The lawsuit, settled on confidential terms last year, blamed not only the managers of City Creek Post-Acute and Assisted Living but also the building’s owner, a real estate investment trust, or REIT.

In the year Darby died, City Creek paid CareTrust REIT more than $1 million in rent, while the Sacramento, California, nursing home ran a deficit, court records show.

Federal tax rules ban REITs from running health care facilities, but CareTrust was not an absentee landlord either, according to internal records filed in the case. It chose the nursing home’s management company and required through the lease that the home keep at least 80% of beds occupied. CareTrust granularly tracked how well the home kept to its financial plan, down to the money spent monthly on nurses and food, the records said. And the documents showed that the real estate company kept tabs on government safety inspection findings and Medicare quality ratings.

Both CareTrust and the nursing home operator denied liability for Darby’s death. CareTrust officials said in court papers that it is not involved in day-to-day nursing home decisions or patient care, and that it monitors facilities to ensure nothing jeopardizes rent payments. In a written statement, CareTrust Corporate Counsel Joseph Layne told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News: “We are the property owners, not the operators.”

Landlords With Influence

Over the past decade, real estate investment trusts have bought thousands of buildings that house nursing homes, hospitals, assisted living facilities, and medical offices. A Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News examination of court filings and corporate records shows that these landlords have more influence than the health care facilities publicly acknowledge.

The documents reveal REITs often select the management who oversee the operations and leave them in place even when they are aware of threadbare staffing, floundering governance, repeated safety violations, or other problems that hamper quality of care. A California jury in March awarded $92 million in punitive damages against a former REIT over the death of a 100-year-old resident with dementia who froze to death outside her assisted living facility.

“The REITs are in charge,” said Laraclay Parker, one of the lawyers who represent Darby’s daughter.

Absence of Oversight

Despite their ubiquity, REITs remain invisible to state and federal health regulators. Hospitals and nursing homes are not required to disclose rent payments or landlord identities in the annual reports they submit to Medicare.

Under President Donald Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services a Biden-era requirement that nursing homes . Catherine Howden, a CMS spokesperson, said in a statement that the agency does not regulate facilities based on their tax status or corporate form and instead focuses on the quality of the care they provide.

REITs now of the nation’s senior housing, which includes assisted living, memory care, and independent living, according to an industry analysis. REITs also hold investments in nursing homes. Publicly traded REITs that focus on health care are now worth nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars, according to Nareit, an industry association.

While one research study found REIT investments were associated with , another concluded that after being bought by REITs, nursing homes frequently with less skilled nurses and aides. A concluded that health inspection results were worse after REIT investment.

Researchers also found that investor-owned hospital chains that sold buildings to REITs were or go bankrupt, with Steward Health Care. Often, private equity investors kept the sale proceeds as profits while the hospitals were burdened with new rent costs. “There were no improvements in clinical outcomes,” said Thomas Tsai, an associate professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

REITs are required to distribute most of their income and don’t have to pay the 21% federal corporate income tax on it. There is a catch: A REIT that “directly or indirectly operates or manages” a health care facility for five years. Typically, a REIT leases the property to another company that runs the nursing home or assisted living facility and maintains its tax break. Nareit said health care REITs distributed more than $7 billion in dividends in 2024.

Michael Stroyeck, head of health care analysis at Green Street, a real estate research company, said “there’s definitely a symbiotic relationship” between REITs and facility managers because they have the same goals. He said he has seen REITs replace operators that are having difficulties or go bankrupt.

John Kane, a senior vice president at the American Health Care Association and the National Center for Assisted Living, an industry group that represents nursing homes, said in a statement: “Given government funding often falls short, REITs have been valuable partners in helping to invest in long term care without influencing daily operations.”

Low Staffing at a Chain

Strawberry Fields REIT, which like CareTrust trades on the New York Stock Exchange, owns or controls the buildings of 131 nursing home facilities. The nursing home operations inside 66 of those facilities are owned by Moishe Gubin, Strawberry Fields’ chief executive, and Michael Blisko, one of its directors, according to Strawberry Fields’ for last year.

Gubin and Blisko also jointly own , which manages their nursing homes; Blisko is Infinity’s CEO. On average, Infinity-affiliated nursing homes provided an hour and a quarter less nursing care per resident per day than the national average of four hours, a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News analysis of federal records found.

Infinity and several of its nursing homes have recently settled 30 death and injury lawsuits in Cook County, Illinois, totaling more than $4 million, said Margaret Battersby Black, a Chicago lawyer. A jury last year awarded $12 million in a lawsuit brought against Infinity and one of its Chicago nursing homes over the 2023 death of Shirley Adams. A retired candy factory worker, Adams died after developing infected bedsores at Lakeview Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, according to the lawsuit.

“She had wounds that no one could explain,” one of her adult children, Leslie Adams, testified at trial. Medicare its lowest quality rating, one star out of five.

Paul Connery, a lawyer for Adams’ family, said they are still trying to collect on the judgment against the nursing home and management company, which now totals $17 million with interest and attorney fees.

“If I get caught speeding and I went to court, they issue me a ticket and I’ve got a fine to pay,” Adams said in an interview. “How are they able to still continue to move on with business like nothing has happened?”

In a phone interview and an email, Gubin said Strawberry Fields, Infinity, and the nursing homes are all legally distinct and that he has not played an active role in Infinity in more than a decade. He said nursing homes get sued all the time but that the verdict against Lakeview is so large that it will force the home to declare bankruptcy or shut down.

“The whole thing is unfortunate,” Gubin said by phone. “For 15 years they were a perfectly good guardian” and “a well-run building,” he said. “You wouldn’t think it was fair to be judged on your worst day.”

Blisko and an Infinity lawyer did not respond to requests for comment.

Strawberry Fields, which owns 10 assisted living facilities and two long-term care hospitals in addition to the nursing homes, earned net income last year of from $155 million in rent, a 21% profit margin, securities filings show. Gubin said those weren’t excessive returns.

A $110 Million Verdict

Traditionally, REIT leases make the operating companies responsible for paying property taxes, insurance premiums, and maintenance costs. In 2008, Congress gave health care REITs a new option to make money: On top of collecting rents, they could set up subsidiaries and take profits directly from health care businesses. They still must have independent management overseeing care decisions. Many REITs have embraced the role even though the subsidiaries must pay corporate taxes and risk losing money if the businesses do poorly.

Colony Capital was a REIT that through layers of shell corporations owned both the building and the operation of Greenhaven Estates, a Sacramento assisted living and memory care facility. In 2018 Greenhaven paid Colony $1.4 million in rent, nearly a third of its $4.5 million in revenue that year, according to financial records filed in court.

Greenhaven also was on the verge of losing its license, according to a revocation notice filed in November 2018 by the California Department of Social Services. Greenhaven had racked up years of health violations, including from letting untrained workers administer medications, lacking enough employees to care for people with dementia, and neglecting a resident who smeared feces over his body, bed, floor, and bathroom, the notice said.

In February 2019, a few weeks after celebrating her 100th birthday, Mildred Hernandez, a resident with Alzheimer’s, wandered out of Greenhaven in the middle of the night. Her assisted living wing had no exit door alarms even though it housed several residents with dementia, court records showed. Berta Lepe, one of Greenhaven’s caregivers, found Hernandez under a bush, wearing only a shirt and underwear. The temperature was in the 30s.

“She was talking, but I couldn’t understand what she was saying,” Lepe testified at trial over a lawsuit from Hernandez’s family. Hernandez died of hypothermia a few hours later, according to her death certificate.

Frontier Management, the company that Colony had hired to manage Greenhaven, denied liability and settled the lawsuit on undisclosed terms.

Since the lawsuit, Colony has changed its name to DigitalBridge, which no longer owns Greenhaven and gave up its REIT status. At trial earlier this year, DigitalBridge said resident care was the responsibility of Frontier and that Colony “encouraged” Frontier to address problems. Richard Welch, a former Colony executive, testified that replacing management is disruptive. “I viewed it as a last resort,” he said.

In March, a jury awarded Hernandez’s family $110 million: $10 million in compensatory damages, $92 million in punitive damages against DigitalBridge, and $8 million in punitive damages against Formation Capital, an asset management company.

“REIT money is very detached from knowing about or caring about patient or resident outcomes, because it’s not in their business model,” Ed Dudensing, a lawyer for the family, said in an interview. “Their allegiance is to their investors.”

DigitalBridge has asked the judge to delay finalizing the judgment while its legal challenges to the lawsuit and the verdict are evaluated. A DigitalBridge attorney and a corporate spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment, a Formation attorney declined comment, and a Frontier attorney and a spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

‘Wet From Head to Toe’

When CareTrust bought City Creek Post-Acute and Assisted Living in 2019, the Sacramento nursing home where Pearlene Darby lived had a one-star Medicare rating and was losing money. CareTrust leased the building to a management company called Kalesta Healthcare Group based on the business plan Kalesta submitted.

While CareTrust was not the operator, it held periodic phone calls with Kalesta, which provided “a full update of what’s happening at the facility,” including changes in leadership, financial progress, and health inspection survey results, according to deposition testimony by Ryan Williams, a Kalesta co-founder.

According to a state inspection report, in 2020, the year Darby died, City Creek left a resident in soiled linens “wet from head to toe lying in bed” for more than eight hours. During a different visit, a health inspector cited the home after watching a nurse put a dirty diaper back onto a resident after caring for a wound. “It was just a small stool and it is far from where the wound is,” the nurse told the inspector, according to the report.

James Callister, CareTrust’s chief investment officer, said in his deposition that CareTrust officials “review results of regulatory surveys provided to us by the tenant. We review the five-star rating.” He said, “We evaluate results of care, but we do not evaluate types of care given or how or when, no.”

Darby had been living in City Creek since 2011 after a stroke left her in a wheelchair. She needed help getting in and out of bed. From September through November 2020, Darby lost 30 pounds, her family’s lawsuit alleged. During those months, employees dropped her three times as one worker rather than the required two operated the mechanical lift, the lawsuit said.

The suit alleged City Creek failed to reposition her every two hours in bed or her wheelchair, which is the clinical standard for people at risk of bedsores, and to promptly order devices to protect her skin.

In November, the nursing home sent Darby to the hospital. A blood test found bacteria had entered her bloodstream from her feces’ touching open skin wounds, according to the lawsuit. The hospital diagnosed her with sepsis. A surgeon said she needed an operation to redirect fecal waste from her intestines but concluded she wasn’t medically stable enough for surgery, the suit said.

Darby began receiving comfort care measures and was sent back to City Creek. She died two weeks later. In court filings, CareTrust and Kalesta denied the allegations.

In a phone interview, Williams, the Kalesta co-founder, said Darby’s death occurred during the most challenging point of the covid pandemic, when California rules required any nurses testing positive for the virus to be sent home and nurses were quitting out of fear for their health. “It was the most herculean of professional efforts to secure enough staff,” he said.

While expressing sympathy for Darby and her family, he said it was “unconscionable” that personal injury lawyers sued nursing homes over care failures during “the worst of times.”

In court, CareTrust petitioned Judge Richard Miadich to dismiss it from the lawsuit before trial. “This case does not concern a property condition,” CareTrust’s lawyers wrote. “CareTrust is simply a landlord.” But the judge ruled last year a jury should decide whether CareTrust “exercised actual control over City Creek.”

The case was settled out of court a few months later. All parties declined to reveal the settlement terms.

A 67% Profit

As recently as November 2023 — four years after its acquisition — City Creek earned one star from Medicare. It was cited for failing to have the minimum nursing home staffing required by California law during five of 24 randomly selected days in 2022, according to an inspection report. Williams said in the interview that Kalesta had increased spending on nursing over the course of its ownership, including boosting wages, but that it takes a year or two to turn around a troubled nursing home. He said the home’s star rating in 2023 was dragged down by its poor inspection history from before Kalesta took over.

City Creek’s rating has climbed in the past two years, and it now has the top overall rating of five, according to Medicare. Medicare rates City Creek’s current staffing levels as average. That’s better than most nursing homes in more than 200 buildings CareTrust bought before 2025, according to a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News analysis of federal data. On average, CareTrust nursing homes provided a half hour less nursing care per resident per day than the national average of four hours.

In its statement to Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News, CareTrust’s counsel Layne said the REIT worked to “identify quality operators as tenants,” and that the homes the REIT rents out have more nurses and aides than the minimum required for nursing homes by their state governments. “The operators are licensed by state regulators and retain sole responsibility for operations,” the statement said.

CareTrust, which now owns more than 500 senior housing and nursing home buildings, reported net income last year of $320 million from in rents and other revenue — a 67% profit margin. By comparison, HCA Healthcare, one of the nation’s largest for-profit hospital and health care chains, for last year.

Lesley Ann Clement, one of Darby’s lawyers, said cases like hers show the nursing home industry is wrong to complain it lacks financial resources for more staffing.

“There’s plenty of money,” Clement said. “They’re just not spending it on patient care.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/real-estate-investment-trusts-senior-housing-nursing-homes-profit/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

If you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental health crisis, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by dialing or texting “988.”

Vince Lahey of Carefree, Arizona, embraces chatbots. From Big Tech products to “shady” ones, they offer “someone that I could share more secrets with than my therapist.”

He especially likes the apps for feedback and support, even though sometimes they berate him or lead him to fight with his ex-wife. “I feel more inclined to share more,” Lahey said. “I don’t care about their perception of me.”

There are a lot of people like Lahey.

Demand for mental health care has grown. Self-reported poor mental health days rose by 25% since the 1990s, analyzing survey data. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide rates in 2022 that hadn’t been seen in nearly 80 years.

There are many patients who find a nonhuman therapist, powered by artificial intelligence, highly appealing — more appealing than a human with a reclining couch and stern manner. with begging for a therapist who’s “not on the clock,” who’s less judgmental, or who’s just less expensive.

Most people who need care don’t get it, said Tom Insel, former head of the National Institute of Mental Health, citing his former agency’s research. Of those who do, 40% receive “minimally acceptable care.”

“There’s a massive need for high-quality therapy,” he said. “We’re in a world in which the status quo is really crappy, to use a scientific term.”

Insel said engineers from OpenAI told him last fall that about 5% to 10% of the company’s then-roughly 800 million-strong user base rely on ChatGPT for mental health support.

Polling suggests these AI chatbots may be even more popular among young adults. A Â鶹ŮÓÅ poll found about 3 in 10 respondents ages 18 to 29 for mental or emotional health advice in the past year. Uninsured adults were about twice as likely as insured adults to report using AI tools. And nearly 60% of adult respondents who used a chatbot for mental health didn’t follow up with a flesh-and-blood professional.

The App Will Put You on the Couch

A burgeoning industry of apps offers AI therapists with human-like, often unrealistically attractive avatars serving as a sounding board for those experiencing anxiety, depression, and other conditions.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News identified some 45 AI therapy apps in Apple’s App Store in March. While many charge steep prices for their services — one listed an annual plan for $690 — they’re still generally cheaper than talk therapy, which can cost hundreds of dollars an hour without insurance coverage.

On the App Store, “therapy” is often used as a marketing term, with small print noting the apps cannot diagnose or treat disease. One app, branded as OhSofia! AI Therapy Chat, had downloads in the six figures, said OhSofia! founder Anton Ilin in December.

“People are looking for therapy,” Ilin said. On one hand, the product’s name ; on the other, it warns in that it “does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or crisis intervention and is not a substitute for professional healthcare services.” Executives don’t think that’s confusing, since there are disclaimers in the app.

The apps promise big results without backup. its users “immediate help during panic attacks.” it was “proven effective by researchers” and that it offers 2.3 times faster relief for anxiety and stress. (It doesn’t say what it’s faster than.)

There are few legislative or regulatory guardrails around how developers refer to their products — or even whether the products are safe or effective, said Vaile Wright, senior director of the office of health care innovation at the American Psychological Association. Even federal patient privacy protections don’t apply, she said.

“Therapy is not a legally protected term,” Wright said. “So, basically, anybody can say that they give therapy.”

Many of the apps “overrepresent themselves,” said John Torous, a psychiatrist and clinical informaticist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “Deceiving people that they have received treatment when they really have not has many negative consequences,” including delaying actual care, he said.

States such as Nevada, Illinois, and California are trying to sort out the regulatory disarray, enacting laws forbidding apps from describing their chatbots as AI therapists.

“It’s a profession. People go to school. They get licensed to do it,” said Jovan Jackson, a Nevada legislator, who co-authored an enacted bill banning apps from referring to themselves as mental health professionals.

Underlying the hype, outside researchers and company representatives themselves have told the FDA and Congress that there’s little evidence supporting the efficacy of these products. What studies there are — and some companion-focused chatbots are “consistently poor” at managing crises.

“When it comes to chatbots, we don’t have any good evidence it works,” said Charlotte Blease, a professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University who specializes in trial design for digital health products.

