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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Lifeline of Care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Lease on Life?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not all Montana health leaders are worried.

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

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

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/rural-health/rural-emergency-hospitals-montana-rightsize-downsize-services-transformation-fund/">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;">

Lingering pain from a car crash two months ago, on top of an already hardscrabble life, has Angulo worried about her pregnancy. So, she was relieved when a mobile street medicine van from St. John’s Community Health pulled up near her encampment last month.

“Thank God that we have them,” she said.

, which operates 28 clinics, mostly in L.A. County, is part of the nation’s network of nonprofit community clinics that care for the poorest Americans. Around 80% of its 144,000 patients, including Angulo, have Medi-Cal, California’s version of the Medicaid program for people with low incomes or disabilities.

But federal cuts to Medicaid spending under the Republican-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, compounded by in Sacramento, could cost St. John’s up to one-third of its $240 million annual revenue, requiring cuts to services that might include street medicine, said Jim Mangia, the president and CEO.

Smaller, more cash-strapped clinics in L.A. County could face harsher consequences, including closure, if the lost funding is not replaced.

That’s why Mangia, along with a coalition of community clinics, health care workers, and advocates, is pushing for a five-year, in the nation’s most populous county to help backfill the projected loss of federal and state dollars. St. John’s has contributed at least $2 million to the campaign so far.

Louise McCarthy, president and CEO of the Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County, said there aren’t a lot of options to save the health care system from disaster.

“Our backs are up against the wall,” she said. “This has the potential to be a game changer. It will be an absolutely significant offset to the losses.”

The L.A. County Board of Supervisors last month for inclusion on the June 2 primary ballot, over the objection of some cities within the county. Their leaders argued the tax would put a strain on consumers and business owners. Most of an in annual revenue generated would be used to protect safety-net health care at community clinics, hospitals, and schools.

Scrambling To Stay Afloat

Nationally, the GOP budget law is expected to cut federal Medicaid spending by over 10 years, and it could lead to an increase of in the number of people left uninsured. The L.A. ballot proposal is among many local and state initiatives nationwide, as clinics, hospitals, health care workers, advocates, and legislators scramble for new money to help offset the spending cuts.

In Michigan, where the federal law is projected to cost the state , Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s office has proposed on tobacco, vape products, online gambling, sports betting, and digital advertising, which it projects would raise hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

In Rhode Island, a group of state legislators hopes to ease some of the pain caused by the federal cuts with a that includes a tax on digital ads and a 3% surcharge on taxable incomes above roughly $640,000.

“The goal is not to replace the revenue; it’s to mitigate the damage,” said Democratic state Rep. Brandon Potter, one of the legislators involved.

In Washington, Democratic state Rep. Shaun Scott recently introduced legislation to address the loss of federal dollars with on large companies, applied to employee salaries exceeding $125,000 a year.

In California, the GOP law will slash the to Medi-Cal by an a year, or 25%. Enrollment in Medi-Cal could by 2028 as a result of the federal and state spending cuts, according to an analysis by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center.

In July, California will slash Medi-Cal payments that community clinics receive for certain services provided to patients with “unsatisfactory” immigration status by about . Those patients include permanent residents in the country for less than five years, refugees, asylees, and other lawfully present people.

Bracing for a ‘New Reality’?

Advocates and health care experts say finding new revenue is the only way to avoid a crisis in California’s health care system.

“Are we going to let the gaps created by federal policies and state budget cuts leave millions of people uninsured?” said Laurel Lucia, deputy executive director of programs at the UC Berkeley Labor Center. “I think a lot of that question comes down to revenues.”

Some medical professionals say that new revenue is needed in the short term but that the country needs to address its notoriously expensive health care system.

“This new reality is that we have to do our work with less money going into the future,” said Hector Flores, of the Los Angeles County Medical Association. “So, this is an opportunity for us to look at how we can do things better.”

In the meantime, efforts to raise taxes for health care abound.

Voters in Santa Clara County, home to Silicon Valley, last November approved a five-year 0.625% to offset federal Medicaid cuts. A will be on the June ballot in Contra Costa County.

