sound reasons for doing so.”

A photo of the exterior of an office building with a sign that reads "St. Clair County Health Department"
For years, Michigan has required parents to attend an in-person course to obtain vaccine waivers for their children. State officials are now supporting a hybrid model: Parents take a brief online course but still have to get their waivers signed at the local health department. But St. Clair County is allowing parents to do the whole process online. (Kate Wells/麻豆女优 Health News)
Six members of a board sit at a desk with signage that says "Saint Clair County, Michigan"
Members of the St. Clair County Health Advisory Board at their April meeting, where they discussed the rollout of the online vaccine waiver program. (Kate Wells/麻豆女优 Health News)

So far, state health officials have declined to engage in verbal or legal conflict with Nevin, who has drawn cheers and jeers at public meetings over his vaccine stance. He has also been the subject of at the county health department.

Instead, state officials are stressing the importance of parents understanding the risks that vaccine-preventable diseases, like measles, pose for their kids.

“Local health departments get to decide for themselves in a lot of ways what’s best for their residents,” Malosh said. “And I think that what’s best is to be as upfront as possible, to be as truthful as possible, and to try to give the best information that we have available to us to parents so that they can actually make an informed decision.”

麻豆女优 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 麻豆女优鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/vaccinations-school-vaccine-waivers-michigan-measles-covid-lockdowns/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2237612&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2237612
A Trump Stronghold Grapples With Health Risks of ICE Detention Sites /race-and-health/ice-detention-center-social-circle-georgia-lawsuit-trump-stronghold/ Fri, 29 May 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2242430 SOCIAL CIRCLE, Ga. 鈥 Until recently, this rural city about 45 minutes east of Atlanta was best known for its Blue Willow Inn cookbooks featuring recipes for Southern dishes such as baked pineapple casserole and kudzu blossom jelly.

Lately, however, the community has been trying to stave off a new identity of “prison town” as it fights the opening of what could become the nation’s largest immigration detention center, holding up to 10,000 people.

Walton County, home to this city of about 5,500, voted overwhelmingly for President Donald Trump in 2024. But, as the administration’s mass deportation strategy hits closer to home 鈥 with plans moving forward to transform a more than 1 million-square-foot warehouse into a holding pen 鈥 locals say the city’s infrastructure just can’t handle such an influx of people.

This month, Social Circle in federal court against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The city’s complaint argues that the operation of a detention facility, what it calls a “mega center,” would harm public health, strain the local freshwater and sewage treatment systems, and overburden emergency medical services “due to Social Circle’s modest EMS capacity and DHS’ nebulous plan for emergency transport,” referring to the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE.

“The community is very unified,” City Manager Eric Taylor said. “We want them to go away.”

Social Circle is one of several communities across the country thrust into a charged national debate about the administration’s mass immigrant deportation strategy. On the campaign trail, Trump said migrants were . But local leaders, , advocacy groups, and others in , , , , and claim the administration is doing the same thing by plopping detention centers into communities without the capacity to handle a surge of people.

Last year, Todd Lyons, who is serving as acting director of ICE , described a goal to have the mass deportation operate with the . Deportations would move “like Prime, but with human beings,” he said at a border security expo in Phoenix.

ICE is now putting every person they seek to deport in detention, including those with no criminal records, without the possibility of release on bond. In January, the agency held almost twice as many people as it had that same month in 2024 under President Joe Biden.

However, while many supporters remain aligned with Trump’s immigration stance, some locals fear their city’s stability will be jeopardized. “Social Circle is not exactly flourishing, but it’s making it,” said Gareth Fenley, a retired social worker who ran for state Senate in 2024 as a Democrat and was not among the locals who voted for Trump.

“If Social Circle becomes a prison town,” she said, “we’re gonna lose what we have.”

A strip of old, two-story buildings in a small town.
Social Circle, a city of 5,500 people located about 45 miles east of Atlanta, has filed a lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, claiming that plans to open a massive ICE detention center could threaten the city’s public health and overburden its emergency medical services. (Renuka Rayasam/麻豆女优 Health News)
A woman with long, wavy gray hair, wearing a floral blouse and glasses, sits at a table in a coffee shop. She looks in the direction of the camera with a calm expression.
Gareth Fenley is a retired social worker who lives near Social Circle, Georgia. She ran for state Senate in 2024 as a Democrat and says the city’s concerns about a proposed immigration detention facility resemble those in other communities. (Renuka Rayasam/麻豆女优 Health News)

鈥業 Thought It Was a Joke’

In February, DHS purchased the 235-acre site in Social Circle for nearly five times its assessed value. It plans to house more people there than at the Rikers Island Correctional Facility in New York City, and nearly triple the number of people now housed at the country’s biggest immigration detention facility, which is in El Paso, Texas.

“I thought it was a joke,” said John Miller, when he first read about the plans last year. He and his wife, Kathlene, have lived in Social Circle for 21 years. When they bump into neighbors, Kathlene knows their children’s names, and John can cite the kids’ baseball stats. Their 50-acre horse farm is less than a mile from the elementary school, and right across the street from the detention center site.

The Millers support Trump’s stance on immigration but feel that turning the vacant warehouse into a detention center would re-create the very problems his administration is trying to solve. Whether people are concentrated in a detention center or out in the public, “they’re still there,” John Miller said.

DHS estimates that the facility would require about 1 million gallons of water daily, according to the city’s suit, which alleges that volume would bleed residents’ taps dry and contaminate local streams with sewage. Emergency medical calls from the detention center, the lawsuit claims, would overwhelm the city’s first responders, which Taylor said clock in at 14 firefighters, 15 police officers, and two school resource officers. The city relies on Walton County for ambulance services.

Additionally, Social Circle would live under an ever-present threat of a major disease outbreak, the lawsuit said, adding that the federal government didn’t conduct the needed environmental reviews or solicit community input beforehand.

Taylor said federal officials had only one meeting with local leaders and brushed off concerns about water, sewage, and emergency care, which administration officials said the site wouldn’t need to use. “I don’t buy that,” Taylor said. “And that’s the problem.”

A man with short brown hair wearing a button down shirt and glasses sits at an office desk. He is surrounded by two computers, papers and post-it notes, and a printer.
John Miller sits in his office at JK Design in Social Circle, Georgia. He and his wife, Kathlene, moved to Social Circle 21 years ago and have raised seven kids. (Renuka Rayasam/麻豆女优 Health News)
A photo shows an outdoor parking area of a small town. A sign on a lamp post reads, "welcome to Social Circle." A historic sign in the foreground tells the history of the Hightower Trail.
Social Circle has filed a lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, claiming that plans to open a massive detention center could threaten the city’s public health and overburden its emergency medical services. (Renuka Rayasam/麻豆女优 Health News)

Supercharging Health Concerns

Current DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has said he is reviewing , Kristi Noem, to transform warehouses like this one into detention facilities. And the department’s whether the federal government overpaid for some of the buildings. Mullin also said officials are reviewing agency policies and working with community leaders. “We want to be good partners,” said Lauren Bis, a DHS spokesperson.