The lack of “good quality” clinical trials stems from the FDA’s failure to provide recommendations about how to test the products, she said. “FDA is offering no rigorous advice on what the standards should be.”

Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said, in response, that “patient safety is the FDA’s highest priority” and that AI-based products are subject to agency regulations requiring the demonstration of “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness before they can be marketed in the U.S.”

The Silver-Tongued Apps

Preston Roche, a psychiatry resident who’s , gets lots of questions about whether AI is a good therapist. After trying ChatGPT himself, he said he was “impressed” initially that it was able to use techniques to help him put negative thoughts “on trial.”

But Roche said after seeing posts on social media discussing people developing psychosis or being encouraged to make harmful decisions, he became disillusioned. The bots, he concluded, are sycophantic.

“When I look globally at the responsibilities of a therapist, it just completely fell on its face,” he said.

This sycophancy — the tendency of apps based on large language models to empathize, flatter, or delude their human conversation partner — is inherent to the app design, experts in digital health say.

“The models were developed to answer a question or prompt that you ask and to give you what you’re looking for,” said Insel, the former NIMH director, “and they’re really good at basically affirming what you feel and providing psychological support, like a good friend.”

That’s not what a good therapist does, though. “The point of psychotherapy is mostly to make you address the things that you have been avoiding,” he said.

While polling suggests many users are satisfied with what they’re getting out of ChatGPT and other apps, there have been about the service or encouragement to self-harm.

And or have been filed against OpenAI after ChatGPT users died by suicide or became hospitalized. In most of those cases, the plaintiffs allege they began using the apps for one purpose — like schoolwork — before confiding in them. These cases are being .

Google and the startup Character.ai — which has been funded by Google and has created “avatars” that adopt specific personas, like athletes, celebrities, study buddies, or therapists — are settling other wrongful-death lawsuits, .

OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, has said up to may talk about suicide on ChatGPT.

“We have seen a problem where people that are in fragile psychiatric situations using a model like 4o can get into a worse one,” Altman said in a public question-and-answer session reported by , referring to a particular model of ChatGPT introduced in 2024. “I don’t think this is the last time we’ll face challenges like this with a model.”

An OpenAI spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

The company has said it on safeguards, such as referring users to 988, the national suicide hotline. However, the lawsuits against OpenAI argue existing safeguards aren’t good enough, and some research shows the problems are . OpenAI its own data suggesting the opposite.

OpenAI is , offering, early in one case, a variety of defenses ranging from denying that its product caused self-harm to alleging that the defendant misused the product by inducing it to discuss suicide. It has also said it’s working to .

Smaller apps also rely on OpenAI or other AI models to power their products, executives told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News. In interviews, startup founders and other experts said they worry that if a company simply imports those models into its own service, it might duplicate whatever safety flaws exist in the original product.

Data Risks

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News’ review of the App Store found listed age protections are minimal: Fifteen of the nearly four dozen apps say they could be downloaded by 4-year-old users; an additional 11 say they could be downloaded by those 12 and up.

Privacy standards are opaque. On the App Store, several apps are described as neither tracking personally identifiable data nor sharing it with advertisers — but on their company websites, privacy policies contained contrary descriptions, discussing the use of such data and their disclosure of information to advertisers, like AdMob.

In response to a request for comment, Apple spokesperson Adam Dema to the company’s App Store policies, which bar apps from using health data for advertising and require them to display information about how they use data in general. Dema did not respond to a request for further comment about how Apple enforces these policies.

Researchers and policy advocates said that sharing psychiatric data with social media firms means patients could be profiled. They could be targeted by dodgy treatment firms or charged different prices for goods based on their health.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News contacted several app makers about these discrepancies; two that responded said their privacy policies had been put together in error and pledged to change them to reflect their stances against advertising. (A third, the team at OhSofia!, said simply that they don’t do advertising, though their app’s notes users “may opt out of marketing communications.”)

One executive told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News there’s business pressure to maintain access to the data.

“My general feeling is a subscription model is much, much better than any sort of advertising,” said Tim Rubin, the founder of Wellness AI, adding that he’d change the description in his app’s privacy policy.

One investor advised him not to swear off advertising, he said. “They’re like, essentially, that’s the most valuable thing about having an app like this, that data.”

“I think we’re still at the beginning of what’s going to be a revolution in how people seek psychological support and, even in some cases, therapy,” Insel said. “And my concern is that there’s just no framework for any of this.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/mental-health/ai-chatbots-therapy-big-risks-few-regulations/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

State governments rely on such companies to design and operate computer systems that assess whether low-income people qualify for Medicaid or food aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps. Those state systems have a history of errors that can cut off benefits to eligible people, a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News investigation showed.

States are now racing to update their eligibility systems to adhere to President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax-and-spending law. The changes will add red tape and restrictions. They are coming at a steep price ― both in the cost to taxpayers and coverage losses ― according to state documents obtained by Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and interviews.

The documents showÌýgovernment agenciesÌýwill spend millionsÌýto saveÌýconsiderablyÌýmoreÌýbyÌýremovingÌýpeople fromÌýhealth benefits.ÌýWhile statesÌýsignÌýeligibility system contracts with companiesÌýandÌýwork with them to manageÌýupdates, the federal governmentÌýfootsÌýmost of the bill.

The law’s Medicaid policies will causeÌýÌýtoÌýbecome uninsuredÌýby 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.ÌýRoughlyÌýÌýwill loseÌýaccess toÌýmonthly cashÌýassistanceÌýforÌýfood, including those with children.Ìý

In five statesÌýalone,ÌýÌýfor state officialsÌýand reviewed by Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health NewsÌýshow that changesÌýwill cost at least $45.6ÌýmillionÌýcombined.Ìý

The lawÌýrequires most statesÌýtoÌýtieÌýMedicaid coverageÌýfor some adultsÌýtoÌýhavingÌýaÌýjob,ÌýandÌýimposes other restrictions that will make it harder forÌýpeopleÌýwith low incomesÌýto stay enrolled.ÌýSNAP restrictions began to take effect in 2025. Major Medicaid provisionsÌýbeginÌýlater this year.Ìý

DocumentsÌýprepared by consulting company DeloitteÌýestimateÌýthat a pair ofÌýcomputer systemÌýchangesÌýforÌýMedicaid work requirementsÌýin WisconsinÌýwillÌýÌý. Two other changesÌýrelatedÌýto the state’s SNAP program will cost an additional $4.2Ìýmillion, according to the documents, which for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

In Iowa, changes to its Medicaid system are expected to cost at least $20 million, , a consulting company thatÌýoperatesÌýthe state’sÌýeligibility system.Ìý

OptumÌý—ÌýwhichÌýoperatesÌýthe platform Vermont residents useÌýfor Medicaid and marketplaceÌýhealthÌýplans under the Affordable Care ActÌý—ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýtoÌýevaluate andÌýincorporateÌýnewÌýhealthÌýcoverage restrictions.Ìý

Initial changes in Kentucky, which has had a contract with Deloitte since 2012,ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý. And in Illinois,ÌýÌýwill cost at least $12 million.

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/the-week-in-brief-deloitte-medicaid-contractors-trump-big-beautiful-bill/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

Ollie’s parents, who adopted her in 2020, tried to sign her up for a clinical trial using — which genetically reprograms a patient’s white blood cells to help them fight cancer — at UNC Health in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, an hour-and-a-half drive from their home in Eden.

Her mother, Britany Super, described it as Ollie’s “last option.”

But in early March, Super recalled, UNC Health’s financial office told them the bad news: The state’s new insurance for kids in foster care wasn’t going to pay for the treatment.

In December, Ollie became one of hundreds of thousands of kids nationwide enrolled in a special kind of public health insurance for people served by the foster care system. That insurance, known as a specialized managed care plan, is part of Medicaid, the federal-state program that covers health costs for people with low incomes or disabilities.

North Carolina is one of 14 states with such specialized foster care plans, according to the National Academy for State Health Policy. The plans differ by state, but each is meant to expand coverage for children in the foster care system — and for kids who were adopted out of it, such as Ollie and her siblings.

Yet, as in other states that have struggled when adding such plans, North Carolina families have faced hurdles obtaining care. Thousands of doctors whose services were covered under Medicaid were not included in the specialized plan — which is costing the state $3.1 billion over four years — when it rolled out on Dec. 1. That left guardians and parents of kids adopted out of the system scrambling to figure out whether they would have to find new health care providers or new insurance.

In North Carolina, the insurance plan’s stumbles have added another layer of complication around health care issues. The state — like many others — is already over expected Medicaid cuts in the wake of congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. A separate Medicaid funding shortfall also prompted a push to cut care providers’ reimbursement rates.

Texas, which established its plan 18 years ago, that its foster families also had a hard time finding doctors on the insurance. In Florida, researchers for the state reported as early as 2016 that there was .

Illinois’ plan by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over a lack of access to care. Research concluded that California’s plan children with adequate mental health services. Georgia’s access problems alarmed state officials enough to calling for children to be removed from the plan and put back on other Medicaid plans.

But such specialized plans for kids in foster care continue to gain traction. Four states have started their own plans in the past five years, said , the senior director of children and family health at the National Academy for State Health Policy, and she said it’s likely more will adopt them soon.

showing how these programs are faring, Medicaid policy analysts said. It’s therefore difficult to know why they’ve run into rollout problems or whether they’ve improved access to care. That makes the plans risky, said , a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families.

“The states that are going in this direction, unless they have data to support it, are experimenting,” Schneider said. “They’re putting all their eggs in one basket, so they need to pay close attention.”

Rough Rollout

North Carolina’s specialized insurance plan for foster kids experienced problems the day it rolled out.

The state automatically enrolled Ollie and about 32,000 other people in , called . North Carolina officials had said the program would improve health care access for foster children, who often have medically complex needs and move frequently.

But foster families quickly began hearing that their health care providers were not taking the insurance, according to several families who recounted their experiences fighting to get their children’s procedures covered under the plan.

UNC Health, a state-run health system that is , with nearly 4,400 physicians, initially, which is why it told Super that Ollie’s CAR T-cell treatment wouldn’t be covered.

After more than two months of limbo for families, UNC Health ultimately in mid-March with Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, which runs the plan.

But some North Carolina doctors still don’t accept Healthy Blue insurance.

, interim deputy secretary for North Carolina’s Medicaid program, said her office to expand its network, even though it already has what she called an “adequate” number of providers. North Carolina’s health department and Blue Cross Blue Shield did not answer Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News’ questions about how many providers are covered by the new insurance.

“We welcome qualified providers who want to join,” said Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina spokesperson Sara Lang.

Other problems . As thousands of health care records move over to a statewide database managed by Healthy Blue, children’s doctors are struggling to track their patients’ medical histories, said foster care advocates and pediatricians. Parents reported problems seeing health records, finding themselves locked out of online portals. Others couldn’t access prescriptions. Surgeries got delayed. Appointments were canceled.

“Network management for any plan is an ongoing process,” Lang said.

All this meant added red tape and heartache for the caregivers of children like Ollie with complex medical needs — those the .

Gearing Up

Cancer has been part of Ollie’s life since she was 2. She was in the process of getting adopted out of foster care when she began chemotherapy and radiation treatments, then received two stem cell transplants, Super recalled.

Surgeons installed temporary tubes in a vein near her heart and a feeding tube in her abdomen. Her hair fell out as the treatment intensified, and a thin layer of skin peeled off, forcing her new family to wear surgical gowns and gloves when they wanted to be close.

“She doesn’t remember life outside of going to doctors and being in a hospital,” Super said.

Ollie still has a port in her chest ready for whenever she needs intravenous medicine, and her monthly doctor appointments are about to become weekly. During an emergency room visit in mid-March, doctors told Super her daughter’s cancer had spread. Ollie will need more chemotherapy before her body is ready for the more advanced treatment.

But the Supers, thrown into uncertainty for more than two months, still feel some relief. They’re preparing for back-and-forth drives for the CAR T-cell therapy treatments in Chapel Hill. And they’re grateful, even if it means Ollie will spend at least five more weeks in and out of a hospital.

Reliable health insurance will be vital for Ollie, and Healthy Blue leaders said they are talking with doctors, parents, and others to make sure the plan is working. Her procedures carry multimillion-dollar price tags, her mother said, but having her bills seamlessly covered allows the family to focus on Ollie’s treatment.

“The biggest challenges for her will be in the first few months of the study,” said Super, who knows the therapy’s side effects include fever, fatigue, and confusion. “But I’m hoping that after that, the CAR T-cells will do their job and fight the cancer and she can continue to have a playful, active life.”

That means, they hope, the girl could be at home more often with her five siblings and the three family dogs, including Remy, a border collie mix who is Ollie’s favorite.

Super relishes those precious moments for her daughter — “being a kid and doing kid things.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/foster-children-insurance-specialized-medicaid-healthy-blue-north-carolina/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

State governments rely on such companies to design and operate computer systems that assess whether low-income people qualify for Medicaid or food aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly referred to as food stamps. Those state systems have a that can , a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News .

These benefits, provided to the poorest Americans, can mean the difference between someone obtaining medical care and having enough to eat — or going without.

States are now racing to update their eligibility systems to adhere to President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and domestic spending law. The changes will add red tape and restrictions. They are coming at a steep price — both in the cost to taxpayers and coverage losses — according to state documents obtained by Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and interviews.

The documents show government agencies will spend millions to save considerably more by removing people from health benefits. While states sign eligibility system contracts with companies and work with them to manage updates, the federal government foots most of the bill.

The law’s Medicaid policies will cause to become uninsured by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Roughly will lose access to monthly cash assistance for food, including those with children.

In five states alone, for state officials and reviewed by Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News show that changes will cost at least $45.6 million combined.

“This is a pretty big payday,” said Adrianna McIntyre, an assistant professor of health policy and politics at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

The law, which grants tax breaks to the nation’s wealthiest people, requires most states to tie Medicaid coverage for some adults to having a job, and imposes other restrictions that will make it harder for people with low incomes to stay enrolled. SNAP restrictions began to take effect in 2025. Major Medicaid provisions begin later this year.

Documents prepared by consulting company Deloitte estimate that a pair of computer system changes for Medicaid work requirements in Wisconsin will . Two other changes related to the state’s SNAP program will cost an additional $4.2 million, according to the documents, which for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

In Iowa, changes to its Medicaid system are expected to cost at least $20 million, , a consulting company that operates the state’s eligibility system.

Optum — which operates the platform Vermont residents use for Medicaid and marketplace health plans under the Affordable Care Act — to evaluate and incorporate new health coverage restrictions.

Initial changes in Kentucky, which has had a contract with Deloitte since 2012, . And in Illinois, will cost at least $12 million.

A Historic Mandate

For six decades after President Lyndon Johnson created the government insurance program in 1965, Congress had never mandated that Medicaid enrollees have a job, volunteer, or go to school.

That will change next year. The tax and spending law enacted by Trump and congressional Republicans requires millions of Medicaid enrollees in 42 states and the District of Columbia to prove they’re working or participating in a similar activity for 80 hours a month, unless they qualify for an exemption. The CBO projected, based on an early version of the bill, that 18.5 million adults would be subject to the new rules — .

Vermont Medicaid officials expect it will cost $5 million in fiscal 2027 to implement changes in response to the federal law, said Adaline Strumolo, deputy commissioner of the Department of Vermont Health Access. About $1.8 million is for Optum to make eligibility system adjustments. Optum is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will subject nearly 55,000 Vermont Medicaid recipients to work requirements — about a third of the state’s enrollees.

The law forced the state “to essentially drop everything else we were doing,” Strumolo said in an interview. “This is a big, big lift.”

Optum’s contract with the state was as of October.

of adult Medicaid enrollees nationally are already working, according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ. Advocacy groups for Medicaid recipients say work requirements will nonetheless cause significant coverage losses. Enrollees will face added red tape to prove they’re complying. And eligibility systems already prone to error will have to account for employment, job-related activities, and any exemptions.

An estimated 5.3 million enrollees will become uninsured by 2034 due to work requirements, the .

In Wisconsin, state officials estimate could lose coverage after work requirements take effect. Not covering those people would in Medicaid spending for one year.

Wisconsin’s eligibility system for Medicaid and SNAP — known as CARES — in 1994, and initially was a transfer system from Florida, according to a 2016 state document.

Deloitte submitted its cost estimates for Medicaid and SNAP changes to the state in September and December. Elizabeth Goodsitt, a spokesperson for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, declined to answer questions about whether additional changes will be needed, how much it will cost to make all eligibility system changes to comply with the new federal law, and whether the state negotiated prices with Deloitte.

Bobby Peterson, executive director of the public interest law firm ABC for Health, said Wisconsin has invested “very little” to help people navigate the Medicaid eligibility process, which soon will become more difficult.