The best-known initiative, and a hotly contested one, is a union-sponsored ballot proposal in California for a on the state’s . Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom strongly opposes it; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) stumped for it in California recently and has a national version in Congress.

Proponents of the temporary wealth tax say it would raise , which would mostly be used to backfill lost federal and state dollars in Medi-Cal and other safety-net programs. Proponents are trying to collect nearly 875,000 signatures needed to get it on the November ballot.

“We are on the precipice of a collapse of our health care system. So the most fortunate among us pay a modest tax that will hold us over and allow us to figure out a long-term solution,” said Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff for Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the measure’s chief sponsor. “They would still be incredibly wealthy after that.”

Billionaires Push Back

The plan has stirred considerable controversy, not just in the Golden State but nationwide, and has generated strong and others.

Critics argue the measure could prompt billionaires to leave California, putting a damper on innovation, jobs, and tax receipts. And, some warn, the measure could end up in a legal quagmire, as those deemed liable to pony up challenge it on multiple fronts.

“If this passed, you would expect it to be tied up in court for some time,” said Jared Walczak, a visiting fellow at the California Tax Foundation. “It is fairly plausible that no revenue could come in for a number of years, if there’s ever any revenue at all.”

The prospect of such complications has led some health care advocates to focus instead on local initiatives that could start generating revenue more quickly, such as the proposed sales tax in L.A. County.

That one has critics too, including leaders of multiple cities within the county who to reject a proposal they argued would add to the affordability worries of consumers and put a strain on businesses.

Kathryn Barger, a Republican and the only L.A. County supervisor to oppose putting the measure on the June ballot, said in a statement that the proposed tax would make the county “less affordable for families and less appealing for consumers to shop and businesses to operate.”

But supporters say safety-net health care is already feeling the impact of diminished funding. Last month, for example, L.A. County’s Department of Public Health announced it was due to $50 million in federal, state, and local funding cuts.

Medi-Cal enrollees are worried, too. “We get a lot of calls from panicked patients afraid they’re going to lose their Medi-Cal. Dozens of calls a day, hundreds of calls a week,” said St. John’s Mangia.

“We tell them that we’re working on a solution and hopefully we’ll have that solution come June.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/federal-cuts-state-tax-increases-budget-shortfalls-health-clinics-los-angeles-california/">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;">

The city’s mobile crisis team had just gotten a call about a man walking around outside without shoes. The man’s family told the team he was having a mental health crisis and wouldn’t come inside.

As they drove down the highway toward the city’s outskirts, team member Evan Thiessen spoke with the relative who had reached out.

“You’re doing the right thing, and we’re going to make sure he gets help today, OK?” he said.

They pulled up the man’s police record on a laptop and saw that he did have a record of some previous encounters with police, including some that had turned violent.

, a licensed therapist, had that in mind as they pulled into a neighborhood of single-family homes. He stepped out of the Ford Bronco and headed toward the front door.

A Funding Problem

Many communities around the country send out teams like this one to help people in psychiatric crisis, rather than dispatching regular police.

A found there were at least 1,800 mobile teams nationwide in 2023. But financial support for them is often inadequate and inconsistent, leaving many communities struggling to keep the teams operating.

Two programs — one in Great Falls, in central Montana, and one in Billings, in south-central Montana — recently shut down. Six units remain in Montana.

The strategy in Eugene, Oregon, but gained momentum nationally over the past 10 years.

Recent about police killing people who are experiencing a psychiatric crisis have sparked conversations about how to safely and effectively respond. Most police officers are not trained to deal with people experiencing delusions or hallucinations, nor to de-escalate situations involving threatening behaviors to themselves or others.

An across 27 states found that about a third of the victims showed signs of being in crisis. Another study found that people with a serious mental illness were at least to experience use of force by police as those without.

By contrast, crisis response teams have been trained to de-escalate such situations and provide appropriate therapeutic care.

When the team arrived at the house in Bozeman, the man had already gone back inside. The team then talked with the man’s family for about half an hour and helped them devise a plan to keep him at home — and safe. Before they left, team members determined the man wasn’t a threat to himself or others.

Also, they planned to follow up within a few days to connect him with ongoing mental health care. After an encounter with the team, some clients might need follow-up therapy, assistance with psychiatric medications, or help finding treatment for substance abuse.