Still, the administration’s swift escalation of immigrant detention has exacerbated long-standing allegations of medical neglect for those in custody across the country and led to the in at least two decades.

Three detention facilities in Folkston, Georgia, about an hour north of Jacksonville, Florida, issued 130 emergency calls from Feb. 4, 2025, to Feb. 3, 2026, according to dispatch reports obtained by 麻豆女优 Health News through a public records request. The calls from the facilities, which hold about 2,000 people, were for wide-ranging reasons, including anaphylaxis, assaults, suicide attempts, overdoses, seizures, strokes, head injuries from falls, and other health issues.

GEO Group, ICE’s largest contractor, which runs the Folkston facility, provides “around-the-clock access to medical care” and relies on emergency medical services as needed, said Christopher Ferreira, director of corporate relations.

ERO El Paso Camp East Montana, built on a Texas military base, is currently the nation’s largest detention center and holds about 2,500 people. In the five months from Aug. 17, 2025, to Jan. 20, 2026, about 130 emergency medical calls were made from the site, according to city records. Several detainees have died at the facility; several others have for tuberculosis, measles, or covid-19.

Amentum Services, which recently took over management of the facility, did not respond to questions about emergency calls.

Even bigger detention facilities, such as the “mega center” planned in Social Circle, would only supercharge those health issues and bring them to new communities, said , who was immigration ombudsman at the Department of Homeland Security under Biden. Existing facilities already suffer from staffing shortages, poor ventilation and hygiene, and insufficient medical care, she said.

The proposed facilities are enormous and generally built for boxes, not people, she said. “There’s no way, without extreme cost, both to the community and just in dollars, to make these safe for humans,” she said.

In the meantime, people such as Kathlene Miller said they feel that Social Circle has become “collateral damage” in the larger debate over immigration. “We’re like the children in a divorce,” she said.

But Social Circle may face an uphill battle. Taylor said Walton County leaders and the state of Georgia have been silent on the center.

“They say it’s federal issues, that they have no jurisdiction,” he said. “They don’t have any interest in helping us.”

麻豆女优 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 麻豆女优鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/race-and-health/ice-detention-center-social-circle-georgia-lawsuit-trump-stronghold/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2242430&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2242430
Montana Hurries To Adopt Trump鈥檚 Medicaid Work Rules Amid Budget Woes /medicaid/medicaid-work-requirements-trump-montana-budget-shortfalls/ Wed, 27 May 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2239927 Montana plans to be one of the first states to enforce President Donald Trump’s work mandate for Medicaid enrollees, adding another challenge for state health officials trying to plug a massive budget hole.

Clinicians and patient advocates say the incoming changes will deliver a twofold blow: They expect the work requirements to kick more patients off Medicaid, meaning fewer can afford care, while the health department’s budget problems make it harder for doctors to serve those who keep the coverage.

It’s a tumultuous time for state health departments. Additional federal changes are forcing states to perform more checks on who qualifies for food assistance, better monitor doctors’ compliance with Medicaid rules, and set up new programs to access a share of $50 billion in federal funds meant to improve rural health services.

“Our concern is, is the department ready?” said Jean Branscum, CEO of the Montana Medical Association. “Does the capacity exist for all this to be done right and ensure that patients don’t pay the price?”

Already, some Montanans struggle to access the government health coverage amid state backlogs. Meanwhile, clinicians struggle with staffing, attributing the issue to low Medicaid payments. Those problems reflect a national challenge to connect people to care through strained public assistance programs.

The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services didn’t respond to a list of questions, instead directing 麻豆女优 Health News to the latest information on the state’s website detailing Medicaid changes, at .

Health policy analysts have said Montana’s challenges offer an early glimpse at what states must navigate to comply with congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Signed by Trump last year, the federal tax and spending law requires millions of Medicaid enrollees to prove they’re working or attending school for 80 hours each month, unless they’re eligible for an exemption. States also will be required to evaluate enrollees’ eligibility every six months instead of annually, which will take more time and money. Some states already don’t have enough staff to quickly process Medicaid applications or answer enrollees’ phone calls.

On July 1, Montana is scheduled to become the second state, after Nebraska, to implement Medicaid work requirements. That’s six months ahead of the Jan. 1 federal deadline to do so for the 42 states, along with the District of Columbia, that expanded Medicaid to cover more low-income people. Montana health officials say they’ve had time to plan for that shift. The state mandated work rules in 2019 but hadn’t gained federal approval to move ahead until now.

More states are likely to face a budget crunch soon, said Joan Alker, a Georgetown University researcher focused on health coverage.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending 鈥 the biggest pool of federal cash states receive 鈥 by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years. The law also left states with a bigger share of the cost to run food assistance programs, while creating tax breaks that could lower states’ bottom lines.

“States are the ones that are gonna have to do the dirty work of implementing cuts,” Alker said.

Withholding Medicaid Provider Rate Increases

On top of federal changes, Montana lawmakers underfunded the health department in its two-year budget in 2025, the result of cuts and an underestimate of Medicaid enrollment. The state also overestimated how much the federal government would contribute toward Montana’s Medicaid costs this year.

That resulted in a $183 million shortfall in state and federal funds, requiring the health department to borrow from next year’s budget. To partially offset those costs, the department wants to withhold a 3% Medicaid provider rate increase approved by the legislature and governor last year. State officials have said they’re trying save money without unraveling services.

Health organizations have pushed against the plan, saying that Montana’s Medicaid payments already don’t cover the cost of care and that health businesses can’t afford wages that attract workers.

Matt Bugni, head of the statewide nonprofit Aware, which provides behavioral health and disability services, said the organization was counting on incoming increases to keep existing employees amid a staff shortage. Bugni said Aware has more than 70 group-home beds it’s been unable to fill, because it’s down roughly 15% of its workforce.

“There are waiting lists,” he said. “We just can’t staff it.”

Montana health organizations said they’re still recovering from 2017 budget cuts that buckled services. The largely disappeared, more than half of Montana’s public assistance offices , and mental health crisis centers closed.

“We still are struggling,” said Sierra Riesberg, head of the Montana Behavioral Health Alliance, a nonprofit advocacy group.

In 2023, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, a Republican, signed into law a investment to repair the state’s behavioral health and disability services. He also created an initiative to use Medicaid funding to fill in gaps in addiction treatment programs.