“But they’re very willing to throw $6 million to their contractors to create the bells and whistles,” Peterson said. “That’s where I feel a sense of frustration.”

New Hurdles for Vets and Homeless People

Medicaid work requirements are only one change required by Trump’s tax law that will make it harder to obtain safety-net benefits.

Starting in October, the law prohibits several immigrant populations from accessing Medicaid and ACA coverage, including people who have been granted asylum, refugees, and certain survivors of domestic violence or human trafficking. Beginning Dec. 31, states must verify eligibility twice a year for millions of adults — doubling state officials’ workload. And the law restricts SNAP benefits by requiring more adult recipients to work and by removing work exemptions for veterans, homeless people, and former foster youth.

Days after Trump signed the bill in July, Kentucky health officials raced to make changes to the state’s integrated eligibility system, which verifies eligibility for Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs. Deloitte operates the system under a five-year . , initial changes costing $1.6 million were labeled a “high priority” and approved on an “emergency” basis, with some of the changes to the nation’s largest food aid program going into effect almost immediately.

Officials with Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services declined to answer a detailed list of questions, including how much it will cost to make all the modifications needed.

Deloitte spokesperson Karen Walsh said the company is working with states to implement new requirements but declined to answer questions about cost estimates in several states. “We are delivering the value and investments we committed to,” Walsh said.

In most states, government agencies rely on contractors to build and run the systems that determine eligibility for Medicaid. Many of those states also use such computer systems for SNAP. But the federal government — that is, taxpayers — to develop and implement state Medicaid eligibility systems and pays 75% of ongoing maintenance and operations expenses, according to federal regulations.

“Five, 10 years ago, I’m not sure if you would hear much mention of SNAP from a Medicaid director,” Melisa Byrd, Washington, D.C.’s Medicaid director, said in November at an annual conference of Medicaid officials. “And particularly for those with integrated eligibility systems — as D.C. is —­ I’m learning more about SNAP than I ever thought.”

The federal law was the topic du jour at last year’s gathering in Maryland, held at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, the largest hotel between New Jersey and Florida.

Consulting companies had taken notice. Gainwell, an eligibility contractor and one of the conference’s corporate sponsors, emblazoned its logo on hotel escalators. Companies set up booths with materials promoting how they could help states and handed out snacks and swag.

“Conduent helps agencies work smarter by simplifying operations, cutting costs and driving better outcomes through intelligent automation, analytics, and innovation in fraud prevention,” read one such handout from another contractor. “Together, we can better serve residents at every step of their health journeys.” Conduent holds Medicaid eligibility and enrollment contracts in Mississippi and New Jersey, their Medicaid agencies confirmed to Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

In handouts, Deloitte touted its role in “building a new era in state health care” and as “a national leader in Medicaid program and technology transformation, building a strong track record across the federal, state, and commercial health care ecosystem.” Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News found that Deloitte, a global consultancy that generated in revenue in fiscal 2025, dominates this slice of government business.

“With Medicaid Community Engagement (CE) requirements, states are tasked with adding a new condition of Medicaid eligibility to support state and federal objectives,” added another brochure. “Deloitte offers strategic outreach and responsive support to help states engage communities, lower barriers, and address access to coverage.”

A $20.3 Million Bill in Iowa

Before Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Iowa lawmakers wanted to impose their own version of work requirements. They would have applied to 183,000 people before any exemptions. The new law would necessitate a change to Iowa’s Medicaid eligibility system, according to documents prepared by Accenture, which operates Iowa’s system through a .

Adding the ability to verify work status would cost up to $7 million, . By July, the cost to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s work requirements and other Medicaid provisions . Accenture’s analysis said the federal law necessitated . Making employment a condition of Medicaid benefits could cause an estimated 32,000 Iowans to lose coverage, according to a

Cutting 32,000 people from coverage in one year, a fraction of the Iowa and the federal government spend on Medicaid in a given year.

In Cedar Rapids, most of Eastern Iowa Health Center’s patients rely on Medicaid, CEO Joe Lock said. He questioned the government’s logic of spending tens of millions of dollars on a policy to remove Iowans from Medicaid.

Most of the health center’s patients live at or below the federal poverty level — currently .

“There is no benefit to this population,” Lock said.

Danielle Sample, a spokesperson for Iowa’s Department of Health and Human Services, did not answer questions about how much it will cost to implement changes to the state’s separate SNAP eligibility system.

In Illinois, the state’s work this year is largely focused on meeting major provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The state estimates that as many as 360,000 residents could lose Medicaid, largely due to the work requirements, said Melissa Kula, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.

Kula confirmed that — priced at $12 million — is related to Trump’s law. The estimate also mentions other work. Kula said Deloitte is charging the state a $2 million fixed fee related to work requirements.

The Trump administration has acknowledged that the work is coming at a cost. In January, top officials for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said government contractors, including Deloitte, Accenture, and Optum, have and reduced rates through 2028 to help states incorporate system changes.

“The companies were extremely excited to do this,” , the top CMS Medicaid official. “Everyone’s really focused on getting to work.”

CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden declined to answer questions about the discounts.

Goodsitt, the Wisconsin Medicaid spokesperson, declined to answer questions about whether Deloitte has discounted its rates. Officials with Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services did not answer a detailed list of questions, including whether Deloitte extended discounts to make these changes.

It’s unclear what discounts, if any, Deloitte and Accenture have offered to individual states. Walsh, the Deloitte spokesperson, declined to answer detailed questions about the discounts the Trump administration announced this year. Accenture did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Strumolo, the Vermont health official, said state officials discussed the announcement with Optum “in detail.”

Optum for a specific module related to Medicaid work requirements. That product is unworkable for Vermont because it would mean “moving to a new system when we don’t have to.” When asked about whether the company offered discounts, Strumolo said “not explicitly.”

In a statement, UnitedHealth Group spokesperson Tyler Mason said Optum supports state implementation of new federal requirements “with a range of options to meet their unique cost and policy needs.”

He declined to specify whether Optum discounted Vermont’s rates and how it calculated the costs of doing its work. “Optum is helping mitigate upfront implementation expenses so states can focus on approaches that reduce duplication, accelerate implementation, and manage costs over time — supporting better outcomes for individuals covered by Medicaid,” Mason said.

Strumolo said Optum’s initial changes in Vermont cover items that take effect this year and in 2027 — Medicaid work requirements, checking eligibility every six months, and prohibiting certain immigrants from qualifying for health programs.

“There’s a lot more that could come,” she said.

This <a target="_blank" href="/insurance/state-medicaid-work-requirements-eligibility-systems-deloitte-accenture-optum/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

He was already thinking about delaying it — then his monthly Obamacare insurance premium payment tripled this year to $2,460, about a third of his income, he said. And with a $2,700 deductible, he’d be on the hook for most of the diagnostic exam, a financial hit he said he couldn’t stomach.

“It was going to cost close to $3,000,” said Galvin, who lives in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, and recently retired as director of a durable medical equipment company. “I put it off.”

Galvin said his wife, Nancy, is delaying a costly CT scan for a few years until she too qualifies for Medicare, so it can foot the bill. The federal health program offers coverage for all Americans 65 and older.

People on Affordable Care Act plans nearing retirement age experienced some of the largest price increases following the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies at the end of December. Those with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level — — had been getting help paying for the plans since the Biden administration expanded the subsidies during the covid-19 pandemic. Adults ages 50 through 64 of those ACA enrollees.

Now, without that federal financial help, some in this age group say they’re wrestling with whether to delay care until they qualify for Medicare. Not only does that put their physical health at risk, said patient advocates, doctors, and health policy researchers, but it potentially just shifts the costs — and could lead to taxpayers’ footing even bigger bills to fix health issues that worsen amid the delays.

“There’s going to be a lot of pent-up demand and unmet need,” said , a health policy consultant who worked in the Obama and Biden administrations. “Medicare is going to have to spend a whole heck of a lot of money covering and dealing with their treatment.”

The Affordable Care Act has been a key source of health care coverage for people 50 through 64. Access to Obamacare plans helped cut the uninsured rate for this age group by half, , a lobbying group that represents older adults. That allowed some people to retire early while keeping coverage. It also has provided a safety net for and those with jobs that don’t offer health insurance.

Last fall, the occurred amid an unsuccessful effort by Democrats to extend the enhanced subsidies. Republicans opposing the extension had said the assistance went to insurers, incentivizing fraud and wasteful coverage.

The issue will continue to have political relevance, especially in this year’s midterm elections, including among older Americans who reliably show up to the polls, said Republican strategist , who runs the Atlas Strategy Group.

“Is affordability going to be an issue? Absolutely,” he said. “Are health care prices going to factor into that? Yes.”

Even before the subsidies expired, the costs of medical care, nursing homes, and prescription drugs were among the top health-related concerns for people over 50, a found.

Middle-aged adults with Obamacare plans acutely feel the pinch of the expired subsidies, because to charge adults in their 60s up to three times as much for premiums as those in their 20s, who generally use fewer medical services.

And many middle-aged adults were already enrolled in the lowest-cost plans available, which leaves them without cheaper options to fall back on, said , a policy analyst with Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

“This is very dire for the older marketplace enrollees,” he said.

Someone making a few dollars over 400% of the federal poverty level earns too much to get a subsidy now, and in some states average premium payments were due to for this group. Many people are seeing yearly rate increases of thousands of dollars, with premium payments totaling as much as a quarter of their incomes.

, a primary care physician and health policy researcher at the University of Michigan, said he has regular conversations with older patients who are trying to figure out how to afford their medical care. Some in their early 60s are likely to drop ACA coverage because of rising premiums, he said.

“That’s a gamble,” he added.

Marci Heinbaugh may take that bet. The 63-year-old social services worker, who lives in rural Illinois, said her monthly premium payments more than doubled, from roughly $1,100 to $2,333, for a plan with a $10,150 out-of-pocket maximum.

She knew she’d be paying more, she said, but wasn’t anticipating that kind of increase. A few months in, she’s not sure if she’ll stick with the plan for the rest of the year. She said she may go uninsured.

“I’m petrified to even think about that,” Heinbaugh said.

People want to buy their own insurance on the marketplace, and many middle-aged adults could afford it with just a little federal financial help, said , senior vice president of public policy at AARP. Those who drop coverage or delay care until they reach age 65 might save money now, but that could be more costly for them — and taxpayers — later.

“There’s significant possibility that the purported savings associated with reducing subsidies as people approach retirement end up turning into higher utilization costs for Medicare,” Weil said.

And Medicare enrollees aren’t insulated from rising costs. In January, for example, standard Medicare from $185 per month to almost $203.

Until Galvin joins Medicare, he said, he expects to burn through a $30,000 retirement account to cover his marketplace plan’s premium payments and deductible.

A found that 1 in 5 adults over 50 had no retirement savings and 3 in 5 were worried they wouldn’t have enough retirement savings to support themselves.

The expiration of these Obamacare subsidies puts additional financial pressure on Americans as they approach retirement, health policy researchers said.

“It’s forcing people to make impossible choices,” said , director of federal health advocacy for the national nonprofit Justice in Aging.

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? to contact Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and share your story.

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/health-costs-middle-aged-adults-delay-affordable-care-act-obamacare-medicare/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez for refusing what her lawyers called “,” Newsom to help modernize California’s public health system. He also gave a job to Debra Houry, the agency’s former chief science and medical officer, who had resigned in protest hours after Monarez’s firing.

Newsom also teamed up with fellow Democratic governors Tina Kotek of Oregon, Bob Ferguson of Washington, and Josh Green of Hawaii to form the , a regional public health agency, whose guidance would “uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys” the CDC’s credibility. Newsom argued establishing the independent alliance was vital as Kennedy leads the Trump administration’s rollback of national vaccine recommendations.

More recently, California became the a global outbreak response network coordinated by the World Health Organization, followed by Illinois and New York. Colorado and Wisconsin signaled they plan to join. They did so after President Donald Trump officially from the agency on the grounds that it had “strayed from its core mission and has acted contrary to the U.S. interests in protecting the U.S. public on multiple occasions.” Newsom said joining the WHO-led consortium would enable California to respond faster to communicable disease outbreaks and other public health threats.

Although other Democratic governors and public health leaders have openly criticized the federal government, few have been as outspoken as Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028 and is in his second and final term as governor. Members of the scientific community have praised his effort to build a public health bulwark against the Trump administration’s slashing of funding and scaling back of vaccine recommendations.

What Newsom is doing “is a great idea,” said Paul Offit, an outspoken critic of Kennedy and a vaccine expert who formerly served on the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee but was removed under Trump in 2025.

“Public health has been turned on its head,” Offit said. “We have an anti-vaccine activist and science denialist as the head of U.S. Health and Human Services. It’s dangerous.”

The White House did not respond to questions about Newsom’s stance and HHS declined requests to interview Kennedy. Instead, federal health officials criticized Democrats broadly, arguing that blue states are participating in fraud and mismanagement of federal funds in public health programs.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said the administration is going after “Democrat-run states that pushed unscientific lockdowns, toddler mask mandates, and draconian vaccine passports during the covid era.” She said those moves have “completely eroded the American people’s trust in public health agencies.”

Public Health Guided by Science

Since Trump returned to office, Newsom has criticized the president and his administration for engineering policies that he sees as an affront to public health and safety, labeling federal leaders as “extremists” trying to “weaponize the CDC and spread misinformation.” He has for erroneously linking vaccines to autism, the administration is endangering the lives of infants and young children in scaling back childhood vaccine recommendations. And he argued that the White House is unleashing “chaos” on America’s public health system in backing out of the WHO.

The governor declined an interview request. Newsom spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said it’s a priority of the governor “to protect public health and provide communities with guidance rooted in science and evidence, not politics and conspiracies.”

The Trump administration’s moves have triggered financial uncertainty that local officials said has reduced morale within public health departments and left states unprepared for disease outbreaks and . The White House last year proposed cutting HHS spending , including . Congress largely rejected those cuts last month, although funding for programs focusing on social drivers of health, such as access to food, housing, and education, .

The Trump administration announced that it would claw back in public health funds from California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, arguing that the Democratic-led states were funding “woke” initiatives that didn’t reflect White House priorities. Within days, and a judge the cut.

“They keep suddenly canceling grants and then it gets overturned in court,” said Kat DeBurgh, executive director of the Health Officers Association of California. “A lot of the damage is already done because counties already stopped doing the work.”

Federal funding has accounted for of state and local health department budgets nationwide, with money going toward fighting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, preventing chronic diseases, and boosting public health preparedness and communicable disease response, according to a 2025 analysis by Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

Federal funds account for $2.4 billion of California’s $5.3 billion public health budget, making it difficult for Newsom and state lawmakers to backfill potential cuts. That money helps fund state operations and is vital for local health departments.

Funding Cuts Hurt All

Los Angeles County public health director Barbara Ferrer said if the federal government is allowed to cut that $600 million, the county of nearly 10 million residents would lose an estimated $84 million over the next two years, in addition to other grants for prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Ferrer said the county depends on nearly $1 billion in federal funding annually to track and prevent communicable diseases and combat chronic health conditions, including diabetes and high blood pressure. Already, the the closure of that provided vaccinations and disease testing, largely because of funding losses tied to federal grant cuts.

“It’s an ill-informed strategy,” Ferrer said. “Public health doesn’t care whether your political affiliation is Republican or Democrat. It doesn’t care about your immigration status or sexual orientation. Public health has to be available for everyone.”

A single case of measles requires public health workers to track down 200 potential contacts, Ferrer said.

The U.S. but is close to losing that status as a result of vaccine skepticism and misinformation spread by vaccine critics. The U.S. had , the most since 1991, with 93% in people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. This year, the highly contagious disease has been reported at , , and .

Public health officials hope the West Coast Health Alliance can help counteract Trump by building trust through evidence-based public health guidance.

“What we’re seeing from the federal government is partisan politics at its worst and retaliation for policy differences, and it puts at extraordinary risk the health and well-being of the American people,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, a coalition of public health professionals.

Robust Vaccine Schedule

Erica Pan, California’s top public health officer and director of the state Department of Public Health, said the West Coast Health Alliance is defending science by recommending a vaccine schedule than the federal government. California is part of a coalition over its decision to rescind recommendations for seven childhood vaccines, including for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, and covid-19.

Pan expressed deep concern about the state of public health, particularly the uptick in measles. “We’re sliding backwards,” Pan said of immunizations.

Sarah Kemble, Hawaii’s state epidemiologist, said Hawaii joined the alliance after hearing from pro-vaccine residents who wanted assurance that they would have access to vaccines.

“We were getting a lot of questions and anxiety from people who did understand science-based recommendations but were wondering, ‘Am I still going to be able to go get my shot?’” Kemble said.

Other states led mostly by Democrats have also formed alliances, with Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and several other East Coast states banding together to create the .