The Bozeman team is available 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and costs roughly $1 million a year to run.

Police departments are generally funded by local taxpayers. Mobile crisis teams don’t have a single, reliable source of funding.

Some, despite successful operations and , are or have closed entirely. One that shuttered was Oregon’s .

Most crisis calls end with people staying where they are, avoiding a trip to the emergency room or going to jail, according to , which runs the mobile crisis program in Bozeman.

Beyond police and firefighters, members of the public can call the team directly.

“I’ve been out on calls where individuals have barricaded themselves in residences or in their vehicles with a firearm. So, helping to assist not only law enforcement, the negotiators, but consulting on the behavioral health side of that,” said Ryan Mattson, who leads the Bozeman crisis team.

The program has reduced the time that Bozeman police officers must spend on mental health calls by nearly 80%, according to Mattson, and prevented unnecessary ER visits.

Residents and political leaders see that value, he said, but finding a way to pay for the service has been difficult.

“I’m confident we’ll be here through next fiscal year. That’s about as confident as I am at this point,” Mattson said.

Mobile crisis programs in Montana, which began operating about five years ago, have cost more than the state originally projected.

Health insurance is sometimes a revenue source for mobile crisis teams. That’s because a crisis call is a type of mental health service, provided by trained professionals such as therapists or crisis intervention specialists. Still, many private insurance companies don’t reimburse for mobile crisis services.

What Medicaid Pays For — And Doesn’t

Medicaid, the government-funded insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans, is another funding source. Two-thirds of states allow Medicaid reimbursement for such calls, but rates vary.

In Montana, Medicaid reimburses the team only for the time they spend responding to a call in the field. Additional time spent on a case — documenting the encounters, or waiting for the next call — isn’t reimbursed.

“You need to pay for the capacity to be at the ready, just like we do with fire or police, regardless of whether somebody is going to be called out,” said of Inseparable, a nonprofit that advocates for mental health policy reform.

It’s not feasible for mobile crisis teams to rely solely on reimbursement from insurance companies, she said.

To deal with the shortfalls, many mobile teams rely on a patchwork of grants and other funding, according to , who studies Medicaid policy at Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

Some state governments have stepped in to help.

Eight states, including New Jersey, California, and Washington, mandate that private insurers cover the cost of mobile crisis calls for people on their plans, according to Kimball. At least 10 states have implemented fees on cellphone bills to help pay for service.

Montana hasn’t followed suit.

The state provides about $2 million annually in supplemental funds to help the mobile teams pay for service calls that aren’t reimbursed through Medicaid, according to an emailed statement from Jon Ebelt, a state health department spokesperson.

But program managers counter that the paperwork to access that funding is complicated and often isn’t worth the staff time.

Will Montana Step In?

Despite this state support, mobile teams are still struggling to stay afloat, Ebelt acknowledged. He said Montana officials are considering boosting what Medicaid reimburses for each service call.

In Missoula, the mobile crisis team turned to local taxpayers for additional help. Their annual expenditure is $1.4 million, but Medicaid reimbursements were covering only about 20% of the cost, according to program manager John LaRocque. Even with local tax dollars, the program faces a $250,000 shortfall, so LaRocque is looking for grants.

Mobile crisis is still a relatively new concept, and growing pains are to be expected, said Sierra Riesberg, director of the .

Still, abrupt closures create instability and lead some patients to the ER, placing financial pressure on another distressed part of the local health system.

“A much-needed service is available and then not available, available and then not available. These things need to be taken into consideration when developing programs in communities,” she said.

If more mobile crisis teams shut down, that might interfere with Montana’s recent efforts to overhaul an outdated and underfunded mental health system. The state’s only psychiatric hospital hasn’t kept up with the to the facility.

Later this year, Montana hopes to join a federal pilot program to open a new type of clinic: , or CCBHCs. Those clinics will receive boosted levels of federal funding, but they are required to offer round-the-clock mobile crisis services as well as other crisis care.

That could be a tall order for rural communities, said , an executive at in Great Falls.