But Riesberg said that, despite improvements, some beds created through those initiatives remain empty because low Medicaid reimbursement rates make it hard to recruit staff.

The stalled increases would especially hit community-based services such as mental health treatment and developmental disability services. They wouldn’t affect physician services or federally funded health centers that offer care based on what patients can afford. But Lander Cooney, an executive vice president at One Health, which has rural clinics in rural Montana and Wyoming, said low reimbursement rates can hurt their patients who need care elsewhere, as more healthcare providers decide they can’t afford to accept Medicaid.

Montana’s Legislative Finance Committee recommended the state’s leadership find a way to cut costs without stalling the increases. Gianforte will have the final say. He must make that decision before the state begins its new budget year on July 1, the same day Medicaid work requirements begin.

Medicaid enrollees will have three months to show they’re working before the state begins dropping people for noncompliance in October. That gives the state time “to work out the bugs,” said state Rep. Ed Buttrey, a Republican who is also president of the Montana Hospital Association.

鈥楥ompletely in the Dark’

The work requirements won’t apply to everyone. There are exemptions for people who are severely sick, children, adults older than 64, and Native Americans, among others. Even so, most people will have to submit proof that For some, how to do that remains murky.

Health officials don’t have clear-cut definitions for medical conditions on the exemption list. They’re also awaiting federal guidance on what documents someone needs to prove a hardship that temporarily prevents them from working. “Providers are completely in the dark as to how we reduce the administrative burden,” said Shawna Yates, a family medicine doctor in Butte and president of the Montana Medical Association’s executive committee.

Health officials have said implementing work requirements early means figuring out some details as they go.

Montana’s Medicaid enrollment is at its lowest point in roughly a decade, , a consulting firm that has studied the state’s Medicaid program for years. Enrollment plummeted amid states’ scramble to determine whether tens of millions of people still qualified for Medicaid when the federal government lifted a pandemic-era disenrollment freeze in 2023.

Many primarily because of rather than ineligibility. National health advocates worry similar administrative problems will arise with implementing work requirements.

In Montana, the state’s Medicaid data signals continued red flags, according to a by the nonprofit Montana Budget and Policy Center. That includes long waits to access public assistance and low renewal rates due to paperwork issues.

Julie Anderson, a mental health and addiction counselor in Livingston, Montana, helps people navigate public aid at a food bank. She said she recently spent three hours on hold on the state’s public assistance helpline, trying to help a patient with limited cellphone minutes troubleshoot a Medicaid application. Anderson said she had to hang up to help other people before anyone answered.

“It’s already a cumbersome system,” she said. Once the new requirements go in place, Anderson added, “it’s going to be a nightmare.”

The health department has worked for months to expand its public assistance team. As of early March, Montana had filled 39 of 59 new positions state officials projected are needed for the intensified Medicaid eligibility checks.

“The problem with that is that it takes a lot of training to get caseworkers up to speed,” said Kim Winchell, who helps people enroll in health coverage at Glacier Community Health Center in Cut Bank.

State officials said they’ll try to automatically confirm through existing data whether people are exempt or meet the rules. When that doesn’t work, applicants will have 30 days to provide proof of eligibility.

Charlie Brereton, director of the Montana health department, told lawmakers in May that the agency considered a public service campaign to get the word out. But he said the state’s budget problems curtailed that idea.

Brereton said the state could reevaluate that option, “depending on how implementation goes.”

麻豆女优 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 麻豆女优鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/medicaid/medicaid-work-requirements-trump-montana-budget-shortfalls/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2239927&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2239927
Trump鈥檚 $50B Rural Health Bet Meets a Healthcare Desert in North Carolina /rural-health/rural-health-fund-hospital-closures-north-carolina-martin-general/ Fri, 22 May 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2236968

WILLIAMSTON, N.C. — Two years after her brother’s death, Debra Pierce still wonders whether the 50-year-old would have survived his heart attack if her local hospital hadn’t closed.

“The sad thing is we’ll never know if he could have been saved that night or not, because we don’t have a higher level of care in this county,” Pierce said as she stood outside the mobile home where she last hugged her brother.

Emergency crews from a neighboring town worked on Stanley Sears for a half hour but couldn’t revive him for the long drive to the closest hospital, records show.

In the tall grass — which would be mowed if Sears were still alive — Pierce swiped through the photos on her phone. She stopped at a picture that showed Sears smiling. Pierce chuckled and then sighed: “Bless him.”

A man takes a selfie, smiling. His sister is behind him.
Stanley Sears and sister Debra Pierce at a Walmart. Sears died after a heart attack in North Carolina’s Martin County the year after the 2023 closure of Martin General Hospital. (Stanley Sears)

The local hospital had closed a year before Sears’ death, leaving behind a gutted healthcare system. Martin County does not have paramedics on its ambulances, and it can be 20 miles or more to the closest — and often overcrowded — emergency rooms.

The healthcare gaps in Martin County illustrate the finite reach of a $50 billion rural health fund that Republicans crafted to strengthen support for President Donald Trump’s signature tax and spending measure, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, last year. Though the cash has not been doled out, Republican candidates in competitive midterm elections — including the closely watched battle for the congressional district that encompasses Martin County — are casting the fund as a lifeline that will shore up critical rural health services across America.

The money has been highly anticipated in North Carolina, where most residents live in rural counties. Pierce, a Republican who blames county officials for the hospital closure, said she has faith Trump will help them. “Old man’s doing his job up in there,” she said.

On paper, Martin County — home to about 22,000 people — looks like a top contender to receive at least some of the $213 million that’s been earmarked for North Carolina.

Yet County Manager Drew Batts said it won’t be the answer for his residents.

“The $50 billion is not something that is specifically going to help our situation,” Batts said as he walked into the shuttered hospital in April. “It’s not going to help us get this place reopened.”

Martin County won’t get direct relief from Trump’s rural health fund — because its hospital isn’t open. North Carolina is distributing the money among existing health and social service organizations. Plus, federal regulators on how much can be spent on construction and building renovations.

A man stands indoors. He stands next to a decorated bulletin board. It reads, "Meet your MGH surgical crew." Below it are sets of photos of hospital staff. The man points with a pen to a photo of a woman.
Martin County Manager Drew Batts stands inside the shuttered Martin General Hospital in Williamston, North Carolina, and points to a picture of his wife, who worked there as operating room nurse manager. (Sarah Jane Tribble/麻豆女优 Health News)

‘We Can Only Pray’

Martin General Hospital closed abruptly in 2023, surprising employees and shocking patients, who had to be wheeled out on stretchers and transported elsewhere to finish treatment. The closure even stunned local elected leaders, who say the company operating the county-owned hospital, Quorum Health, did not notify them it intended to shut down operations and file for bankruptcy. Quorum spokesperson Lisa Anderson said the company had told county commissioners of the hospital’s ongoing financial challenges.