HHS’ Hilliard said that even as Democratic governors establish vaccine advisory coalitions, the federal “remains the scientific body guiding immunization recommendations in this country, and HHS will ensure policy is based on rigorous evidence and gold standard science, not the failed politics of the pandemic.”

Influencing Red States

Newsom, for his part, has approved a recurring annual infusion of nearly $300 million to support the state Department of Public Health, as well as the 61 local public health agencies across California, and last year authorizing the state to issue its own immunization guidance. It requires health insurers in California to provide patient coverage for vaccinations the state recommends even if the federal government doesn’t.

Jeffrey Singer, a doctor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said decentralization can be beneficial. That’s because local media campaigns that reflect different political ideologies and community priorities may have a better chance of influencing the public.

A Â鶹ŮÓÅ analysis found some red states are joining blue states in decoupling their vaccine recommendations from the federal government’s. Singer said some doctors in his home state of Arizona are looking to more liberal California for vaccine recommendations.

“Science is never settled, and there are a lot of areas of this country where there are differences of opinion,” Singer said. “This can help us challenge our assumptions and learn.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/gavin-newsom-california-public-health-fight-west-coast-alliance-trump-hhs-rfk/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

When federal immigration agents descended on their city, officers deported Gabi’s father and detained her aunt.

Gabi was born in the U.S. and is an American citizen. Her best chance to stand, or even walk, someday is a complex surgery on her legs and feet that was scheduled for January. But her mother, too terrified to take out the garbage let alone venture through the city to a hospital, canceled the procedure. Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News agreed to only partially identify the patients and their families in this article because they fear becoming targets of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

“I want more than anything for my baby to walk,” her mother said in Spanish, as Gabi cooed and wriggled in her arms, a feeding tube snaking from her stomach to an IV pole. “But with the situation that’s happening, I canceled the surgery and all the physical therapy appointments” that would have followed. “Because I’m afraid to leave.”

The Department of Homeland Security has declared an end to what it called Operation Metro Surge, carried out by officers with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agencies. Even so, health care workers say, immigration agents are still camping out in hospital parking lots. And drones fly overhead in agricultural areas beyond Minneapolis, where Somali and Latino immigrants have settled in recent years.

The Minnesota crackdown revealed the sweep of the surveillance and capture system the Trump administration is using to uproot immigrant communities in the United States, and the effect of its powerful brake on the medical system.

Similar health crises surfaced wherever immigration officers massed in the past year. In Dallas, public health clinics administered about 6,000 vaccinations to Latinos last August, half as many as during a similar program a year earlier. In Chicago, doctors rerouted patients daily from clinic to clinic depending on ICE activity. Across the country, crackdowns suppressed immigrants’ health care visits.

In Minnesota, medical systems have reported cancellation and no-show rates of up to 60% since December.

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, blamed protesters for the disruption. “If anyone is impeding Americans from making appointments or picking up prescriptions,” she said, “its [sic] violent agitators who are blocking roadways, ramming vehicles, and vandalizing property.”

While Minnesotans rose up to oppose the surge in the streets, doctors and nurses have quietly operated informal, underground medical networks, dodging detection to care for patients at home.

“I used to look somebody in the eyes and say, with good faith, ‘You will be fine at the hospital,’” said Emily Carroll, a nurse practitioner at HealthFinders Collaborative, a community clinic in Faribault, some 50 miles south of Minneapolis. “But now, I can’t make that guarantee.”

As thousands of federal agents move on from Minneapolis, other communities need to prepare, said Minnesota Democratic state Sen. Alice Mann, a physician.

“I know it sounds crazy,” she said, but health care providers “need to start an underground network of how to get people care in their homes. Because letting people die at home or come close to death because they are terrified to go into the hospital, in 2026, is outrageous.”

The Surge Delivers Harm

Home visits, clinicians say, may be the only way to reach those who still feel under siege. In Los Angeles, starting last June, St. John’s Community Health brought medical care to some 2,000 immigrant families too frightened to leave home during an immigration sweep after the clinic’s no-show rates ballooned to more than 30%, said Jim Mangia, the organization’s president.

Many of Minnesota’s large health institutions have relied on telemedicine and only dabbled in home care.

Not Munira Maalimisaq, co-founder of Inspire Change Clinic in Minneapolis’ Ventura Village neighborhood. After about one-third of her patients stopped showing up for appointments, “I was like, ‘We have to do something,’” the nurse practitioner said. So she called a physician friend. What if they just started seeing patients at home?

“And she’s like, ‘You know what? Let’s do it.’”

They now have about 150 doctors — a volunteer “rapid response” team that has made more than 135 home visits. The first call was a woman whose husband had been deported. She was home with her children, was 39 weeks pregnant, and was in labor. Maalimisaq called an obstetrician volunteer, and they rushed to the patient’s house.

“She was 8 centimeters dilated,” Maalimisaq said, “and did not want us to call an ambulance. She says, ‘Can I have the baby here?’”

The woman was not a good candidate for a home birth, Maalimisaq said. They persuaded her to ride to the hospital in Maalimisaq’s car, a “small Tesla, white seats. Everything that could go wrong was there.”

But they made it to the hospital in time, and the woman had a safe, healthy delivery. “If we were not there, I can only imagine what would have happened.”

Maalimisaq’s caregiving follows a Hippocratic logic: “Someone was in need. I cannot just do nothing. And we cannot call an ambulance against her will and have her shoved in there. We had no choice but to do something, and that was the only thing that we could do safely.”

In other visits, she has seen “people so stressed out they pulled the hair out of their skull.” She said she met a mother who’d been rationing her child’s seizure medicine despite the child having experienced “one seizure after another.”

The Trump administration says its Minnesota operation improved public safety. “Since Operation Metro Surge began, our brave DHS law enforcement have arrested over 4,000 criminal illegal aliens including vicious murderers, rapists, child pedophiles and incredibly dangerous individuals,” according to McLaughlin, the DHS spokesperson. DHS announced last month that McLaughlin was leaving her post.

Minnesota correctional officials say many people accused of crimes were released directly to ICE by state or county prisons and jails. And of people arrested by ICE nationwide in January had criminal convictions, according to DHS data. Far fewer were convicted of violent crimes.

Agents Outside Hospitals, Clinics

On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump rescinded a 2011 policy that prohibited immigration enforcement in “sensitive locations” such as schools, hospitals, and churches.

In Northfield, about 45 miles south of Minneapolis, ICE agents have been sitting in their cars for hours at least twice a week outside health clinics, including one run by the local hospital, said Carroll, the nurse practitioner. Agents have made arrests in the area almost every day, Carroll and her colleagues said.

“ICE does not conduct enforcement at hospitals — period,” McLaughlin said.

One recent morning, three ICE vehicles sat in a Baptist church parking lot across the street from an elementary school in Northfield as volunteers ferried 35 children of immigrants back and forth to the school so their parents could avoid going out, Carroll said.

“ICE is not going to schools to arrest children — we are protecting children,” McLaughlin said.

Drones that Carroll and others believe are operated by immigration agents hover most nights, and sometimes during the day, over a trailer park that mostly houses immigrants who have moved to the area to work in agriculture and manufacturing over the past 15 years. Families paper over trailer windows, Carroll said.

“You cannot feel safe anywhere,” she said. “On the way to school, on the way to clinic, you might pass ICE. The sort of crushing fear and feeling of being trapped that these families are going through is outrageous.”

That fear means patients with diabetes and heart disease are missing blood sugar and blood thinner tests. Patients aren’t getting exercise, and the chronically ill are getting sicker, said Calla Brown, a Minneapolis pediatrician.

At the Faribault clinic where Carroll works, staff members deliver medicine, food, and other necessities to patients. A staffer drives 12 middle and high school kids to and from class every day in a clinic van.

Some patients are treated at home. Carroll recently diagnosed a baby with influenza, telling the parents it wasn’t an immediate threat — yet.

“‘If you see the baby struggling to breathe, if the baby’s not eating, if the baby isn’t making wet diapers, you have to go to the hospital,’” Carroll said she told them. “‘I cannot promise it’s safe. But you’ve got to go.’”

‘We’re Nice to Each Other’

In Minneapolis, nurse-midwife Fernanda Honebrink spends most of her daylight hours calling, coordinating, and shuttling between a ballooning group of fearful people stuck in their homes. She prefers not to call it a medical underground.

“It’s more like, that’s how we function in Minnesota,” said Honebrink, a U.S. citizen who emigrated from Ecuador 23 years ago. “We’re nice to each other.”

Honebrink spent a recent afternoon at the home of a family with a baby boy. His parents, Alex and Isa, desperately want him to receive vaccinations and blood tests at his one-year well-child appointment.

But they haven’t left their apartment for more than a month. “You don’t know what is most important: whether to go out for his well-being, or to go out and think that you might not come back,” Alex said.

The couple, who were interviewed in Spanish, entered the U.S. legally from Venezuela in 2024 under a program called Humanitarian Parole, which Trump ended in May. Since then, federal agents have detained and deported workers at a company where Alex, a mechanical engineer by training, worked in construction.

Alex and Isa have seen government vehicles outside their home. They knew of a man, they said, who had legitimate work papers but was picked up while walking to church one Sunday, flown to Texas, then put on a plane to Venezuela. It was a terrifying prospect for those who’ve fled that country’s dictatorship and economic chaos.

“It feels like a psychological attack,” Alex said. “The possibility of being separated from your family.”

Isa, a lawyer back in Venezuela, has endured postpartum depression, cooped up for weeks in their apartment. The state program that provided health insurance to all immigrants ended Jan. 1. A therapist checks in occasionally by phone, free of charge.

She has tried to keep the family afloat by selling homemade cakes and necklaces, and babysitting.

Her worst fear is being separated from her son, who was born in the U.S. and is a citizen. The possibility hadn’t occurred to her until an acquaintance urged her to to designate someone to have temporary custody if she were deported.

“It was something I never imagined,” said Isa, who sobbed as she recalled the moment. “He’s my baby! He’s not someone else’s! What? My baby would remain here with someone?’’

Honebrink suddenly piped up: “I will guarantee him. I’ll sign the form.”

She later told a reporter, “I told my husband I wouldn’t do that. I’ve already signed as a sponsor for four kids.”

As soon as she left the apartment, Honebrink jumped back on the phone and traded favors with local pediatricians, clinic schedulers, and volunteers. Within hours, she’d set up a new well-child visit for the baby and found a vetted driver to transport the family.

“A white person,” Honebrink explained.

Two days later, Honebrink sent a picture of her small victory: Alex and Isa’s baby boy with a Band-Aid on his legs. “He got his vaccines,” she said via text. “I’m so happy.”

But other medical needs cannot be as swiftly addressed. One February evening, Honebrink greeted Gabi and her mother with a trunk full of donated baby wipes, diapers, and toys.

Gabi’s surgery is rescheduled for August. Her mother said she hoped by then it would be safe to leave home.

“I used to take the kids to the park, but now we don’t leave at all,” she said. “They grab people, they mistreat them. How I wish it would end soon!”

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News’ Jackie Fortiér contributed to this report.

This <a target="_blank" href="/race-and-health/minneapolis-immigration-crackdown-underground-medical-care-networks/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ripe for Regulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insurers Push Back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeking Balance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/insurance/artificial-intelligence-ai-health-insurance-companies-state-regulation-trump/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

For a second year, the Democrat has asked state lawmakers to roll back coverage for some immigrants in the face of federal Medicaid spending cuts and a roughly that if the artificial intelligence bubble bursts. Newsom has proposed that the state not step in when, starting in October, the federal government stops providing health coverage to an estimated 200,000 legal residents — comprising .

Progressive legislators and activists said the cost-saving measures are a departure from Newsom’s , while Republicans continue to skewer Newsom for using public funds to cover any noncitizens.

Newsom’s latest move would save an estimated $786 million this fiscal year and $1.1 billion annually in future years in a proposed budget of $349 billion, according to the Department of Finance.

State Sen. Caroline Menjivar, one of two Senate Democrats who voted against Newsom’s immigrant health cuts last year, said she worried the governor’s political ambition could be getting in the way of doing what’s best for Californians.

“You’re clouded by what Arkansas is going to think, or Tennessee is going to think, when what California thinks is something completely different,” said Menjivar, who said previous criticism got her from a key budget subcommittee. “That’s my perspective on what’s happening here.”

Meanwhile, Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland criticized Newsom for glossing over the state’s , which state officials say could balloon to $27 billion the following year. And he slammed Newsom for continuing to cover California residents in the U.S. without authorization. “He just wants to reinvent himself,” Strickland said.

It’s a political tightrope that will continue to grow thinner as federal support shrinks amid ever-rising health care expenses, said Guian McKee, a co-chair of the Health Care Policy Project at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs.

“It’s not just threading one needle but threading three or four of them right in a row,” McKee said. Should Newsom run, McKee added, the priorities of Democratic primary voters — who largely mirror blue states like California — look very different from those in a far more divided general electorate.

Americans are deeply divided on whether the government should provide health coverage to immigrants without legal status. In a last year, a slim majority — 54% — were against a provision that would have penalized states that use their own funds to pay for immigrant health care, with wide variation by party. The provision was left out of the final version of the bill passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump.

Even in California, support for the idea has waned amid ongoing budget problems. In a by the Public Policy Institute of California, 41% of adults in the state said they supported providing health coverage to immigrants who lack legal status, a sharp drop from the 55% .

, Vice President , , and congressional Republicans have repeatedly accused California and other Democratic states of using taxpayer funds on immigrant health care, a red-meat issue for their GOP base. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz has of “” to receive more federal funds, freeing up state coffers for its Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, which has enrolled roughly 1.6 million immigrants without legal status.

“If you are a taxpayer in Texas or Florida, your tax dollars could’ve been used to fund the care of illegal immigrants in California,” he said in October.

California state officials have denied the charges, noting that only state funds are used to pay for general health services for those without legal status because the law prohibits using federal funds. Instead, Newsom has made it a “” that California has opened up coverage to immigrants, which his administration has noted and helps them avoid costly emergency room care often covered at taxpayer expense.

“No administration has done more to expand full coverage under Medicaid than this administration for our diverse communities, documented and undocumented,” Newsom told reporters in January. “People have built careers out of criticizing my advocacy.”

Newsom warns the federal government’s “carnival of chaos” passed Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which he said puts 1.8 million Californians at risk of losing their health coverage with the implementation of work requirements, other eligibility rules, and limits to federal funding to states.

Nationally, 10 million people could lose coverage by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. higher numbers of uninsured patients — particularly those who are relatively healthy — could concentrate coverage among sicker patients, potentially increasing premium costs and hospital prices overall.

Immigrant advocates say it’s especially callous to leave residents who may have fled violence or survived trafficking or abuse without access to health care. Federal rules currently require state Medicaid programs to cover “qualified noncitizens” including asylees and refugees, according to Tanya Broder of the National Immigration Law Center. But the Republican tax-and-spending law ends the coverage, affecting legal immigrants nationwide.

With many state governors yet to release budget proposals, it’s unclear how they might handle the funding gaps, Broder said.

For instance, Colorado state officials estimate roughly 7,000 legal immigrants could lose coverage due to the law’s changes. And Washington state officials refugees, asylees, and other lawfully present immigrants will lose Medicaid.

Both states, like California, expanded full coverage to all income-eligible residents regardless of immigration status. Their elected officials are now in the awkward position of explaining why some legal immigrants may lose their health care coverage while those without legal status could keep theirs.

Last year, spiraling health care costs and state budget constraints prompted the Democratic governors of , potential presidential contenders JB Pritzker and Tim Walz, to pause or end coverage of immigrants without legal status.

California lawmakers last year voted to eliminate dental coverage and freeze new enrollment for immigrants without legal status and, starting next year, will charge monthly premiums to those who remain. Even so, the state is slated to spend $13.8 billion from its general fund on immigrants not covered by the federal government, according to Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer.

At a press conference in San Francisco in January, Newsom defended those moves, saying they were necessary for “fiscal prudence.” He sidestepped questions about coverage for asylees and refugees and downplayed the significance of his proposal, saying he could revise it when he gets a chance to update his budget in May.

Kiran Savage-Sangwan, executive director of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, pointed out that California passed a law in the 1990s requiring the state to cover when federal Medicaid dollars won’t. This includes green-card holders who haven’t yet met the five-year waiting period for enrolling in Medicaid.

Calling the governor’s proposal “arbitrary and cruel,” Savage-Sangwan criticized his choice to prioritize rainy day fund deposits over maintaining coverage and said blaming the federal government was misleading.

It’s also a major departure from what she had hoped California could achieve on Newsom’s first day in office seven years ago, when he declared his support for and proposed extending health insurance .

“I absolutely did have hope, and we celebrated advances that the governor led,” Savage-Sangwan said. “Which makes me all the more disappointed.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/insurance/california-governor-gavin-newsom-immigrant-health-care-medicaid-president/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

The lawsuit, settled on confidential terms last year, blamed not only the managers of City Creek Post-Acute and Assisted Living but also the building’s owner, a real estate investment trust, or REIT.