Alluvion used to operate the mobile crisis team in Great Falls before it shuttered the service. One major reason it closed was that the expected Medicaid payments covered less than anticipated. Before Alluvion would consider getting involved again, the state would need to “completely revamp” the way the service is funded, Schreiner said.

“Is it a priority for our state or not?” he asked.

This article is from a partnership with and .

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/police-mental-health-calls-988-911-mobile-crisis-teams-funding/">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 Millers resettled on Vancouver Island, their scenic refuge accessible only by ferry or plane. Justin went to work in the emergency room at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, where he became one of at least 20 U.S.-trained nurses hired since April.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fears Realized

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

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

Justin was offered a job within weeks.

Amy found one within three months.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘A Sense of Relief’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maffin said about the April event.

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

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

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

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

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/us-nurses-move-to-canada-trump-policies-care-shortages/">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 legislation introduced in , , , , , , , and builds on efforts made in other states in past years. This latest push for patient protections comes as the Trump administration has backed away from federal debt protections, health care has become , and more people are expected to go without medical coverage or but riskier high-deductible insurance plans that could lead them into debt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/medical-debt-wage-garnishment-state-legislation-patient-protection/">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;">

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Policy Impacts

Recent federal changes create more obstacles.

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

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

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

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

In Nevada, the changes would amount to an losing coverage, according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ.

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

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

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

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

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

Insights From Washington and Colorado

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

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

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

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

Colorado requires all insurers offering coverage through its marketplace to include a public option that follows state guidelines. The state set premium reduction targets of 5% a year for three years beginning in 2023. Starting this year, premium costs are medical inflation.

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

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

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

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/nevada-public-option-health-insurance-aca-obamacare-enrollment/">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;">

It’s all part of a drama that roiled the ACA’s 2026 open enrollment period. Congressional debate over whether to extend more generous subsidies made available under the Biden administration led to and focused public attention on rising health care costs and the affordability issue.

The enhanced subsidies, which expanded eligibility both by lowering the percentage of household income people had to pay toward their care and removing an income cap, expired at the end of last year. As a result, just about everyone buying ACA coverage saw their costs increase. For some, what they paid toward premiums doubled or more, even though less generous subsidies remain in place.

Many experts expected ACA enrollment, which hit a record 24 million in 2025, to fall this time around.

“If you raise the price of something a whole lot, economics tell us that a lot of people will buy less of it or not buy at all,” said Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy officer with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Here are things to watch now:

Initial Numbers Aren’t Final

The in December 2024 that not extending the enhanced subsidies would cause 2.2 million people to lose insurance in 2026, with further increases in following years. Analysts with the Wakely Consulting Group would opt out of insurance for this year.

Data released Jan. 28 by federal officials showed a year-over-year enrollments across the federal healthcare.gov marketplace and those run by states. Overall, there were 23 million enrollees, including 3.4 million new to ACA coverage.

At about the same time last year, there were , with 3.9 million new to the marketplaces.

But there’s more to it than those initial numbers.

For one thing, both years’ data was pegged to Jan. 15 for the federal marketplace, which closed its open enrollment period that day. But, the data for the states that run their own marketplaces included sign-ups in most cases only through Jan. 10 or 11, even though some held open enrollment until the . Thus, the numbers don’t reflect what might have happened in those last days. Was there a surge in state sign-ups? Or, conversely, did the marketplaces see more enrollees cancel their coverage?

Additionally, those initial numbers are a mix of newly minted ACA enrollees and existing customers, many of whom were auto-reenrolled for 2026 — which raises other issues.

For existing, reenrolled policyholders, the real figures won’t be known for weeks or months, when it becomes clear how many actually pay their premiums. Some consumers may not have focused on their reenrollment costs or may have hoped Congress would extend the subsidies.

That’s an important factor to keep in mind because the CBO and Wakely estimates of millions losing insurance were based on projections for full-year coverage, not initial sign-ups.

In the coming weeks, “consumers may find they really can’t afford the premiums and cancel their plans, while carriers may also cancel coverage for nonpayment,” said Pat Kelly, executive director of Your Health Idaho, a state-based ACA marketplace, during a Jan. 22 call with reporters.