Politicians have spent the years since trying to reopen the hospital, with county taxpayers pouring an estimated $2.9 million into maintenance, utilities, and other costs in the hopes of resuming operations, Batts said.

The county is now considering spending at least $1.5 million, he said, to create two higher-level paramedic units with quick-response vehicles, specially equipped with electrocardiogram equipment or other “advanced lifesaving support.”

Pierce said she is praying the county can add paramedics and reopen the hospital.

“There’s some answered prayers happening every day,” she said. “So, we can only pray and hope, you know?”

A woman holds up her phone, showing work being done on a mobile home.
Debra Pierce holds up a picture of Stanley Sears, her brother, while standing in the yard of the mobile home he was renovating before his death in 2024. Pierce believes North Carolina’s Martin County needs higher-level emergency services and a hospital. (Sarah Jane Tribble/麻豆女优 Health News)

‘They Just Want To Not Die’

With its nine hospitals, the region’s largest health system is ECU Health, connected to East Carolina University. The system has become a de facto safety net for 29 counties. Batts and Brian Floyd, the Greenville-based system’s chief operating officer, have lobbied state and federal lawmakers, walking them through the shuttered hospital and asking for help.

“It’s a real healthcare crisis that has already proven itself to have lost lives that perhaps didn’t have to be lost,” Floyd said. “They just want to not die because there’s nowhere to go when you have an emergency.”

Eleisa Ann Evans drove 2½ hours from a small town near the Outer Banks on a recent evening so her aunt could get care at an ECU Health ER in Greenville. Once there, Evans said, staff told her to leave her 79-year-old aunt in the waiting room and wait outside because of capacity issues.

Evans said she was outraged at the way the staff treated her. She said she had been standing behind her aunt’s wheelchair while inside and “wasn’t using nobody’s chair.”

With Martin General gone, all the surrounding counties are “also in jeopardy,” Floyd said. “No one knows what to do” with that large of a healthcare “desert,” he said.

In North Carolina, a Healthcare 'Desert' After Hospital Closure (Locator map)

What healthcare is left in the county includes one urgent care center, run by a private company, and a nonprofit health clinic, operated by Agape Health Services, which accepts patients from five counties and plans to build another primary care clinic to meet demand.

ECU Health signed a letter of intent to reopen Martin General as a rural emergency hospital that would provide outpatient care as well as an ER. Under the terms of the deal, Martin County would pay to refurbish the hospital, and the North Carolina General Assembly would have to give ECU Health $210 million, of which $150 million would pay for the construction of a new inpatient tower at ECU’s Beaufort Hospital.

The health system, through its affiliate , won a portion of North Carolina’s $213 million first-year payout from the rural fund. But the federal money can’t be used to reopen Martin General, Floyd said.

The five-year Rural Health Transformation Program is slated to be delivered in $10 billion annual increments to states, which applied and competed for the money.

North Carolina’s plan creates a that allots money to six large regional leads, including nonprofits such as Access East. Those hubs will distribute money to local entities and coordinate broad initiatives such as improving primary care and fortifying the healthcare workforce, as well as developing “digital solutions,” according to the state’s .

An Election Issue

The lack of emergency care in the region has emerged as a top talking point in a close U.S. House race between Rep. Don Davis, a Democrat who represented the district when Martin General closed and is seeking his third term, and Republican Laurie Buckhout.

The rural health fund was added at the last minute in 2025 to win votes for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over a decade — cuts that are projected to hit rural hospitals and clinics especially hard. Rural health executives say the fund won’t come close to offsetting those losses.

Matt Mercer, a spokesperson for the North Carolina Republican Party, called the rural fund a “once in-a-generation opportunity” for the state.

But U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, who was one of three Republican senators to vote against the bill — and who announced shortly before the final vote that he planned to retire from Congress — warned of devastating consequences ahead for healthcare in his state.

Buckhout, who declined an interview, plans to attack Davis — a vulnerable incumbent whose district was recently redrawn to favor GOP candidates — for voting against the bill.

“Martin County lost its hospital on his watch, and he still opposed the funding meant to help communities like it,” Buckhout campaign spokesperson Stephen Gallagher said in a statement to 麻豆女优 Health News. The campaign did not respond to additional queries about her plans for healthcare access, if elected.

A shot of empty chairs lining two walls indoors.
An empty waiting room inside the shuttered Martin General Hospital. The hospital’s closure in 2023 surprised employees and patients, who had to be wheeled out on stretchers and transported elsewhere to finish treatment. (Sarah Jane Tribble/麻豆女优 Health News)

Davis, who signed from lawmakers in support of North Carolina’s rural health fund application, said the money “is essentially putting a band-aid on a much, much broader situation that needs dire help.” He has that would increase Medicaid reimbursements for rural hospitals, though it has not moved forward.

During recent testimony on Capitol Hill in Washington, ECU Health CEO Michael Waldrum said his system expects to lose a billion dollars over the next 10 years from the looming Medicaid cuts.

Overnight Waits for Emergency Care

The region’s emergency rooms offer a stark glimpse of a healthcare system in crisis.

Martin General’s ER treated annually before it closed, according to state data. A sign still hangs in the staff break room showing that 23 patients were seen in the ER the day it closed.

ECU Health, which owns all but one of the rural hospitals around Martin General, reported a 132% increase in its daily ER visits since the hospital’s closure. The company’s nearly 1,000-bed hospital in Greenville, about 40 minutes from Williamston, is the state’s only Level 1 trauma center east of Raleigh.

Where Martin County Residents Now Go for Emergency Care (Line chart)

The Greenville hospital’s median patient ER wait and treatment time was nearly 4½ hours, according to the most . That’s longer than 96% of thousands of hospitals reporting nationwide. The wait times “don’t reflect poor care,” ECU Health spokesperson Brian Wudkwych said in an emailed statement. He said the system’s ERs treat nearly 300,000 patients annually.

While the system has seen an increase in Martin County patients, the wait times primarily stem from shortages of inpatient and behavioral health beds, Wudkwych said.

Floyd, the ECU Health chief operating officer, said many rural patients who arrive at the system’s ERs have multiple chronic conditions that require longer visits. Often doctors start treating one problem and then find the patient’s “blood sugar is out of control, your hypertension is far out of control,” he said.

ECU staff encourage people who are not too sick to skip Greenville and, instead, seek care at one of the system’s community hospitals, which aren’t as busy, Floyd said.

A security officer guarded the Greenville emergency department’s doors on two nights in April. The “capacity notice” sign near the entrance meant family members of patients had to wait in cars or on benches outside.