In the year Darby died, City Creek paid CareTrust REIT more than $1 million in rent, while the Sacramento, California, nursing home ran a deficit, court records show.

Federal tax rules ban REITs from running health care facilities, but CareTrust was not an absentee landlord either, according to internal records filed in the case. It chose the nursing home’s management company and required through the lease that the home keep at least 80% of beds occupied. CareTrust granularly tracked how well the home kept to its financial plan, down to the money spent monthly on nurses and food, the records said. And the documents showed that the real estate company kept tabs on government safety inspection findings and Medicare quality ratings.

Both CareTrust and the nursing home operator denied liability for Darby’s death. CareTrust officials said in court papers that it is not involved in day-to-day nursing home decisions or patient care, and that it monitors facilities to ensure nothing jeopardizes rent payments. In a written statement, CareTrust Corporate Counsel Joseph Layne told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News: “We are the property owners, not the operators.”

Landlords With Influence

Over the past decade, real estate investment trusts have bought thousands of buildings that house nursing homes, hospitals, assisted living facilities, and medical offices. A Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News examination of court filings and corporate records shows that these landlords have more influence than the health care facilities publicly acknowledge.

The documents reveal REITs often select the management who oversee the operations and leave them in place even when they are aware of threadbare staffing, floundering governance, repeated safety violations, or other problems that hamper quality of care. A California jury in March awarded $92 million in punitive damages against a former REIT over the death of a 100-year-old resident with dementia who froze to death outside her assisted living facility.

“The REITs are in charge,” said Laraclay Parker, one of the lawyers who represent Darby’s daughter.

Absence of Oversight

Despite their ubiquity, REITs remain invisible to state and federal health regulators. Hospitals and nursing homes are not required to disclose rent payments or landlord identities in the annual reports they submit to Medicare.

Under President Donald Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services a Biden-era requirement that nursing homes . Catherine Howden, a CMS spokesperson, said in a statement that the agency does not regulate facilities based on their tax status or corporate form and instead focuses on the quality of the care they provide.

REITs now of the nation’s senior housing, which includes assisted living, memory care, and independent living, according to an industry analysis. REITs also hold investments in nursing homes. Publicly traded REITs that focus on health care are now worth nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars, according to Nareit, an industry association.

While one research study found REIT investments were associated with , another concluded that after being bought by REITs, nursing homes frequently with less skilled nurses and aides. A concluded that health inspection results were worse after REIT investment.

Researchers also found that investor-owned hospital chains that sold buildings to REITs were or go bankrupt, with Steward Health Care. Often, private equity investors kept the sale proceeds as profits while the hospitals were burdened with new rent costs. “There were no improvements in clinical outcomes,” said Thomas Tsai, an associate professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

REITs are required to distribute most of their income and don’t have to pay the 21% federal corporate income tax on it. There is a catch: A REIT that “directly or indirectly operates or manages” a health care facility for five years. Typically, a REIT leases the property to another company that runs the nursing home or assisted living facility and maintains its tax break. Nareit said health care REITs distributed more than $7 billion in dividends in 2024.

Michael Stroyeck, head of health care analysis at Green Street, a real estate research company, said “there’s definitely a symbiotic relationship” between REITs and facility managers because they have the same goals. He said he has seen REITs replace operators that are having difficulties or go bankrupt.

John Kane, a senior vice president at the American Health Care Association and the National Center for Assisted Living, an industry group that represents nursing homes, said in a statement: “Given government funding often falls short, REITs have been valuable partners in helping to invest in long term care without influencing daily operations.”

Low Staffing at a Chain

Strawberry Fields REIT, which like CareTrust trades on the New York Stock Exchange, owns or controls the buildings of 131 nursing home facilities. The nursing home operations inside 66 of those facilities are owned by Moishe Gubin, Strawberry Fields’ chief executive, and Michael Blisko, one of its directors, according to Strawberry Fields’ for last year.

Gubin and Blisko also jointly own , which manages their nursing homes; Blisko is Infinity’s CEO. On average, Infinity-affiliated nursing homes provided an hour and a quarter less nursing care per resident per day than the national average of four hours, a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News analysis of federal records found.

Infinity and several of its nursing homes have recently settled 30 death and injury lawsuits in Cook County, Illinois, totaling more than $4 million, said Margaret Battersby Black, a Chicago lawyer. A jury last year awarded $12 million in a lawsuit brought against Infinity and one of its Chicago nursing homes over the 2023 death of Shirley Adams. A retired candy factory worker, Adams died after developing infected bedsores at Lakeview Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, according to the lawsuit.

“She had wounds that no one could explain,” one of her adult children, Leslie Adams, testified at trial. Medicare its lowest quality rating, one star out of five.

Paul Connery, a lawyer for Adams’ family, said they are still trying to collect on the judgment against the nursing home and management company, which now totals $17 million with interest and attorney fees.

“If I get caught speeding and I went to court, they issue me a ticket and I’ve got a fine to pay,” Adams said in an interview. “How are they able to still continue to move on with business like nothing has happened?”

In a phone interview and an email, Gubin said Strawberry Fields, Infinity, and the nursing homes are all legally distinct and that he has not played an active role in Infinity in more than a decade. He said nursing homes get sued all the time but that the verdict against Lakeview is so large that it will force the home to declare bankruptcy or shut down.

“The whole thing is unfortunate,” Gubin said by phone. “For 15 years they were a perfectly good guardian” and “a well-run building,” he said. “You wouldn’t think it was fair to be judged on your worst day.”

Blisko and an Infinity lawyer did not respond to requests for comment.

Strawberry Fields, which owns 10 assisted living facilities and two long-term care hospitals in addition to the nursing homes, earned net income last year of from $155 million in rent, a 21% profit margin, securities filings show. Gubin said those weren’t excessive returns.

A $110 Million Verdict

Traditionally, REIT leases make the operating companies responsible for paying property taxes, insurance premiums, and maintenance costs. In 2008, Congress gave health care REITs a new option to make money: On top of collecting rents, they could set up subsidiaries and take profits directly from health care businesses. They still must have independent management overseeing care decisions. Many REITs have embraced the role even though the subsidiaries must pay corporate taxes and risk losing money if the businesses do poorly.

Colony Capital was a REIT that through layers of shell corporations owned both the building and the operation of Greenhaven Estates, a Sacramento assisted living and memory care facility. In 2018 Greenhaven paid Colony $1.4 million in rent, nearly a third of its $4.5 million in revenue that year, according to financial records filed in court.

Greenhaven also was on the verge of losing its license, according to a revocation notice filed in November 2018 by the California Department of Social Services. Greenhaven had racked up years of health violations, including from letting untrained workers administer medications, lacking enough employees to care for people with dementia, and neglecting a resident who smeared feces over his body, bed, floor, and bathroom, the notice said.

In February 2019, a few weeks after celebrating her 100th birthday, Mildred Hernandez, a resident with Alzheimer’s, wandered out of Greenhaven in the middle of the night. Her assisted living wing had no exit door alarms even though it housed several residents with dementia, court records showed. Berta Lepe, one of Greenhaven’s caregivers, found Hernandez under a bush, wearing only a shirt and underwear. The temperature was in the 30s.

“She was talking, but I couldn’t understand what she was saying,” Lepe testified at trial over a lawsuit from Hernandez’s family. Hernandez died of hypothermia a few hours later, according to her death certificate.

Frontier Management, the company that Colony had hired to manage Greenhaven, denied liability and settled the lawsuit on undisclosed terms.

Since the lawsuit, Colony has changed its name to DigitalBridge, which no longer owns Greenhaven and gave up its REIT status. At trial earlier this year, DigitalBridge said resident care was the responsibility of Frontier and that Colony “encouraged” Frontier to address problems. Richard Welch, a former Colony executive, testified that replacing management is disruptive. “I viewed it as a last resort,” he said.

In March, a jury awarded Hernandez’s family $110 million: $10 million in compensatory damages, $92 million in punitive damages against DigitalBridge, and $8 million in punitive damages against Formation Capital, an asset management company.

“REIT money is very detached from knowing about or caring about patient or resident outcomes, because it’s not in their business model,” Ed Dudensing, a lawyer for the family, said in an interview. “Their allegiance is to their investors.”

DigitalBridge has asked the judge to delay finalizing the judgment while its legal challenges to the lawsuit and the verdict are evaluated. A DigitalBridge attorney and a corporate spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment, a Formation attorney declined comment, and a Frontier attorney and a spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

‘Wet From Head to Toe’

When CareTrust bought City Creek Post-Acute and Assisted Living in 2019, the Sacramento nursing home where Pearlene Darby lived had a one-star Medicare rating and was losing money. CareTrust leased the building to a management company called Kalesta Healthcare Group based on the business plan Kalesta submitted.

While CareTrust was not the operator, it held periodic phone calls with Kalesta, which provided “a full update of what’s happening at the facility,” including changes in leadership, financial progress, and health inspection survey results, according to deposition testimony by Ryan Williams, a Kalesta co-founder.

According to a state inspection report, in 2020, the year Darby died, City Creek left a resident in soiled linens “wet from head to toe lying in bed” for more than eight hours. During a different visit, a health inspector cited the home after watching a nurse put a dirty diaper back onto a resident after caring for a wound. “It was just a small stool and it is far from where the wound is,” the nurse told the inspector, according to the report.

James Callister, CareTrust’s chief investment officer, said in his deposition that CareTrust officials “review results of regulatory surveys provided to us by the tenant. We review the five-star rating.” He said, “We evaluate results of care, but we do not evaluate types of care given or how or when, no.”

Darby had been living in City Creek since 2011 after a stroke left her in a wheelchair. She needed help getting in and out of bed. From September through November 2020, Darby lost 30 pounds, her family’s lawsuit alleged. During those months, employees dropped her three times as one worker rather than the required two operated the mechanical lift, the lawsuit said.

The suit alleged City Creek failed to reposition her every two hours in bed or her wheelchair, which is the clinical standard for people at risk of bedsores, and to promptly order devices to protect her skin.

In November, the nursing home sent Darby to the hospital. A blood test found bacteria had entered her bloodstream from her feces’ touching open skin wounds, according to the lawsuit. The hospital diagnosed her with sepsis. A surgeon said she needed an operation to redirect fecal waste from her intestines but concluded she wasn’t medically stable enough for surgery, the suit said.

Darby began receiving comfort care measures and was sent back to City Creek. She died two weeks later. In court filings, CareTrust and Kalesta denied the allegations.

In a phone interview, Williams, the Kalesta co-founder, said Darby’s death occurred during the most challenging point of the covid pandemic, when California rules required any nurses testing positive for the virus to be sent home and nurses were quitting out of fear for their health. “It was the most herculean of professional efforts to secure enough staff,” he said.

While expressing sympathy for Darby and her family, he said it was “unconscionable” that personal injury lawyers sued nursing homes over care failures during “the worst of times.”

In court, CareTrust petitioned Judge Richard Miadich to dismiss it from the lawsuit before trial. “This case does not concern a property condition,” CareTrust’s lawyers wrote. “CareTrust is simply a landlord.” But the judge ruled last year a jury should decide whether CareTrust “exercised actual control over City Creek.”

The case was settled out of court a few months later. All parties declined to reveal the settlement terms.

A 67% Profit

As recently as November 2023 — four years after its acquisition — City Creek earned one star from Medicare. It was cited for failing to have the minimum nursing home staffing required by California law during five of 24 randomly selected days in 2022, according to an inspection report. Williams said in the interview that Kalesta had increased spending on nursing over the course of its ownership, including boosting wages, but that it takes a year or two to turn around a troubled nursing home. He said the home’s star rating in 2023 was dragged down by its poor inspection history from before Kalesta took over.

City Creek’s rating has climbed in the past two years, and it now has the top overall rating of five, according to Medicare. Medicare rates City Creek’s current staffing levels as average. That’s better than most nursing homes in more than 200 buildings CareTrust bought before 2025, according to a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News analysis of federal data. On average, CareTrust nursing homes provided a half hour less nursing care per resident per day than the national average of four hours.

In its statement to Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News, CareTrust’s counsel Layne said the REIT worked to “identify quality operators as tenants,” and that the homes the REIT rents out have more nurses and aides than the minimum required for nursing homes by their state governments. “The operators are licensed by state regulators and retain sole responsibility for operations,” the statement said.

CareTrust, which now owns more than 500 senior housing and nursing home buildings, reported net income last year of $320 million from in rents and other revenue — a 67% profit margin. By comparison, HCA Healthcare, one of the nation’s largest for-profit hospital and health care chains, for last year.

Lesley Ann Clement, one of Darby’s lawyers, said cases like hers show the nursing home industry is wrong to complain it lacks financial resources for more staffing.

“There’s plenty of money,” Clement said. “They’re just not spending it on patient care.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/real-estate-investment-trusts-senior-housing-nursing-homes-profit/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

If you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental health crisis, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by dialing or texting “988.”

Vince Lahey of Carefree, Arizona, embraces chatbots. From Big Tech products to “shady” ones, they offer “someone that I could share more secrets with than my therapist.”

He especially likes the apps for feedback and support, even though sometimes they berate him or lead him to fight with his ex-wife. “I feel more inclined to share more,” Lahey said. “I don’t care about their perception of me.”

There are a lot of people like Lahey.

Demand for mental health care has grown. Self-reported poor mental health days rose by 25% since the 1990s, analyzing survey data. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide rates in 2022 that hadn’t been seen in nearly 80 years.

There are many patients who find a nonhuman therapist, powered by artificial intelligence, highly appealing — more appealing than a human with a reclining couch and stern manner. with begging for a therapist who’s “not on the clock,” who’s less judgmental, or who’s just less expensive.

Most people who need care don’t get it, said Tom Insel, former head of the National Institute of Mental Health, citing his former agency’s research. Of those who do, 40% receive “minimally acceptable care.”

“There’s a massive need for high-quality therapy,” he said. “We’re in a world in which the status quo is really crappy, to use a scientific term.”

Insel said engineers from OpenAI told him last fall that about 5% to 10% of the company’s then-roughly 800 million-strong user base rely on ChatGPT for mental health support.

Polling suggests these AI chatbots may be even more popular among young adults. A Â鶹ŮÓÅ poll found about 3 in 10 respondents ages 18 to 29 for mental or emotional health advice in the past year. Uninsured adults were about twice as likely as insured adults to report using AI tools. And nearly 60% of adult respondents who used a chatbot for mental health didn’t follow up with a flesh-and-blood professional.

The App Will Put You on the Couch

A burgeoning industry of apps offers AI therapists with human-like, often unrealistically attractive avatars serving as a sounding board for those experiencing anxiety, depression, and other conditions.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News identified some 45 AI therapy apps in Apple’s App Store in March. While many charge steep prices for their services — one listed an annual plan for $690 — they’re still generally cheaper than talk therapy, which can cost hundreds of dollars an hour without insurance coverage.

On the App Store, “therapy” is often used as a marketing term, with small print noting the apps cannot diagnose or treat disease. One app, branded as OhSofia! AI Therapy Chat, had downloads in the six figures, said OhSofia! founder Anton Ilin in December.

“People are looking for therapy,” Ilin said. On one hand, the product’s name ; on the other, it warns in that it “does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or crisis intervention and is not a substitute for professional healthcare services.” Executives don’t think that’s confusing, since there are disclaimers in the app.

The apps promise big results without backup. its users “immediate help during panic attacks.” it was “proven effective by researchers” and that it offers 2.3 times faster relief for anxiety and stress. (It doesn’t say what it’s faster than.)

There are few legislative or regulatory guardrails around how developers refer to their products — or even whether the products are safe or effective, said Vaile Wright, senior director of the office of health care innovation at the American Psychological Association. Even federal patient privacy protections don’t apply, she said.

“Therapy is not a legally protected term,” Wright said. “So, basically, anybody can say that they give therapy.”

Many of the apps “overrepresent themselves,” said John Torous, a psychiatrist and clinical informaticist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “Deceiving people that they have received treatment when they really have not has many negative consequences,” including delaying actual care, he said.

States such as Nevada, Illinois, and California are trying to sort out the regulatory disarray, enacting laws forbidding apps from describing their chatbots as AI therapists.

“It’s a profession. People go to school. They get licensed to do it,” said Jovan Jackson, a Nevada legislator, who co-authored an enacted bill banning apps from referring to themselves as mental health professionals.

Underlying the hype, outside researchers and company representatives themselves have told the FDA and Congress that there’s little evidence supporting the efficacy of these products. What studies there are — and some companion-focused chatbots are “consistently poor” at managing crises.

“When it comes to chatbots, we don’t have any good evidence it works,” said Charlotte Blease, a professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University who specializes in trial design for digital health products.