Sharp Differences in State Enrollment Patterns

Changes are also afoot in the 19 other states (and the District of Columbia) that , some of which have issued more detailed data about enrollment than the federal marketplace.

Most states saw lower enrollment for 2026 than the prior year, with the biggest drop in North Carolina, where sign-ups fell by nearly 22%, federal data shows.

In a few states — including New Mexico, Texas, California, and Maryland, as well as the District of Columbia — the number of people selecting ACA plans increased.

The jump was largest in New Mexico, with its initial number of people selecting plans up by nearly 14%. Increases were in the single digits in the other states and Washington, D.C.

New Mexico — uniquely — used its own tax dollars to fully offset the loss of the more generous federal tax subsidies for all consumers. , including California, Colorado, Maryland, and Washington, used state money to help some enrollees.

The , a collective of 22 state marketplaces supported by the National Academy for State Health Policy, said initial enrollment figures . Compared with the same time last year, outright plan cancellations are up 83% in Colorado, disenrollments are four times what they were in Idaho, and Virginia has seen cancellations double.

New enrollments are from the same period last year, according to data from the state. In Pennsylvania, people ages 55 to 64, the group with the highest premiums, and young people 26 to 34 in higher numbers than other age groups, state data shows.

“We have drastically higher rates of people dropping their coverage,” said Devon Trolley, executive director of the Pennsylvania Health Insurance Exchange Authority. “We had 70,000 drop in the last two months, from early retirees to small-business owners to farmers not knowing how to make ends meet.”

On Feb. 9, Pennsylvania released , showing enrollment dropped by about 2% from last year, although that figure masks some of the effects. The state says nearly 18% of enrollees dropped coverage altogether, with older and rural residents being the most likely to fall out.

Some Republicans credited Trump-administration-backed anti-fraud measures, which included a range of , for tightening the system. Although some of those actions were paused by a federal court and have not taken effect, those ACA critics, some of whom have produced that millions may have been improperly enrolled, say that’s behind the decline. They have previously for unauthorized enrollments or ACA plan-switching by commission-seeking brokers.

States that run their own ACA marketplaces, however, reported little or no such unauthorized switching. Relative to the federal marketplace, the state-based ACA platforms employ additional safeguards to prevent brokers from accessing consumers’ coverage without authorization.

Among consumers not returning to the marketplace, the main reason is cost, said Mila Kofman, executive director of the DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority, which runs the district’s ACA marketplace.

“When we looked at who these folks are, half are small-business owners,” Kofman said. “They are not folks committing fraud.”

Lower Premiums, Higher Deductibles

Rather than sticking with automatic reenrollment, existing customers in many states shifted sharply into lower-priced “bronze” plans that come with higher deductibles than silver, gold, and platinum plans.

California saw 73% of renewing members who switched plans move to a bronze plan, up from 27% at the same time last year, the State Marketplace Network reported. In Maine, bronze enrollment now represents almost 60% of all plans purchased.

People are “looking at what works in their monthly budget, looking for that lower premium,” said Stacey Pogue, a senior research fellow at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “Some might be crossing their fingers that they won’t need to meet their deductible.”

On average, bronze plans have an . All ACA plans are required to cover certain preventive services — such as some vaccinations, cancer screenings, and other tests — without a copayment or deductible, but most everything else is covered only after an annual deductible is met.

High deductibles can lead some patients to avoid seeking medical care, Hempstead said.

“People are terrified to use their care,” she said. “They may delay something until it’s more serious.”

She added that medical providers, including hospitals and doctors, are bracing for an increase in the number of insured patients who can’t afford to pay their deductibles.

“Everyone is anticipating that hospitals will have to give out more charity care, which will hurt their bottom lines and might lead them to have to lay off people or close or reduce services,” she said.

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/affordable-care-act-aca-obamacare-sign-ups-subsidies-higher-premiums/">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;">

Finally, after decades of advocacy, the Biden administration in 2023 tackled the problem of perennial understaffing of long-term care facilities. Officials backed a Medicare regulation that would mandate at least 3.48 hours of care from nurses and aides per resident, per day, and would require a registered nurse on-site 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The mandated hours were lower than supporters hoped for, said Hunter, who directs Washington state’s long-term care ombudsman program. But “I’m a pragmatic person, so I thought, this is a good start,” she said. “It would be helpful, for enforcement, to have a federal law.”