“We’ve only been here six hours,” Tonya Miles said after bringing her mother for a potential blood clot in her leg. The family had left the day before after waiting for two hours, because her mom “wasn’t prepared” for such a delay in treatment, Miles said.

Two women sit on a bench outside. A man sits between them.
Tonya Miles (right) sits with family outside ECU Health Medical Center in Greenville, North Carolina. Miles said they had “only been here six hours” after bringing her mother to the emergency room for a potential blood clot in her leg. (Sarah Jane Tribble/麻豆女优 Health News)

On another evening, Olivia Lewis said she had brought her mother two nights previously and left without care after their wait stretched from 10:30 p.m. to 7 a.m.

“She tore off her hospital bracelet and said: ‘I’m out. I’m done,’” she said. Now, they were back.

On a recent Friday in Martin County, Vannessa Little was sitting at a McDonald’s with her kids just down the street from the closed hospital. Little pointed to one of her girls and wondered how her care would have been different if the hospital had been open.

Her daughter, then 6, suffered severe burns over 30% of her body in 2024, and the journey to treatment was “just crazy,” Little said. An ambulance arrived at her Williamston home from neighboring Bertie County to transport them to ECU’s Greenville ER.

“That was a long time,” Little said of the 30-mile drive. The girl was ultimately airlifted more than 100 miles to Chapel Hill. Little said she hadn’t heard of Trump’s rural health investment. “The only changes that people are making is they’re taking away everything.”

She voted against Trump in 2024 and said she didn’t think she would vote this year.

“It’s a waste of my time.”

麻豆女优 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 麻豆女优鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/rural-health/rural-health-fund-hospital-closures-north-carolina-martin-general/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2236968&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2236968
Efforts To Understand the Nation鈥檚 Drugged Driving Problem Stall Under Trump /public-health/drugged-driving-impairment-research-stalled-trump-policies/ Tue, 19 May 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2235912 GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. 鈥 Two state transportation workers were replacing a sign on the shoulder of U.S. Highway 6 in western Colorado one morning when a Jeep Grand Cherokee swerved off the road and struck them.

The workers, Nathan Jones and Trent Umberger, died in the September 2024 crash, as did a passenger in the Jeep. Tests found that the driver, Patrick Sneddon, then 59, had oxycodone and six times Colorado’s presumed impairment threshold for THC 鈥 the psychoactive compound in cannabis 鈥 in his blood. He pleaded guilty and is serving on three counts of vehicular homicide and other charges.

“Our four children are completely crushed without their Dad,” wrote Kristine Umberger, the wife of Trent, in a victim impact statement for the local district attorney. “We have lost our ability to live life like we used to.”

Federal highway safety officials have long tracked the role of alcohol in fatal crashes, but they don’t track deaths that involve a driver under the influence of drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol.

That discrepancy is partly due to the challenges of proving impairment, since some drugs remain detectable for weeks after use. Sneddon’s attorney, Jennifer Gregory, said a driver can be presumed impaired under Colorado law if their blood contains 5 nanograms of THC or higher per liter. But that “permissible inference” threshold is different from a legal limit 鈥 such as the 0.08% blood alcohol content limit 鈥 and the level set by Colorado is not supported by published scientific studies, Gregory said.

Such information could prove useful as the nation struggles with , the on marijuana, and more than 40 states have legalized or decriminalized some forms of cannabis and .

“Impaired driving is a top public safety issue that extends beyond alcohol,” said Sean Rushton, a spokesperson for the federal highway safety agency, which is tackling the issue collaboratively, with resources to ensure a “comprehensive and coordinated approach.”

But President Donald Trump’s cuts to the federal workforce since he returned to office in 2025, along with dwindling federal investments, mean that efforts to expand and improve the tracking of impaired-driving deaths nationwide have slowed.

The gap in data can be significant. In Mesa County, Colorado, where Jones and Umberger were killed, the coroner’s office tracks various forms of impaired-driving fatalities. From 2017 through 2024, a third of traffic deaths involved alcohol alone, according to data from the county coroner’s office.

When drugs are factored in, nearly half of Mesa County’s traffic deaths over the same period involved a driver intoxicated with alcohol, drugs, or a combination, according to the coroner’s reports.

“If you want to solve a problem, you need to understand the problem,” National Transportation Safety Board researcher Jana Price said. “If you only know that alcohol is present, then it limits your ability to fully understand what might have been impairing a person or a population of people. It trickles into the countermeasures that we use as a society to address the problem.”

Identifying a Hidden Issue

NTSB researchers that, across four geographical samples of roughly 26,000 drivers, about half of those arrested for impaired driving and more than a quarter of drivers killed in crashes tested positive for more than one substance, such as cocaine, sedatives, and antidepressants. The analysis also found that only four states and the District of Columbia drug-tested more than 60% of fatally injured drivers in 2020.

Those findings led the NTSB, an independent federal agency that investigates major incidents, to make a series of recommendations to the and states to establish a comprehensive, nationwide dataset on impaired driving.

But hurdles remain to creating such a system. Fatality and injury reports submitted to the NHTSA database often feature missing or erroneous data, according to a .

Varying state laws around testing arrestees and decedents for drugs make getting uniform data difficult, according to , a former employee of NHTSA’s impaired-driving division, as does a lack of proven metrics like blood alcohol content to measure drug impairment, not just the presence of a drug.

“It’s a slow process, which is incredibly difficult when you know that each day that passes is risking a lack of safety for however many people facing the potential of a drug-impaired-driving crash,” Cash said. “But some progress is better than no progress.”

Acknowledging how long those efforts will take, the NTSB also recommended that NHTSA build an interim surveillance system that would use data from trauma centers to create a national sample of crash-involved impaired drivers.

The agency made some headway, reporting in 2023 that it was conducting its own study with the help of 11 trauma centers and medical examiner offices. It also helped California establish a 19-month statewide surveillance system, which NHTSA will use to evaluate the feasibility of a nationally representative system.

Such programs are useful for public awareness and for improving the ability of police to understand drugged driving patterns that can help them tailor enforcement, said , a University of California-Davis associate professor who researches toxicology and was involved in the California program. But some trauma centers, especially in rural areas, often lack the research infrastructure necessary for round-the-clock drug testing and participation.

Still, it’s possible, and he said the benefit is apparent in the findings from California’s surveillance system.

“If you go out there and tell people that 44% of drivers who ended up in the ER from a car accident had at least one potentially impairing substance in their blood at the time of the accident, that gets people’s attention,” Chenoweth said.

Shrinking Research Teams

Since NHTSA’s update to the NTSB three years ago, however, the agency has yet to follow up on the recommendation. Staff cuts and departures at NHTSA last year paint a poor outlook for change.