The lack of “good quality” clinical trials stems from the FDA’s failure to provide recommendations about how to test the products, she said. “FDA is offering no rigorous advice on what the standards should be.”

Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said, in response, that “patient safety is the FDA’s highest priority” and that AI-based products are subject to agency regulations requiring the demonstration of “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness before they can be marketed in the U.S.”

The Silver-Tongued Apps

Preston Roche, a psychiatry resident who’s , gets lots of questions about whether AI is a good therapist. After trying ChatGPT himself, he said he was “impressed” initially that it was able to use techniques to help him put negative thoughts “on trial.”

But Roche said after seeing posts on social media discussing people developing psychosis or being encouraged to make harmful decisions, he became disillusioned. The bots, he concluded, are sycophantic.

“When I look globally at the responsibilities of a therapist, it just completely fell on its face,” he said.

This sycophancy — the tendency of apps based on large language models to empathize, flatter, or delude their human conversation partner — is inherent to the app design, experts in digital health say.

“The models were developed to answer a question or prompt that you ask and to give you what you’re looking for,” said Insel, the former NIMH director, “and they’re really good at basically affirming what you feel and providing psychological support, like a good friend.”

That’s not what a good therapist does, though. “The point of psychotherapy is mostly to make you address the things that you have been avoiding,” he said.

While polling suggests many users are satisfied with what they’re getting out of ChatGPT and other apps, there have been about the service or encouragement to self-harm.

And or have been filed against OpenAI after ChatGPT users died by suicide or became hospitalized. In most of those cases, the plaintiffs allege they began using the apps for one purpose — like schoolwork — before confiding in them. These cases are being .

Google and the startup Character.ai — which has been funded by Google and has created “avatars” that adopt specific personas, like athletes, celebrities, study buddies, or therapists — are settling other wrongful-death lawsuits, .

OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, has said up to may talk about suicide on ChatGPT.

“We have seen a problem where people that are in fragile psychiatric situations using a model like 4o can get into a worse one,” Altman said in a public question-and-answer session reported by , referring to a particular model of ChatGPT introduced in 2024. “I don’t think this is the last time we’ll face challenges like this with a model.”

An OpenAI spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

The company has said it on safeguards, such as referring users to 988, the national suicide hotline. However, the lawsuits against OpenAI argue existing safeguards aren’t good enough, and some research shows the problems are . OpenAI its own data suggesting the opposite.

OpenAI is , offering, early in one case, a variety of defenses ranging from denying that its product caused self-harm to alleging that the defendant misused the product by inducing it to discuss suicide. It has also said it’s working to .

Smaller apps also rely on OpenAI or other AI models to power their products, executives told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News. In interviews, startup founders and other experts said they worry that if a company simply imports those models into its own service, it might duplicate whatever safety flaws exist in the original product.

Data Risks

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News’ review of the App Store found listed age protections are minimal: Fifteen of the nearly four dozen apps say they could be downloaded by 4-year-old users; an additional 11 say they could be downloaded by those 12 and up.

Privacy standards are opaque. On the App Store, several apps are described as neither tracking personally identifiable data nor sharing it with advertisers — but on their company websites, privacy policies contained contrary descriptions, discussing the use of such data and their disclosure of information to advertisers, like AdMob.

In response to a request for comment, Apple spokesperson Adam Dema to the company’s App Store policies, which bar apps from using health data for advertising and require them to display information about how they use data in general. Dema did not respond to a request for further comment about how Apple enforces these policies.

Researchers and policy advocates said that sharing psychiatric data with social media firms means patients could be profiled. They could be targeted by dodgy treatment firms or charged different prices for goods based on their health.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News contacted several app makers about these discrepancies; two that responded said their privacy policies had been put together in error and pledged to change them to reflect their stances against advertising. (A third, the team at OhSofia!, said simply that they don’t do advertising, though their app’s notes users “may opt out of marketing communications.”)

One executive told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News there’s business pressure to maintain access to the data.

“My general feeling is a subscription model is much, much better than any sort of advertising,” said Tim Rubin, the founder of Wellness AI, adding that he’d change the description in his app’s privacy policy.

One investor advised him not to swear off advertising, he said. “They’re like, essentially, that’s the most valuable thing about having an app like this, that data.”

“I think we’re still at the beginning of what’s going to be a revolution in how people seek psychological support and, even in some cases, therapy,” Insel said. “And my concern is that there’s just no framework for any of this.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/mental-health/ai-chatbots-therapy-big-risks-few-regulations/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

State governments rely on such companies to design and operate computer systems that assess whether low-income people qualify for Medicaid or food aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps. Those state systems have a history of errors that can cut off benefits to eligible people, a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News investigation showed.

States are now racing to update their eligibility systems to adhere to President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax-and-spending law. The changes will add red tape and restrictions. They are coming at a steep price ― both in the cost to taxpayers and coverage losses ― according to state documents obtained by Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and interviews.

The documents showÌýgovernment agenciesÌýwill spend millionsÌýto saveÌýconsiderablyÌýmoreÌýbyÌýremovingÌýpeople fromÌýhealth benefits.ÌýWhile statesÌýsignÌýeligibility system contracts with companiesÌýandÌýwork with them to manageÌýupdates, the federal governmentÌýfootsÌýmost of the bill.

The law’s Medicaid policies will causeÌýÌýtoÌýbecome uninsuredÌýby 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.ÌýRoughlyÌýÌýwill loseÌýaccess toÌýmonthly cashÌýassistanceÌýforÌýfood, including those with children.Ìý

In five statesÌýalone,ÌýÌýfor state officialsÌýand reviewed by Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health NewsÌýshow that changesÌýwill cost at least $45.6ÌýmillionÌýcombined.Ìý

The lawÌýrequires most statesÌýtoÌýtieÌýMedicaid coverageÌýfor some adultsÌýtoÌýhavingÌýaÌýjob,ÌýandÌýimposes other restrictions that will make it harder forÌýpeopleÌýwith low incomesÌýto stay enrolled.ÌýSNAP restrictions began to take effect in 2025. Major Medicaid provisionsÌýbeginÌýlater this year.Ìý

DocumentsÌýprepared by consulting company DeloitteÌýestimateÌýthat a pair ofÌýcomputer systemÌýchangesÌýforÌýMedicaid work requirementsÌýin WisconsinÌýwillÌýÌý. Two other changesÌýrelatedÌýto the state’s SNAP program will cost an additional $4.2Ìýmillion, according to the documents, which for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

In Iowa, changes to its Medicaid system are expected to cost at least $20 million, , a consulting company thatÌýoperatesÌýthe state’sÌýeligibility system.Ìý

OptumÌý—ÌýwhichÌýoperatesÌýthe platform Vermont residents useÌýfor Medicaid and marketplaceÌýhealthÌýplans under the Affordable Care ActÌý—ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýtoÌýevaluate andÌýincorporateÌýnewÌýhealthÌýcoverage restrictions.Ìý

Initial changes in Kentucky, which has had a contract with Deloitte since 2012,ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý. And in Illinois,ÌýÌýwill cost at least $12 million.

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/the-week-in-brief-deloitte-medicaid-contractors-trump-big-beautiful-bill/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

Ollie’s parents, who adopted her in 2020, tried to sign her up for a clinical trial using — which genetically reprograms a patient’s white blood cells to help them fight cancer — at UNC Health in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, an hour-and-a-half drive from their home in Eden.

Her mother, Britany Super, described it as Ollie’s “last option.”

But in early March, Super recalled, UNC Health’s financial office told them the bad news: The state’s new insurance for kids in foster care wasn’t going to pay for the treatment.

In December, Ollie became one of hundreds of thousands of kids nationwide enrolled in a special kind of public health insurance for people served by the foster care system. That insurance, known as a specialized managed care plan, is part of Medicaid, the federal-state program that covers health costs for people with low incomes or disabilities.

North Carolina is one of 14 states with such specialized foster care plans, according to the National Academy for State Health Policy. The plans differ by state, but each is meant to expand coverage for children in the foster care system — and for kids who were adopted out of it, such as Ollie and her siblings.

Yet, as in other states that have struggled when adding such plans, North Carolina families have faced hurdles obtaining care. Thousands of doctors whose services were covered under Medicaid were not included in the specialized plan — which is costing the state $3.1 billion over four years — when it rolled out on Dec. 1. That left guardians and parents of kids adopted out of the system scrambling to figure out whether they would have to find new health care providers or new insurance.

In North Carolina, the insurance plan’s stumbles have added another layer of complication around health care issues. The state — like many others — is already over expected Medicaid cuts in the wake of congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. A separate Medicaid funding shortfall also prompted a push to cut care providers’ reimbursement rates.

Texas, which established its plan 18 years ago, that its foster families also had a hard time finding doctors on the insurance. In Florida, researchers for the state reported as early as 2016 that there was .

Illinois’ plan by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over a lack of access to care. Research concluded that California’s plan children with adequate mental health services. Georgia’s access problems alarmed state officials enough to calling for children to be removed from the plan and put back on other Medicaid plans.

But such specialized plans for kids in foster care continue to gain traction. Four states have started their own plans in the past five years, said , the senior director of children and family health at the National Academy for State Health Policy, and she said it’s likely more will adopt them soon.

showing how these programs are faring, Medicaid policy analysts said. It’s therefore difficult to know why they’ve run into rollout problems or whether they’ve improved access to care. That makes the plans risky, said , a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families.

“The states that are going in this direction, unless they have data to support it, are experimenting,” Schneider said. “They’re putting all their eggs in one basket, so they need to pay close attention.”

Rough Rollout

North Carolina’s specialized insurance plan for foster kids experienced problems the day it rolled out.

The state automatically enrolled Ollie and about 32,000 other people in , called . North Carolina officials had said the program would improve health care access for foster children, who often have medically complex needs and move frequently.

But foster families quickly began hearing that their health care providers were not taking the insurance, according to several families who recounted their experiences fighting to get their children’s procedures covered under the plan.

UNC Health, a state-run health system that is , with nearly 4,400 physicians, initially, which is why it told Super that Ollie’s CAR T-cell treatment wouldn’t be covered.

After more than two months of limbo for families, UNC Health ultimately in mid-March with Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, which runs the plan.

But some North Carolina doctors still don’t accept Healthy Blue insurance.

, interim deputy secretary for North Carolina’s Medicaid program, said her office to expand its network, even though it already has what she called an “adequate” number of providers. North Carolina’s health department and Blue Cross Blue Shield did not answer Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News’ questions about how many providers are covered by the new insurance.

“We welcome qualified providers who want to join,” said Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina spokesperson Sara Lang.

Other problems . As thousands of health care records move over to a statewide database managed by Healthy Blue, children’s doctors are struggling to track their patients’ medical histories, said foster care advocates and pediatricians. Parents reported problems seeing health records, finding themselves locked out of online portals. Others couldn’t access prescriptions. Surgeries got delayed. Appointments were canceled.

“Network management for any plan is an ongoing process,” Lang said.

All this meant added red tape and heartache for the caregivers of children like Ollie with complex medical needs — those the .

Gearing Up

Cancer has been part of Ollie’s life since she was 2. She was in the process of getting adopted out of foster care when she began chemotherapy and radiation treatments, then received two stem cell transplants, Super recalled.

Surgeons installed temporary tubes in a vein near her heart and a feeding tube in her abdomen. Her hair fell out as the treatment intensified, and a thin layer of skin peeled off, forcing her new family to wear surgical gowns and gloves when they wanted to be close.

“She doesn’t remember life outside of going to doctors and being in a hospital,” Super said.

Ollie still has a port in her chest ready for whenever she needs intravenous medicine, and her monthly doctor appointments are about to become weekly. During an emergency room visit in mid-March, doctors told Super her daughter’s cancer had spread. Ollie will need more chemotherapy before her body is ready for the more advanced treatment.

But the Supers, thrown into uncertainty for more than two months, still feel some relief. They’re preparing for back-and-forth drives for the CAR T-cell therapy treatments in Chapel Hill. And they’re grateful, even if it means Ollie will spend at least five more weeks in and out of a hospital.

Reliable health insurance will be vital for Ollie, and Healthy Blue leaders said they are talking with doctors, parents, and others to make sure the plan is working. Her procedures carry multimillion-dollar price tags, her mother said, but having her bills seamlessly covered allows the family to focus on Ollie’s treatment.

“The biggest challenges for her will be in the first few months of the study,” said Super, who knows the therapy’s side effects include fever, fatigue, and confusion. “But I’m hoping that after that, the CAR T-cells will do their job and fight the cancer and she can continue to have a playful, active life.”

That means, they hope, the girl could be at home more often with her five siblings and the three family dogs, including Remy, a border collie mix who is Ollie’s favorite.

Super relishes those precious moments for her daughter — “being a kid and doing kid things.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/foster-children-insurance-specialized-medicaid-healthy-blue-north-carolina/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

State governments rely on such companies to design and operate computer systems that assess whether low-income people qualify for Medicaid or food aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly referred to as food stamps. Those state systems have a that can , a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News .

These benefits, provided to the poorest Americans, can mean the difference between someone obtaining medical care and having enough to eat — or going without.

States are now racing to update their eligibility systems to adhere to President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and domestic spending law. The changes will add red tape and restrictions. They are coming at a steep price — both in the cost to taxpayers and coverage losses — according to state documents obtained by Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and interviews.

The documents show government agencies will spend millions to save considerably more by removing people from health benefits. While states sign eligibility system contracts with companies and work with them to manage updates, the federal government foots most of the bill.

The law’s Medicaid policies will cause to become uninsured by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Roughly will lose access to monthly cash assistance for food, including those with children.

In five states alone, for state officials and reviewed by Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News show that changes will cost at least $45.6 million combined.

“This is a pretty big payday,” said Adrianna McIntyre, an assistant professor of health policy and politics at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

The law, which grants tax breaks to the nation’s wealthiest people, requires most states to tie Medicaid coverage for some adults to having a job, and imposes other restrictions that will make it harder for people with low incomes to stay enrolled. SNAP restrictions began to take effect in 2025. Major Medicaid provisions begin later this year.

Documents prepared by consulting company Deloitte estimate that a pair of computer system changes for Medicaid work requirements in Wisconsin will . Two other changes related to the state’s SNAP program will cost an additional $4.2 million, according to the documents, which for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

In Iowa, changes to its Medicaid system are expected to cost at least $20 million, , a consulting company that operates the state’s eligibility system.

Optum — which operates the platform Vermont residents use for Medicaid and marketplace health plans under the Affordable Care Act — to evaluate and incorporate new health coverage restrictions.

Initial changes in Kentucky, which has had a contract with Deloitte since 2012, . And in Illinois, will cost at least $12 million.

A Historic Mandate

For six decades after President Lyndon Johnson created the government insurance program in 1965, Congress had never mandated that Medicaid enrollees have a job, volunteer, or go to school.

That will change next year. The tax and spending law enacted by Trump and congressional Republicans requires millions of Medicaid enrollees in 42 states and the District of Columbia to prove they’re working or participating in a similar activity for 80 hours a month, unless they qualify for an exemption. The CBO projected, based on an early version of the bill, that 18.5 million adults would be subject to the new rules — .

Vermont Medicaid officials expect it will cost $5 million in fiscal 2027 to implement changes in response to the federal law, said Adaline Strumolo, deputy commissioner of the Department of Vermont Health Access. About $1.8 million is for Optum to make eligibility system adjustments. Optum is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will subject nearly 55,000 Vermont Medicaid recipients to work requirements — about a third of the state’s enrollees.

The law forced the state “to essentially drop everything else we were doing,” Strumolo said in an interview. “This is a big, big lift.”

Optum’s contract with the state was as of October.

of adult Medicaid enrollees nationally are already working, according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ. Advocacy groups for Medicaid recipients say work requirements will nonetheless cause significant coverage losses. Enrollees will face added red tape to prove they’re complying. And eligibility systems already prone to error will have to account for employment, job-related activities, and any exemptions.

An estimated 5.3 million enrollees will become uninsured by 2034 due to work requirements, the .

In Wisconsin, state officials estimate could lose coverage after work requirements take effect. Not covering those people would in Medicaid spending for one year.

Wisconsin’s eligibility system for Medicaid and SNAP — known as CARES — in 1994, and initially was a transfer system from Florida, according to a 2016 state document.

Deloitte submitted its cost estimates for Medicaid and SNAP changes to the state in September and December. Elizabeth Goodsitt, a spokesperson for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, declined to answer questions about whether additional changes will be needed, how much it will cost to make all eligibility system changes to comply with the new federal law, and whether the state negotiated prices with Deloitte.

Bobby Peterson, executive director of the public interest law firm ABC for Health, said Wisconsin has invested “very little” to help people navigate the Medicaid eligibility process, which soon will become more difficult.