In 2024, when the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adopted the standards, advocates celebrated. But industry lawsuits soon blocked most of the rule, with two federal district courts finding that Medicare had exceeded its regulatory authority.

And after the 2024 elections, Hunter said, “I was concerned about the changing of the guard.” Her concerns proved well founded.

In July, as part of Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Congress prohibited Medicare from implementing the staffing standards before 2034. Last month, CMS altogether. They never took effect.

“It was devastating,” Hunter said.

As with environmental law and consumer protections, the Trump administration’s enthusiasm for deregulation has undone long-sought rules to improve care for the aged. And it has introduced , now getting underway in six states, that has alarmed advocates, congressional Democrats, and a good number of older Americans.

Taken together, the moves will affect many of the facilities and workers providing care and introduce complications in health coverage in several states.

On the nursing home front, “it’s clear CMS has no interest in ensuring adequate staffing,” said Sam Brooks, the director of public policy for the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care.

“They’re repealing a regulation that could have saved 13,000 lives a year,” he added, citing by University of Pennsylvania researchers.

Industry groups argued that nursing homes, with high rates of staff turnover, were already struggling to fill vacancies.

The staffing mandate “was requiring nursing homes to hire an additional 100,000 caregivers that simply don’t exist,” said Holly Harmon, a senior vice president at the American Health Care Association.

The organization had brought one of the suits that largely vacated the rule. “Facilities would have been forced to limit admissions or downsize to comply with the requirements, or close altogether,” Harmon said.

For supporters, the action is now likely to shift to updating requirements in 35 states, along with the District of Columbia, that have already established , and to developing them in those that haven’t.

Rules for Home Help

A second rescinded regulation, this one more unexpected, brought about upheaval in July, when the Labor Department announced a return to from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Some history: Dating back to the New Deal, the FLSA mandated that workers receive the federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 an hour) and overtime pay. It exempted most “domestic service workers” until 1975, when a new Labor Department regulation included them — with the exception of home care workers.

“There was a misinterpretation of home care work as being casual, nonprofessional, non-skilled,” the equivalent of teenage babysitting, said Kezia Scales, a vice president at PHI, a national research and advocacy organization. “Just someone popping into your mother’s house now and then and keeping her company.”

For almost 40 years, workers and their supporters lobbied to change the rule, seeing it as a contributor to the low wages and meager benefits of a swiftly growing workforce, one made up primarily of women and minority groups, with many immigrants.

In 2013, the Labor Department responded with a rule that , entitled to minimum wage, time and a half for overtime work, and payment for travel time between clients.

After industry lawsuits failed to overturn it, “everything settled down,” Scales said. “It was in place successfully for a decade.”

Home care workers brought hundreds of compliance complaints annually. In 87% of them, the Labor Department found , according to a 2020 Government Accountability Office report.

Since 2013, home care agencies have paid about , PHI has calculated.

Then in July, the Labor Department abruptly announced that it would return to the 1975 regulations and , which it said “had negative effects on the ground” and hindered consumer access to care.

The agencies employing most home care workers, primarily funded through Medicaid, would agree. “Many workers never got any benefit from this,” said Damon Terzaghi, a vice president at the National Alliance for Care at Home.

“States made a lot of moves to essentially absolve themselves of any responsibility,” he said. A 2020 federal report, for example, found that 16 states had at 40, thus averting overtime payment.

The alliance, which estimates that the number of impacted agencies and businesses has declined by 30% since 2013, supported the rescission. Scales, who hopes for congressional action, called it “a shocking step backward.”

Where they concur is that the United States has never really committed to sufficiently funding long-term care at home. With the July legislation setting the stage for a over the coming decade, that seems unlikely to change anytime soon.

Medicare’s AI Referee

Beyond rolling back policies for care of the aged, the Trump administration has established a pilot program to introduce one to traditional Medicare: prior authorization, using artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies.

Touting it as a boon to taxpayers, Medicare calls it WISeR — Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction.