From 2021 to 2024, the agency . At the end of Trump’s first year in office, NHTSA had dropped to about 550 people due to government-wide cuts and people leaving on their own.

Cash, who now works for the nonprofit Governors Highway Safety Association, was one of five employees who left NHTSA’s last year. That leaves just two staff members in the division, she said.

Ian O’Dowd, a former employee in NHTSA’s , said he was part of a team of 16 people who studied, in part, impaired driving. Only three or four team members are still with the agency, he said.

“At some point, it becomes unwieldy for a handful of people to be managing all of the research work going on,” O’Dowd said.

NHTSA communications director Sean Rushton said the agency has “both the financial and personnel resources necessary to support its programs with multiple offices carrying out this work collaboratively, ensuring a comprehensive and coordinated approach.”

The 2021 infrastructure law, passed under the Biden administration, increased funding for NHTSA’s state highway safety program from about $667 million in 2021 to nearly $953 million this year.

The law included $750 million to modernize crash-data programs, but as of January over $475 million was unused. The funds expired in September unless they were obligated through a signed agreement.

A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that nearly a quarter of entities awarded grants in 2022 had not received a signed agreement when surveyed between December 2024 and March 2025. It also found that over 1 in 5 grantees reported that obtaining timely replies from Department of Transportation staff was moderately or very challenging.

With the Biden-era infrastructure law expiring later this year, Congress could extend the unused crash-data fund or implement a new approach to impaired driving.

In mid-April, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-Mo.) said proposed legislation 鈥 less than half of the current bill’s $1.2 trillion 鈥 with a more “traditional” focus on roads and bridges.

The bill has amid negotiations for more funding, leaving future support uncertain.

“Certainly, we are always hoping that there will be an increase in the amount of money available to do this work,” Cash said. “Whether or not that will happen this year, I don’t know.”

麻豆女优 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 麻豆女优鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/drugged-driving-impairment-research-stalled-trump-policies/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2235912&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2235912
Trump Demands Medicaid Data for Deportation. Some States Go a Step Further. /medicaid/medicaid-immigrants-deportation-state-data-legislation-north-carolina/ Thu, 14 May 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2237222 Several states have joined President Donald Trump’s deportation efforts and are taking federal reporting requirements to immigration authorities a step further 鈥 by using their public health agencies as arms of enforcement.

North Carolina, in late April, became the latest member of a growing group of Republican-led states to require their public health agencies to flag recipients of Medicaid to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security if their legal status is in question.

It’s a trend health policy researchers expect to spread among GOP-controlled states eager to join Trump in the federal crackdown on Medicaid fraud and illegal immigration. Already, at least four states 鈥 , , , and 鈥 have passed similar laws, and lawmakers in others, such as and , are weighing measures. In those six states, Republicans hold a power trifecta 鈥 both chambers of the legislature and the governor’s office.

“This is an issue that is very much on the political radar right now,” said , a health policy researcher at Harvard Law School.

More than 75 million people , the federal and state-run public health program for people with disabilities and low incomes, or its related Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides low-cost coverage for people under 19. Immigrants without legal status are ineligible for Medicaid benefits, but a swath of noncitizens qualify, such as green-card holders, asylees, and refugees. A quarter of children in the U.S., most of them citizens, live with an immigrant.

Yet the new reporting laws add a layer of risk for immigrants seeking healthcare in the U.S., where the the use of to help identify and deport people.

Some of the state laws apply only to health agencies, such as in North Carolina. But the bill headed to Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee’s desk , requiring all state agencies to report people suspected of being in the U.S. without legal status. All seven state measures go beyond what’s federally required, which is to cooperate with enforcement officers by providing personal information of recipients when asked.

In Louisiana, families with mixed immigration statuses have reported that the state’s new law, enacted last year, for their kids with U.S. citizenship.

“I expect this law will lead to more families asking whether it is safe to seek healthcare, whether information can be shared with immigration authorities, and whether enrolling a child or seeking treatment could expose them to enforcement consequences,” said , a North Carolina immigration attorney.

North Carolina Republican lawmakers inserted their mandate for the state’s health department as part of a in Medicaid funds, which the legislature cut when it failed to pass a budget last year.

Starting in October, state employees will ask non-U.S. citizens receiving Medicaid for proof of their immigration standing and report those without “satisfactory” legal status to federal authorities. “This bill is designed not only to fund our critical needs today, but to begin looking at fraud, abuse issues we know exist within the system,” Republican state Rep. Donny Lambeth said during a House debate on the bill.

Immigrants than people born in the U.S., according to an analysis by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, which also found noncitizens are much less likely to than citizens. State health agencies are already required to verify whether applicants’ immigration statuses .

Several Republican leaders responsible for the bill did not respond to requests for comment. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Hannah Jones said the agency is still trying to understand the impact of the new law.

, about half of adults who “likely” lack legal status said someone in their family has avoided seeking medical care because they were concerned their information could draw the attention of immigration enforcement.

, a North Carolina discrimination attorney, said immigrants “in process,” or those waiting for legal authorization, generally already fear using government assistance for themselves.

“What I’ve learned from handling thousands of cases over the years is that most of the individuals who are in process pay for their own medical treatment out-of-pocket,” Rosa said.

Such policies essentially force children who are U.S. citizens to go without health coverage or hospital care, said , a researcher at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families.

“When you do policies that target an immigrant, you may think that you are just targeting this one person in the family, but it’s a really imprecise bomb that takes out the whole household,” Cuello said.

The use of states’ public health agencies to find immigrants who lack legal status is not the only strategy states have deployed. Some have passed laws looking to hospitals to collect and report such information. A 2023 Florida law that requires hospital staff to ask about patients’ immigration status has made noncitizens hesitant to seek care, separated families, and caused psychological distress, by the University of South Florida. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, issued an executive order similar to Florida’s law in 2024.

Democratic states have pushed back against Trump administration policies that mine private medical information to target immigrants, with 21 signing on to a filed last year that attempts to prevent DHS from . recipients’ identities could be shared, but medical information could not. Litigation is ongoing.

DHS did not respond to a request for comment on the record.

After he signed the bill into law, North Carolina’s Democratic governor, Josh Stein, urging Republican lawmakers to protect Medicaid coverage for nearly 27,000 pregnant women and children who are lawfully present in the country. He did not respond to questions about the provision that requires the state to report immigrants without legal status.

Polanco-Galdamez said such laws have further eroded trust in healthcare systems among underserved families.

“At the end of the day, public health systems function best when people feel safe seeking medical care,” Polanco-Galdamez said. “Policies that blur the line between healthcare access and immigration enforcement risk pushing vulnerable families further into the shadows.”