“But they’re very willing to throw $6 million to their contractors to create the bells and whistles,” Peterson said. “That’s where I feel a sense of frustration.”

New Hurdles for Vets and Homeless People

Medicaid work requirements are only one change required by Trump’s tax law that will make it harder to obtain safety-net benefits.

Starting in October, the law prohibits several immigrant populations from accessing Medicaid and ACA coverage, including people who have been granted asylum, refugees, and certain survivors of domestic violence or human trafficking. Beginning Dec. 31, states must verify eligibility twice a year for millions of adults — doubling state officials’ workload. And the law restricts SNAP benefits by requiring more adult recipients to work and by removing work exemptions for veterans, homeless people, and former foster youth.

Days after Trump signed the bill in July, Kentucky health officials raced to make changes to the state’s integrated eligibility system, which verifies eligibility for Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs. Deloitte operates the system under a five-year . , initial changes costing $1.6 million were labeled a “high priority” and approved on an “emergency” basis, with some of the changes to the nation’s largest food aid program going into effect almost immediately.

Officials with Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services declined to answer a detailed list of questions, including how much it will cost to make all the modifications needed.

Deloitte spokesperson Karen Walsh said the company is working with states to implement new requirements but declined to answer questions about cost estimates in several states. “We are delivering the value and investments we committed to,” Walsh said.

In most states, government agencies rely on contractors to build and run the systems that determine eligibility for Medicaid. Many of those states also use such computer systems for SNAP. But the federal government — that is, taxpayers — to develop and implement state Medicaid eligibility systems and pays 75% of ongoing maintenance and operations expenses, according to federal regulations.

“Five, 10 years ago, I’m not sure if you would hear much mention of SNAP from a Medicaid director,” Melisa Byrd, Washington, D.C.’s Medicaid director, said in November at an annual conference of Medicaid officials. “And particularly for those with integrated eligibility systems — as D.C. is —­ I’m learning more about SNAP than I ever thought.”

The federal law was the topic du jour at last year’s gathering in Maryland, held at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, the largest hotel between New Jersey and Florida.

Consulting companies had taken notice. Gainwell, an eligibility contractor and one of the conference’s corporate sponsors, emblazoned its logo on hotel escalators. Companies set up booths with materials promoting how they could help states and handed out snacks and swag.

“Conduent helps agencies work smarter by simplifying operations, cutting costs and driving better outcomes through intelligent automation, analytics, and innovation in fraud prevention,” read one such handout from another contractor. “Together, we can better serve residents at every step of their health journeys.” Conduent holds Medicaid eligibility and enrollment contracts in Mississippi and New Jersey, their Medicaid agencies confirmed to Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

In handouts, Deloitte touted its role in “building a new era in state health care” and as “a national leader in Medicaid program and technology transformation, building a strong track record across the federal, state, and commercial health care ecosystem.” Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News found that Deloitte, a global consultancy that generated in revenue in fiscal 2025, dominates this slice of government business.

“With Medicaid Community Engagement (CE) requirements, states are tasked with adding a new condition of Medicaid eligibility to support state and federal objectives,” added another brochure. “Deloitte offers strategic outreach and responsive support to help states engage communities, lower barriers, and address access to coverage.”

A $20.3 Million Bill in Iowa

Before Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Iowa lawmakers wanted to impose their own version of work requirements. They would have applied to 183,000 people before any exemptions. The new law would necessitate a change to Iowa’s Medicaid eligibility system, according to documents prepared by Accenture, which operates Iowa’s system through a .

Adding the ability to verify work status would cost up to $7 million, . By July, the cost to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s work requirements and other Medicaid provisions . Accenture’s analysis said the federal law necessitated . Making employment a condition of Medicaid benefits could cause an estimated 32,000 Iowans to lose coverage, according to a

Cutting 32,000 people from coverage in one year, a fraction of the Iowa and the federal government spend on Medicaid in a given year.

In Cedar Rapids, most of Eastern Iowa Health Center’s patients rely on Medicaid, CEO Joe Lock said. He questioned the government’s logic of spending tens of millions of dollars on a policy to remove Iowans from Medicaid.

Most of the health center’s patients live at or below the federal poverty level — currently .

“There is no benefit to this population,” Lock said.

Danielle Sample, a spokesperson for Iowa’s Department of Health and Human Services, did not answer questions about how much it will cost to implement changes to the state’s separate SNAP eligibility system.

In Illinois, the state’s work this year is largely focused on meeting major provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The state estimates that as many as 360,000 residents could lose Medicaid, largely due to the work requirements, said Melissa Kula, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.

Kula confirmed that — priced at $12 million — is related to Trump’s law. The estimate also mentions other work. Kula said Deloitte is charging the state a $2 million fixed fee related to work requirements.

The Trump administration has acknowledged that the work is coming at a cost. In January, top officials for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said government contractors, including Deloitte, Accenture, and Optum, have and reduced rates through 2028 to help states incorporate system changes.

“The companies were extremely excited to do this,” , the top CMS Medicaid official. “Everyone’s really focused on getting to work.”

CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden declined to answer questions about the discounts.

Goodsitt, the Wisconsin Medicaid spokesperson, declined to answer questions about whether Deloitte has discounted its rates. Officials with Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services did not answer a detailed list of questions, including whether Deloitte extended discounts to make these changes.

It’s unclear what discounts, if any, Deloitte and Accenture have offered to individual states. Walsh, the Deloitte spokesperson, declined to answer detailed questions about the discounts the Trump administration announced this year. Accenture did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Strumolo, the Vermont health official, said state officials discussed the announcement with Optum “in detail.”

Optum for a specific module related to Medicaid work requirements. That product is unworkable for Vermont because it would mean “moving to a new system when we don’t have to.” When asked about whether the company offered discounts, Strumolo said “not explicitly.”

In a statement, UnitedHealth Group spokesperson Tyler Mason said Optum supports state implementation of new federal requirements “with a range of options to meet their unique cost and policy needs.”

He declined to specify whether Optum discounted Vermont’s rates and how it calculated the costs of doing its work. “Optum is helping mitigate upfront implementation expenses so states can focus on approaches that reduce duplication, accelerate implementation, and manage costs over time — supporting better outcomes for individuals covered by Medicaid,” Mason said.

Strumolo said Optum’s initial changes in Vermont cover items that take effect this year and in 2027 — Medicaid work requirements, checking eligibility every six months, and prohibiting certain immigrants from qualifying for health programs.

“There’s a lot more that could come,” she said.

This <a target="_blank" href="/insurance/state-medicaid-work-requirements-eligibility-systems-deloitte-accenture-optum/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

He was already thinking about delaying it — then his monthly Obamacare insurance premium payment tripled this year to $2,460, about a third of his income, he said. And with a $2,700 deductible, he’d be on the hook for most of the diagnostic exam, a financial hit he said he couldn’t stomach.

“It was going to cost close to $3,000,” said Galvin, who lives in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, and recently retired as director of a durable medical equipment company. “I put it off.”

Galvin said his wife, Nancy, is delaying a costly CT scan for a few years until she too qualifies for Medicare, so it can foot the bill. The federal health program offers coverage for all Americans 65 and older.

People on Affordable Care Act plans nearing retirement age experienced some of the largest price increases following the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies at the end of December. Those with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level — — had been getting help paying for the plans since the Biden administration expanded the subsidies during the covid-19 pandemic. Adults ages 50 through 64 of those ACA enrollees.

Now, without that federal financial help, some in this age group say they’re wrestling with whether to delay care until they qualify for Medicare. Not only does that put their physical health at risk, said patient advocates, doctors, and health policy researchers, but it potentially just shifts the costs — and could lead to taxpayers’ footing even bigger bills to fix health issues that worsen amid the delays.

“There’s going to be a lot of pent-up demand and unmet need,” said , a health policy consultant who worked in the Obama and Biden administrations. “Medicare is going to have to spend a whole heck of a lot of money covering and dealing with their treatment.”

The Affordable Care Act has been a key source of health care coverage for people 50 through 64. Access to Obamacare plans helped cut the uninsured rate for this age group by half, , a lobbying group that represents older adults. That allowed some people to retire early while keeping coverage. It also has provided a safety net for and those with jobs that don’t offer health insurance.

Last fall, the occurred amid an unsuccessful effort by Democrats to extend the enhanced subsidies. Republicans opposing the extension had said the assistance went to insurers, incentivizing fraud and wasteful coverage.

The issue will continue to have political relevance, especially in this year’s midterm elections, including among older Americans who reliably show up to the polls, said Republican strategist , who runs the Atlas Strategy Group.

“Is affordability going to be an issue? Absolutely,” he said. “Are health care prices going to factor into that? Yes.”

Even before the subsidies expired, the costs of medical care, nursing homes, and prescription drugs were among the top health-related concerns for people over 50, a found.

Middle-aged adults with Obamacare plans acutely feel the pinch of the expired subsidies, because to charge adults in their 60s up to three times as much for premiums as those in their 20s, who generally use fewer medical services.

And many middle-aged adults were already enrolled in the lowest-cost plans available, which leaves them without cheaper options to fall back on, said , a policy analyst with Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

“This is very dire for the older marketplace enrollees,” he said.

Someone making a few dollars over 400% of the federal poverty level earns too much to get a subsidy now, and in some states average premium payments were due to for this group. Many people are seeing yearly rate increases of thousands of dollars, with premium payments totaling as much as a quarter of their incomes.

, a primary care physician and health policy researcher at the University of Michigan, said he has regular conversations with older patients who are trying to figure out how to afford their medical care. Some in their early 60s are likely to drop ACA coverage because of rising premiums, he said.

“That’s a gamble,” he added.

Marci Heinbaugh may take that bet. The 63-year-old social services worker, who lives in rural Illinois, said her monthly premium payments more than doubled, from roughly $1,100 to $2,333, for a plan with a $10,150 out-of-pocket maximum.

She knew she’d be paying more, she said, but wasn’t anticipating that kind of increase. A few months in, she’s not sure if she’ll stick with the plan for the rest of the year. She said she may go uninsured.

“I’m petrified to even think about that,” Heinbaugh said.

People want to buy their own insurance on the marketplace, and many middle-aged adults could afford it with just a little federal financial help, said , senior vice president of public policy at AARP. Those who drop coverage or delay care until they reach age 65 might save money now, but that could be more costly for them — and taxpayers — later.

“There’s significant possibility that the purported savings associated with reducing subsidies as people approach retirement end up turning into higher utilization costs for Medicare,” Weil said.

And Medicare enrollees aren’t insulated from rising costs. In January, for example, standard Medicare from $185 per month to almost $203.

Until Galvin joins Medicare, he said, he expects to burn through a $30,000 retirement account to cover his marketplace plan’s premium payments and deductible.

A found that 1 in 5 adults over 50 had no retirement savings and 3 in 5 were worried they wouldn’t have enough retirement savings to support themselves.

The expiration of these Obamacare subsidies puts additional financial pressure on Americans as they approach retirement, health policy researchers said.

“It’s forcing people to make impossible choices,” said , director of federal health advocacy for the national nonprofit Justice in Aging.

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? to contact Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and share your story.

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/health-costs-middle-aged-adults-delay-affordable-care-act-obamacare-medicare/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez for refusing what her lawyers called “,” Newsom to help modernize California’s public health system. He also gave a job to Debra Houry, the agency’s former chief science and medical officer, who had resigned in protest hours after Monarez’s firing.

Newsom also teamed up with fellow Democratic governors Tina Kotek of Oregon, Bob Ferguson of Washington, and Josh Green of Hawaii to form the , a regional public health agency, whose guidance would “uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys” the CDC’s credibility. Newsom argued establishing the independent alliance was vital as Kennedy leads the Trump administration’s rollback of national vaccine recommendations.

More recently, California became the a global outbreak response network coordinated by the World Health Organization, followed by Illinois and New York. Colorado and Wisconsin signaled they plan to join. They did so after President Donald Trump officially from the agency on the grounds that it had “strayed from its core mission and has acted contrary to the U.S. interests in protecting the U.S. public on multiple occasions.” Newsom said joining the WHO-led consortium would enable California to respond faster to communicable disease outbreaks and other public health threats.

Although other Democratic governors and public health leaders have openly criticized the federal government, few have been as outspoken as Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028 and is in his second and final term as governor. Members of the scientific community have praised his effort to build a public health bulwark against the Trump administration’s slashing of funding and scaling back of vaccine recommendations.

What Newsom is doing “is a great idea,” said Paul Offit, an outspoken critic of Kennedy and a vaccine expert who formerly served on the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee but was removed under Trump in 2025.

“Public health has been turned on its head,” Offit said. “We have an anti-vaccine activist and science denialist as the head of U.S. Health and Human Services. It’s dangerous.”

The White House did not respond to questions about Newsom’s stance and HHS declined requests to interview Kennedy. Instead, federal health officials criticized Democrats broadly, arguing that blue states are participating in fraud and mismanagement of federal funds in public health programs.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said the administration is going after “Democrat-run states that pushed unscientific lockdowns, toddler mask mandates, and draconian vaccine passports during the covid era.” She said those moves have “completely eroded the American people’s trust in public health agencies.”

Public Health Guided by Science

Since Trump returned to office, Newsom has criticized the president and his administration for engineering policies that he sees as an affront to public health and safety, labeling federal leaders as “extremists” trying to “weaponize the CDC and spread misinformation.” He has for erroneously linking vaccines to autism, the administration is endangering the lives of infants and young children in scaling back childhood vaccine recommendations. And he argued that the White House is unleashing “chaos” on America’s public health system in backing out of the WHO.

The governor declined an interview request. Newsom spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said it’s a priority of the governor “to protect public health and provide communities with guidance rooted in science and evidence, not politics and conspiracies.”

The Trump administration’s moves have triggered financial uncertainty that local officials said has reduced morale within public health departments and left states unprepared for disease outbreaks and . The White House last year proposed cutting HHS spending , including . Congress largely rejected those cuts last month, although funding for programs focusing on social drivers of health, such as access to food, housing, and education, .

The Trump administration announced that it would claw back in public health funds from California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, arguing that the Democratic-led states were funding “woke” initiatives that didn’t reflect White House priorities. Within days, and a judge the cut.

“They keep suddenly canceling grants and then it gets overturned in court,” said Kat DeBurgh, executive director of the Health Officers Association of California. “A lot of the damage is already done because counties already stopped doing the work.”

Federal funding has accounted for of state and local health department budgets nationwide, with money going toward fighting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, preventing chronic diseases, and boosting public health preparedness and communicable disease response, according to a 2025 analysis by Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

Federal funds account for $2.4 billion of California’s $5.3 billion public health budget, making it difficult for Newsom and state lawmakers to backfill potential cuts. That money helps fund state operations and is vital for local health departments.

Funding Cuts Hurt All

Los Angeles County public health director Barbara Ferrer said if the federal government is allowed to cut that $600 million, the county of nearly 10 million residents would lose an estimated $84 million over the next two years, in addition to other grants for prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Ferrer said the county depends on nearly $1 billion in federal funding annually to track and prevent communicable diseases and combat chronic health conditions, including diabetes and high blood pressure. Already, the the closure of that provided vaccinations and disease testing, largely because of funding losses tied to federal grant cuts.

“It’s an ill-informed strategy,” Ferrer said. “Public health doesn’t care whether your political affiliation is Republican or Democrat. It doesn’t care about your immigration status or sexual orientation. Public health has to be available for everyone.”

A single case of measles requires public health workers to track down 200 potential contacts, Ferrer said.

The U.S. but is close to losing that status as a result of vaccine skepticism and misinformation spread by vaccine critics. The U.S. had , the most since 1991, with 93% in people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. This year, the highly contagious disease has been reported at , , and .

Public health officials hope the West Coast Health Alliance can help counteract Trump by building trust through evidence-based public health guidance.

“What we’re seeing from the federal government is partisan politics at its worst and retaliation for policy differences, and it puts at extraordinary risk the health and well-being of the American people,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, a coalition of public health professionals.

Robust Vaccine Schedule

Erica Pan, California’s top public health officer and director of the state Department of Public Health, said the West Coast Health Alliance is defending science by recommending a vaccine schedule than the federal government. California is part of a coalition over its decision to rescind recommendations for seven childhood vaccines, including for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, and covid-19.

Pan expressed deep concern about the state of public health, particularly the uptick in measles. “We’re sliding backwards,” Pan said of immunizations.

Sarah Kemble, Hawaii’s state epidemiologist, said Hawaii joined the alliance after hearing from pro-vaccine residents who wanted assurance that they would have access to vaccines.

“We were getting a lot of questions and anxiety from people who did understand science-based recommendations but were wondering, ‘Am I still going to be able to go get my shot?’” Kemble said.

Other states led mostly by Democrats have also formed alliances, with Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and several other East Coast states banding together to create the .