麻豆女优 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 麻豆女优鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/medicaid/medicaid-immigrants-deportation-state-data-legislation-north-carolina/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2237222&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2237222
States Rush To Figure Out How To Enforce Trump鈥檚 Medicaid Work Requirements /medicaid/medicaid-work-requirements-kff-survey-state-implementation-strategies/ Thu, 30 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2232959 State officials remain uncertain on how to enforce a requirement that many adult Medicaid enrollees show they’re working 鈥 even as one state launches its program this week 鈥 and they’re taking a variety of approaches to the job, including, in a handful of states, using artificial intelligence.

A from 42 states and the District of Columbia offers insights into key policy decisions state officials face as the Jan. 1, 2027, deadline for implementing the work requirement nears. Lingering questions include which diseases and illnesses will qualify Medicaid beneficiaries for exemptions and how to automate compliance verification. 

Federal guidance is not expected to be released until June. But some states are moving forward with their own definitions of “medical frailty,” which under congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act will allow Medicaid enrollees to escape the requirement.

The law, President Donald Trump’s signature domestic achievement, revamps Medicaid in more than 40 states that, along with Washington, D.C., fully or partially expanded the program for low-income people to cover adults without children who don’t get insurance through a job. While most adult Medicaid beneficiaries already work or are disabled, caregivers for other people, or in school, many Republicans contend that people enrolled in the program who don’t work sap resources that ought to support low-income children, pregnant women, and disabled people.

gained Medicaid coverage from the expansion, created by the Affordable Care Act 鈥 a law that most Republicans still oppose.

The new work rules require that a person be a student at least part-time or work or participate in other qualifying activities, such as community service, for at least 80 hours each month. The requirement could potentially reshape who is eligible for Medicaid and applies to people who are already enrolled.

The Congressional Budget Office will reduce federal Medicaid spending by about $326 billion over 10 years. The agency also estimates that 4.8 million more people will be uninsured in 2034 because of the work requirement.

鈥“A lot of states are working on a super-condensed timeline,” said Amaya Diana, a policy analyst at 麻豆女优 who worked on the survey. They are “still making these big decisions with less than a year before implementation.”

麻豆女优 is a health information nonprofit that includes 麻豆女优 Health News.

The law permits short exemptions from work requirements for enrollees experiencing certain hardships 鈥 natural disasters, residing in a county with a high unemployment rate, admission to a hospital or nursing home, or having to travel for an extended period to obtain medical care.

While 28 states and Washington, D.C., will offer hardship exemptions, three of those states won’t adopt all four exemptions allowed by the law and two 鈥 Iowa and Indiana 鈥 don’t plan to adopt any.

People can also be exempted from the work requirements if they are “medically frail.” But the federal government has not told states how to define that term or how to determine whether an enrollee falls into the category.

The survey showed that 21 states, as of March, had not defined medical frailty. Nebraska, which is implementing its work requirement May 1, recently issued a list of thousands of health conditions that could qualify enrollees as “frail” and exempt them from working.

Some states plan to allow patients to self-attest to medical frailty, while others will require confirmation by a medical professional. The most common way of verifying medical frailty, which will be used in just over 30 states, is by examining Medicaid claims data.

Mehmet Oz, administrator for the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, told 麻豆女优 Health News in an interview this week that “we don’t like self-attesting” and that “documentation is critical.”

Many beneficiaries and their advocates have expressed concerns about losing coverage for administrative reasons. When Arkansas briefly implemented Medicaid work rules, for instance, most lost coverage not because they did not meet the requirements but for failing to correctly submit paperwork in time.

Six states plan to use AI to assist with the work requirement implementation in some way, such as for document processing or comparing beneficiary data from different sources, 麻豆女优 found. Two states, Maryland and New Mexico, plan to use AI to analyze claims data.

Three states 鈥 Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma 鈥 plan to use AI to interact directly with people on Medicaid and assist them with identifying and uploading verification documents and data.

Adults on Medicaid will have to reverify that they’re working, or that they’re exempt from the requirement, at least every six months. Some states plan to check quarterly.

When possible, states must use available data sources to verify exemptions or compliance with work requirements.

For example, data from the National Student Clearinghouse will be used by about 10 states to verify school attendance. Some states also plan to tap sources including the Department of Veterans Affairs, AmeriCorps, and service commissions.

But more than half of states told 麻豆女优’s researchers that they have insufficient time to add new data sources and cited ongoing costs as a challenge.

麻豆女优 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 麻豆女优鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/medicaid/medicaid-work-requirements-kff-survey-state-implementation-strategies/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2232959&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2232959
Trump鈥檚 Medicaid Work Mandate Debuting in Nebraska to Much Dismay /medicaid/nebraska-medicaid-work-requirement-fears-losing-coverage/ Wed, 29 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2230868 Schmeeka Simpson of Omaha works as a patient navigator for the American Civil Liberties Union and an administrative assistant at Nebraskans for Peace, plus picks up shifts at a Dunkin’ shop.

Still, even with three jobs, she worries about losing her health coverage when Nebraska, on May 1, becomes the first state to require certain Medicaid enrollees to work, train, or go to school under a rule mandated by congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Simpson, 46, has relied on Medicaid since her divorce in 2014. None of her employers offers health coverage. She said she lost her government food assistance after technical problems caused her to miss renewing in time, and she doesn’t trust the state to implement the new work rules without problems.

“Adding more barriers won’t make the program work any better,” she said.

A close-up selfie of a woman smiling
Even though she works three jobs, Schmeeka Simpson worries about losing her health coverage when Nebraska becomes the first state to require certain Medicaid enrollees to work, train, or go to school under a new federal mandate. (Schmeeka Simpson)

Nebraska Medicaid officials say they are trying to make it as easy as possible for enrollees to comply, so people don’t lose their coverage for administrative reasons, such as failing to file the proper paperwork.

Enrollees with one of thousands of health conditions detailed by the state would be exempt.

“Our top priority is making sure members clearly understand changes to the program and how to maintain their coverage,” Drew Gonshorowski, the state’s Medicaid director, said in an early-April news release.

In a brief interview with 麻豆女优 Health News on April 28 outside the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz said he applauds Nebraska for being the first state to begin implementing the work requirements. He acknowledged that the state is still “working out the kinks,” adding that his hope is “by the end of this year they will get into a more sophisticated place.”

But health policy analysts, advocates for the poor, and health industry groups remain skeptical, fearing thousands of Nebraska Medicaid enrollees will lose coverage and, with it, their access to health services and protection from medical debt.

Hospitals also worry an increase in uninsured patients will hurt their bottom lines, said Jeremy Nordquist, the president and CEO of the Nebraska Hospital Association.

“There is a lot of concern on many different levels,” he said. Many enrollees are unaware of the changes and might not realize they have to act to stay insured, he said.