HHS’ Hilliard said that even as Democratic governors establish vaccine advisory coalitions, the federal “remains the scientific body guiding immunization recommendations in this country, and HHS will ensure policy is based on rigorous evidence and gold standard science, not the failed politics of the pandemic.”

Influencing Red States

Newsom, for his part, has approved a recurring annual infusion of nearly $300 million to support the state Department of Public Health, as well as the 61 local public health agencies across California, and last year authorizing the state to issue its own immunization guidance. It requires health insurers in California to provide patient coverage for vaccinations the state recommends even if the federal government doesn’t.

Jeffrey Singer, a doctor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said decentralization can be beneficial. That’s because local media campaigns that reflect different political ideologies and community priorities may have a better chance of influencing the public.

A Â鶹ŮÓÅ analysis found some red states are joining blue states in decoupling their vaccine recommendations from the federal government’s. Singer said some doctors in his home state of Arizona are looking to more liberal California for vaccine recommendations.

“Science is never settled, and there are a lot of areas of this country where there are differences of opinion,” Singer said. “This can help us challenge our assumptions and learn.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/gavin-newsom-california-public-health-fight-west-coast-alliance-trump-hhs-rfk/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

When federal immigration agents descended on their city, officers deported Gabi’s father and detained her aunt.

Gabi was born in the U.S. and is an American citizen. Her best chance to stand, or even walk, someday is a complex surgery on her legs and feet that was scheduled for January. But her mother, too terrified to take out the garbage let alone venture through the city to a hospital, canceled the procedure. Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News agreed to only partially identify the patients and their families in this article because they fear becoming targets of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

“I want more than anything for my baby to walk,” her mother said in Spanish, as Gabi cooed and wriggled in her arms, a feeding tube snaking from her stomach to an IV pole. “But with the situation that’s happening, I canceled the surgery and all the physical therapy appointments” that would have followed. “Because I’m afraid to leave.”

The Department of Homeland Security has declared an end to what it called Operation Metro Surge, carried out by officers with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agencies. Even so, health care workers say, immigration agents are still camping out in hospital parking lots. And drones fly overhead in agricultural areas beyond Minneapolis, where Somali and Latino immigrants have settled in recent years.

The Minnesota crackdown revealed the sweep of the surveillance and capture system the Trump administration is using to uproot immigrant communities in the United States, and the effect of its powerful brake on the medical system.

Similar health crises surfaced wherever immigration officers massed in the past year. In Dallas, public health clinics administered about 6,000 vaccinations to Latinos last August, half as many as during a similar program a year earlier. In Chicago, doctors rerouted patients daily from clinic to clinic depending on ICE activity. Across the country, crackdowns suppressed immigrants’ health care visits.

In Minnesota, medical systems have reported cancellation and no-show rates of up to 60% since December.

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, blamed protesters for the disruption. “If anyone is impeding Americans from making appointments or picking up prescriptions,” she said, “its [sic] violent agitators who are blocking roadways, ramming vehicles, and vandalizing property.”

While Minnesotans rose up to oppose the surge in the streets, doctors and nurses have quietly operated informal, underground medical networks, dodging detection to care for patients at home.

“I used to look somebody in the eyes and say, with good faith, ‘You will be fine at the hospital,’” said Emily Carroll, a nurse practitioner at HealthFinders Collaborative, a community clinic in Faribault, some 50 miles south of Minneapolis. “But now, I can’t make that guarantee.”

As thousands of federal agents move on from Minneapolis, other communities need to prepare, said Minnesota Democratic state Sen. Alice Mann, a physician.

“I know it sounds crazy,” she said, but health care providers “need to start an underground network of how to get people care in their homes. Because letting people die at home or come close to death because they are terrified to go into the hospital, in 2026, is outrageous.”

The Surge Delivers Harm

Home visits, clinicians say, may be the only way to reach those who still feel under siege. In Los Angeles, starting last June, St. John’s Community Health brought medical care to some 2,000 immigrant families too frightened to leave home during an immigration sweep after the clinic’s no-show rates ballooned to more than 30%, said Jim Mangia, the organization’s president.

Many of Minnesota’s large health institutions have relied on telemedicine and only dabbled in home care.

Not Munira Maalimisaq, co-founder of Inspire Change Clinic in Minneapolis’ Ventura Village neighborhood. After about one-third of her patients stopped showing up for appointments, “I was like, ‘We have to do something,’” the nurse practitioner said. So she called a physician friend. What if they just started seeing patients at home?

“And she’s like, ‘You know what? Let’s do it.’”

They now have about 150 doctors — a volunteer “rapid response” team that has made more than 135 home visits. The first call was a woman whose husband had been deported. She was home with her children, was 39 weeks pregnant, and was in labor. Maalimisaq called an obstetrician volunteer, and they rushed to the patient’s house.

“She was 8 centimeters dilated,” Maalimisaq said, “and did not want us to call an ambulance. She says, ‘Can I have the baby here?’”

The woman was not a good candidate for a home birth, Maalimisaq said. They persuaded her to ride to the hospital in Maalimisaq’s car, a “small Tesla, white seats. Everything that could go wrong was there.”

But they made it to the hospital in time, and the woman had a safe, healthy delivery. “If we were not there, I can only imagine what would have happened.”

Maalimisaq’s caregiving follows a Hippocratic logic: “Someone was in need. I cannot just do nothing. And we cannot call an ambulance against her will and have her shoved in there. We had no choice but to do something, and that was the only thing that we could do safely.”

In other visits, she has seen “people so stressed out they pulled the hair out of their skull.” She said she met a mother who’d been rationing her child’s seizure medicine despite the child having experienced “one seizure after another.”

The Trump administration says its Minnesota operation improved public safety. “Since Operation Metro Surge began, our brave DHS law enforcement have arrested over 4,000 criminal illegal aliens including vicious murderers, rapists, child pedophiles and incredibly dangerous individuals,” according to McLaughlin, the DHS spokesperson. DHS announced last month that McLaughlin was leaving her post.

Minnesota correctional officials say many people accused of crimes were released directly to ICE by state or county prisons and jails. And of people arrested by ICE nationwide in January had criminal convictions, according to DHS data. Far fewer were convicted of violent crimes.

Agents Outside Hospitals, Clinics

On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump rescinded a 2011 policy that prohibited immigration enforcement in “sensitive locations” such as schools, hospitals, and churches.

In Northfield, about 45 miles south of Minneapolis, ICE agents have been sitting in their cars for hours at least twice a week outside health clinics, including one run by the local hospital, said Carroll, the nurse practitioner. Agents have made arrests in the area almost every day, Carroll and her colleagues said.

“ICE does not conduct enforcement at hospitals — period,” McLaughlin said.

One recent morning, three ICE vehicles sat in a Baptist church parking lot across the street from an elementary school in Northfield as volunteers ferried 35 children of immigrants back and forth to the school so their parents could avoid going out, Carroll said.

“ICE is not going to schools to arrest children — we are protecting children,” McLaughlin said.

Drones that Carroll and others believe are operated by immigration agents hover most nights, and sometimes during the day, over a trailer park that mostly houses immigrants who have moved to the area to work in agriculture and manufacturing over the past 15 years. Families paper over trailer windows, Carroll said.

“You cannot feel safe anywhere,” she said. “On the way to school, on the way to clinic, you might pass ICE. The sort of crushing fear and feeling of being trapped that these families are going through is outrageous.”

That fear means patients with diabetes and heart disease are missing blood sugar and blood thinner tests. Patients aren’t getting exercise, and the chronically ill are getting sicker, said Calla Brown, a Minneapolis pediatrician.

At the Faribault clinic where Carroll works, staff members deliver medicine, food, and other necessities to patients. A staffer drives 12 middle and high school kids to and from class every day in a clinic van.

Some patients are treated at home. Carroll recently diagnosed a baby with influenza, telling the parents it wasn’t an immediate threat — yet.

“‘If you see the baby struggling to breathe, if the baby’s not eating, if the baby isn’t making wet diapers, you have to go to the hospital,’” Carroll said she told them. “‘I cannot promise it’s safe. But you’ve got to go.’”

‘We’re Nice to Each Other’

In Minneapolis, nurse-midwife Fernanda Honebrink spends most of her daylight hours calling, coordinating, and shuttling between a ballooning group of fearful people stuck in their homes. She prefers not to call it a medical underground.

“It’s more like, that’s how we function in Minnesota,” said Honebrink, a U.S. citizen who emigrated from Ecuador 23 years ago. “We’re nice to each other.”

Honebrink spent a recent afternoon at the home of a family with a baby boy. His parents, Alex and Isa, desperately want him to receive vaccinations and blood tests at his one-year well-child appointment.

But they haven’t left their apartment for more than a month. “You don’t know what is most important: whether to go out for his well-being, or to go out and think that you might not come back,” Alex said.

The couple, who were interviewed in Spanish, entered the U.S. legally from Venezuela in 2024 under a program called Humanitarian Parole, which Trump ended in May. Since then, federal agents have detained and deported workers at a company where Alex, a mechanical engineer by training, worked in construction.

Alex and Isa have seen government vehicles outside their home. They knew of a man, they said, who had legitimate work papers but was picked up while walking to church one Sunday, flown to Texas, then put on a plane to Venezuela. It was a terrifying prospect for those who’ve fled that country’s dictatorship and economic chaos.

“It feels like a psychological attack,” Alex said. “The possibility of being separated from your family.”

Isa, a lawyer back in Venezuela, has endured postpartum depression, cooped up for weeks in their apartment. The state program that provided health insurance to all immigrants ended Jan. 1. A therapist checks in occasionally by phone, free of charge.

She has tried to keep the family afloat by selling homemade cakes and necklaces, and babysitting.

Her worst fear is being separated from her son, who was born in the U.S. and is a citizen. The possibility hadn’t occurred to her until an acquaintance urged her to to designate someone to have temporary custody if she were deported.

“It was something I never imagined,” said Isa, who sobbed as she recalled the moment. “He’s my baby! He’s not someone else’s! What? My baby would remain here with someone?’’

Honebrink suddenly piped up: “I will guarantee him. I’ll sign the form.”

She later told a reporter, “I told my husband I wouldn’t do that. I’ve already signed as a sponsor for four kids.”

As soon as she left the apartment, Honebrink jumped back on the phone and traded favors with local pediatricians, clinic schedulers, and volunteers. Within hours, she’d set up a new well-child visit for the baby and found a vetted driver to transport the family.

“A white person,” Honebrink explained.

Two days later, Honebrink sent a picture of her small victory: Alex and Isa’s baby boy with a Band-Aid on his legs. “He got his vaccines,” she said via text. “I’m so happy.”

But other medical needs cannot be as swiftly addressed. One February evening, Honebrink greeted Gabi and her mother with a trunk full of donated baby wipes, diapers, and toys.

Gabi’s surgery is rescheduled for August. Her mother said she hoped by then it would be safe to leave home.

“I used to take the kids to the park, but now we don’t leave at all,” she said. “They grab people, they mistreat them. How I wish it would end soon!”

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News’ Jackie Fortiér contributed to this report.

This <a target="_blank" href="/race-and-health/minneapolis-immigration-crackdown-underground-medical-care-networks/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ripe for Regulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insurers Push Back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeking Balance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/insurance/artificial-intelligence-ai-health-insurance-companies-state-regulation-trump/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">

For a second year, the Democrat has asked state lawmakers to roll back coverage for some immigrants in the face of federal Medicaid spending cuts and a roughly that if the artificial intelligence bubble bursts. Newsom has proposed that the state not step in when, starting in October, the federal government stops providing health coverage to an estimated 200,000 legal residents — comprising .

Progressive legislators and activists said the cost-saving measures are a departure from Newsom’s , while Republicans continue to skewer Newsom for using public funds to cover any noncitizens.

Newsom’s latest move would save an estimated $786 million this fiscal year and $1.1 billion annually in future years in a proposed budget of $349 billion, according to the Department of Finance.

State Sen. Caroline Menjivar, one of two Senate Democrats who voted against Newsom’s immigrant health cuts last year, said she worried the governor’s political ambition could be getting in the way of doing what’s best for Californians.

“You’re clouded by what Arkansas is going to think, or Tennessee is going to think, when what California thinks is something completely different,” said Menjivar, who said previous criticism got her from a key budget subcommittee. “That’s my perspective on what’s happening here.”

Meanwhile, Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland criticized Newsom for glossing over the state’s , which state officials say could balloon to $27 billion the following year. And he slammed Newsom for continuing to cover California residents in the U.S. without authorization. “He just wants to reinvent himself,” Strickland said.

It’s a political tightrope that will continue to grow thinner as federal support shrinks amid ever-rising health care expenses, said Guian McKee, a co-chair of the Health Care Policy Project at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs.

“It’s not just threading one needle but threading three or four of them right in a row,” McKee said. Should Newsom run, McKee added, the priorities of Democratic primary voters — who largely mirror blue states like California — look very different from those in a far more divided general electorate.

Americans are deeply divided on whether the government should provide health coverage to immigrants without legal status. In a last year, a slim majority — 54% — were against a provision that would have penalized states that use their own funds to pay for immigrant health care, with wide variation by party. The provision was left out of the final version of the bill passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump.

Even in California, support for the idea has waned amid ongoing budget problems. In a by the Public Policy Institute of California, 41% of adults in the state said they supported providing health coverage to immigrants who lack legal status, a sharp drop from the 55% .

, Vice President , , and congressional Republicans have repeatedly accused California and other Democratic states of using taxpayer funds on immigrant health care, a red-meat issue for their GOP base. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz has of “” to receive more federal funds, freeing up state coffers for its Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, which has enrolled roughly 1.6 million immigrants without legal status.

“If you are a taxpayer in Texas or Florida, your tax dollars could’ve been used to fund the care of illegal immigrants in California,” he said in October.

California state officials have denied the charges, noting that only state funds are used to pay for general health services for those without legal status because the law prohibits using federal funds. Instead, Newsom has made it a “” that California has opened up coverage to immigrants, which his administration has noted and helps them avoid costly emergency room care often covered at taxpayer expense.

“No administration has done more to expand full coverage under Medicaid than this administration for our diverse communities, documented and undocumented,” Newsom told reporters in January. “People have built careers out of criticizing my advocacy.”

Newsom warns the federal government’s “carnival of chaos” passed Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which he said puts 1.8 million Californians at risk of losing their health coverage with the implementation of work requirements, other eligibility rules, and limits to federal funding to states.

Nationally, 10 million people could lose coverage by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. higher numbers of uninsured patients — particularly those who are relatively healthy — could concentrate coverage among sicker patients, potentially increasing premium costs and hospital prices overall.

Immigrant advocates say it’s especially callous to leave residents who may have fled violence or survived trafficking or abuse without access to health care. Federal rules currently require state Medicaid programs to cover “qualified noncitizens” including asylees and refugees, according to Tanya Broder of the National Immigration Law Center. But the Republican tax-and-spending law ends the coverage, affecting legal immigrants nationwide.

With many state governors yet to release budget proposals, it’s unclear how they might handle the funding gaps, Broder said.

For instance, Colorado state officials estimate roughly 7,000 legal immigrants could lose coverage due to the law’s changes. And Washington state officials refugees, asylees, and other lawfully present immigrants will lose Medicaid.

Both states, like California, expanded full coverage to all income-eligible residents regardless of immigration status. Their elected officials are now in the awkward position of explaining why some legal immigrants may lose their health care coverage while those without legal status could keep theirs.

Last year, spiraling health care costs and state budget constraints prompted the Democratic governors of , potential presidential contenders JB Pritzker and Tim Walz, to pause or end coverage of immigrants without legal status.

California lawmakers last year voted to eliminate dental coverage and freeze new enrollment for immigrants without legal status and, starting next year, will charge monthly premiums to those who remain. Even so, the state is slated to spend $13.8 billion from its general fund on immigrants not covered by the federal government, according to Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer.

At a press conference in San Francisco in January, Newsom defended those moves, saying they were necessary for “fiscal prudence.” He sidestepped questions about coverage for asylees and refugees and downplayed the significance of his proposal, saying he could revise it when he gets a chance to update his budget in May.

Kiran Savage-Sangwan, executive director of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, pointed out that California passed a law in the 1990s requiring the state to cover when federal Medicaid dollars won’t. This includes green-card holders who haven’t yet met the five-year waiting period for enrolling in Medicaid.

Calling the governor’s proposal “arbitrary and cruel,” Savage-Sangwan criticized his choice to prioritize rainy day fund deposits over maintaining coverage and said blaming the federal government was misleading.

It’s also a major departure from what she had hoped California could achieve on Newsom’s first day in office seven years ago, when he declared his support for and proposed extending health insurance .

“I absolutely did have hope, and we celebrated advances that the governor led,” Savage-Sangwan said. “Which makes me all the more disappointed.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/insurance/california-governor-gavin-newsom-immigrant-health-care-medicaid-president/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ 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;">