The bill President Donald Trump signed last July requires the 42 states, along with the District of Columbia, that fully or partially expanded Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act to implement a work requirement starting in 2027. The full expansion enables adults with incomes of up to 138% of the federal poverty level 鈥 amounting to $22,025 for a single person this year 鈥 to be eligible for Medicaid, the government program covering people with low incomes or disabilities.

More than 20 million people gained coverage from Medicaid through expansion, according to 麻豆女优, a health information nonprofit that includes 麻豆女优 Health News. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 4.8 million will become uninsured over the next decade as a result of the work requirement.

Under the law, enrollees must work or volunteer at least 80 hours a month, attend school at least part-time, or participate in job training. Or they must prove they qualify for certain exemptions, such as caring for a child 13 or younger or a disabled parent, or having a health condition that prevents employment.

Some states explored implementing work rules in the years before the GOP law passed. It gave states the option to launch their programs early.

Nebraska’s Plan

In Nebraska, which is implementing the provision eight months before the law requires, about 70,000 Medicaid enrollees will need to meet the requirement, said Collin Spilinek, a spokesperson for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services.

About 72% of them probably won’t have to do anything to keep their coverage, because the state already knows their work or exemption status via state or national databases, Spilinek said.

To check whether enrollees meet the requirement, Nebraska and other states plan to tap into various databases, including Medicaid claims information and data controlled by credit rating agencies. Enrollees for whom Nebraska doesn’t have data will be notified and can complete an online form to confirm they meet the new rules.

While a number of states say they plan to hire extra administrative staff, the Nebraska Medicaid agency is not adding any employees to implement its work requirement.

“The fact that they say they do not need additional resources raises questions” as to whether “they will be able to pull this off without future headaches,” Nordquist said.

Proving employment status will require documentation, but Nebraska officials say they will allow enrollees to self-attest that they volunteer, go to school, or qualify for exemptions, such as for poor health or caring for a disabled parent. “Supporting documentation, such as medical records, will not be required,” Spilinek said.

That could make it easier for enrollees to get exempted under the law’s “medical frailty” exception. The long list of health conditions that can be considered for the exemption was posted last week by the state and includes many types of cancers and mental health and heart conditions.

Kelsey Arends, senior staff attorney for Nebraska Appleseed, an advocacy group, said the state’s long list of medical billing codes for conditions that would be exempted is still not long enough. She said different levels of illness severity are not included.

The exemption is crucial for Crystal Schroer, 30, who has been on Medicaid since 2022 and unemployed since 2024. She said it has been difficult to find work near her home in Kearney, Nebraska, that will allow her to take along her psychiatric service dog, Tarot, who helps her with anxiety.

“I am insanely worried,” said Schroer, who lives with a friend. “It’s made my depression way worse.”

Whether self-attestation will broadly be allowed in other states will depend on CMS’ rules for work requirements, expected to be set this summer. Oz told 麻豆女优 Health News that “we don’t like self-attesting” and that “documentation is critical.”

Several advocacy groups had asked the state to exempt enrollees with specific conditions, including the American Diabetes Association, HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, and National Bleeding Disorders Foundation. Losing coverage, the groups said, would mean losing access to medications that keep people healthy and out of the hospital.

Adding a work requirement to Medicaid has been a priority for Trump since his first term. In 2018, his administration became the first to allow states to adopt the policy, but only Arkansas implemented it. In the nine months the policy was in place before a federal judge deemed it unlawful, more than 18,000 people lost coverage 鈥 nearly 1 in 4 of those subject to the requirement.

Most lost coverage not because they did not meet the requirements but for failing to correctly submit paperwork in time. 

Georgia has had a work requirement under its partial Medicaid expansion since 2023. Only about 8,000 people signed up for the coverage in its first two years 鈥 far fewer than the 25,000 that state officials predicted for the first year alone 鈥 and many have been denied benefits because of paperwork issues.

National Mandate

During the congressional debate over the law last year, Republicans pushed a work requirement for Medicaid as a way to get “able-bodied” adults benefiting from government assistance into the workforce. House Speaker Mike Johnson said it would help preserve Medicaid “for people who rightly deserve it,” not young men “sitting on their couches playing video games.”

Republicans have argued mandating employment will nudge people into finding work, leaving Medicaid to help children and people who are pregnant or have disabilities.

They were not swayed by studies showing already work or go to school or have health conditions preventing them from doing so.

A in the Annals of Internal Medicine found about one-third of adults at risk of losing coverage under the new work requirement reported that they have a physical or mental illness or disability.

“This is not a case that we have mostly healthy adults choosing not to work,” said Darshali Vyas, a study co-author and health policy researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “It’s a vulnerable group, and I am not sure there are clear protections as we begin to roll out work requirements.”

In Nebraska, about two-thirds of Medicaid expansion enrollees , according to 麻豆女优. Nebraska’s unemployment rate is 3%, one of the lowest in the nation.

Andrea Skolkin, the CEO of Omaha-based One World Community Health Centers, said it’s an unsettling time for her clinic and their patients. “We are still concerned about the expanded Medicaid folks losing coverage,” she said.

About 4,000 of their 52,000 patients are covered under the Medicaid expansion, Skolkin said. She said many enrollees received letters from the state about the work requirement, but she worries many did not understand them.

Losing 10% of those patients would mean $500,000 less in revenue for the nonprofit centers, she said. To help patients, they plan to add staff to help people fill out the forms to get and maintain coverage.

Nebraska Appleseed’s Arends said she’s skeptical of the state’s promises to use automation to confirm that enrollees meet the work rules. “We remain very concerned about the early implementation,” she said.

People who lose coverage may have a harder time getting health bills covered if they reenroll in the Medicaid program, because the federal law also reduces retroactive eligibility from three months to one month for expansion enrollees.

Because many people sign up for Medicaid when seeking care for an emergency and it can take weeks or months to complete enrollment, hospitals are concerned the change will leave them to cover the costs when people lose coverage, Nordquist said.

Only two other states plan to implement the work requirement early: Montana, which plans to launch in July, and Iowa, which plans to go live in December.

Many states will be closely watching Nebraska’s implementation to see what lessons they can learn ahead of their own launches in January, said Andrea Maresca, a senior principal at Health Management Associates, a consulting firm.

States are better prepared to enact work requirements than they were when Arkansas tried in 2018, she said. After reconfirming millions of enrollees’ eligibility post-covid, they have more experience using public and private databases to automate the process and more practice communicating with enrollees, Maresca said.

Still, “it won’t be perfect,” and states will have to adapt as they go, she said.

麻豆女优 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 麻豆女优鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/medicaid/nebraska-medicaid-work-requirement-fears-losing-coverage/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2230868&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2230868