, in which private insurers review proposed treatments before agreeing to pay for them, is widely used in Medicare Advantage plans despite its unpopularity with patients, doctors, and health care organizations. It has rarely been used in traditional Medicare.

This month, however, in six states (Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington) in a six-year trial to determine whether review by tech companies can reduce costs and improve efficiency, while maintaining or improving quality of care.

Initially, that CMS said “historically have had a higher risk of waste, fraud and abuse.” The list includes knee arthroscopy for arthritis, electrical nerve stimulation devices for several conditions, and treatment for impotence.

The pilot program excludes emergency services and inpatient hospital care, or care where delay poses “a substantial risk.” Algorithmic denials will trigger review by “an appropriately licensed human clinician.” The tech companies get “a share of averted expenditures.”

“It injects some of the worst of Medicare Advantage into traditional Medicare,” said David Lipschutz, co-director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy. The six vendors that approve or reject treatments “have a financial stake in the outcomes,” he said, and therefore “an incentive to deny care.”

Moreover, the CMS Innovation Center overseeing the pilot could theoretically bypass Congress and expand prior authorization to include more medical services in more states.

The agency did not respond to questions about what kind of human clinicians would review denials, except to say that they would have “relevant experience” and that tech companies would be “financially penalized for inappropriate denials, high appeal rates or poor performance.”

It plans an “independent, federally funded evaluation” and will release public reports annually.

Democrats in Congress have in both houses to repeal WISeR. “We should be reducing red tape in Medicare, not creating new hurdles that second-guess health care providers,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington, one of the bill’s sponsors.

For now, though, WISeR has opened for business, receiving prior authorization requests through its electronic portals.

“The New Old Age” is produced through a partnership with .

This <a target="_blank" href="/aging/long-term-care-nursing-homes-medicare-ai-prior-authorization/">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;">

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Lifeline of Care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Lease on Life?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not all Montana health leaders are worried.

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

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

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/rural-health/rural-emergency-hospitals-montana-rightsize-downsize-services-transformation-fund/">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;">

Lingering pain from a car crash two months ago, on top of an already hardscrabble life, has Angulo worried about her pregnancy. So, she was relieved when a mobile street medicine van from St. John’s Community Health pulled up near her encampment last month.

“Thank God that we have them,” she said.

, which operates 28 clinics, mostly in L.A. County, is part of the nation’s network of nonprofit community clinics that care for the poorest Americans. Around 80% of its 144,000 patients, including Angulo, have Medi-Cal, California’s version of the Medicaid program for people with low incomes or disabilities.

But federal cuts to Medicaid spending under the Republican-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, compounded by in Sacramento, could cost St. John’s up to one-third of its $240 million annual revenue, requiring cuts to services that might include street medicine, said Jim Mangia, the president and CEO.

Smaller, more cash-strapped clinics in L.A. County could face harsher consequences, including closure, if the lost funding is not replaced.

That’s why Mangia, along with a coalition of community clinics, health care workers, and advocates, is pushing for a five-year, in the nation’s most populous county to help backfill the projected loss of federal and state dollars. St. John’s has contributed at least $2 million to the campaign so far.

Louise McCarthy, president and CEO of the Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County, said there aren’t a lot of options to save the health care system from disaster.

“Our backs are up against the wall,” she said. “This has the potential to be a game changer. It will be an absolutely significant offset to the losses.”

The L.A. County Board of Supervisors last month for inclusion on the June 2 primary ballot, over the objection of some cities within the county. Their leaders argued the tax would put a strain on consumers and business owners. Most of an in annual revenue generated would be used to protect safety-net health care at community clinics, hospitals, and schools.

Scrambling To Stay Afloat

Nationally, the GOP budget law is expected to cut federal Medicaid spending by over 10 years, and it could lead to an increase of in the number of people left uninsured. The L.A. ballot proposal is among many local and state initiatives nationwide, as clinics, hospitals, health care workers, advocates, and legislators scramble for new money to help offset the spending cuts.

In Michigan, where the federal law is projected to cost the state , Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s office has proposed on tobacco, vape products, online gambling, sports betting, and digital advertising, which it projects would raise hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

In Rhode Island, a group of state legislators hopes to ease some of the pain caused by the federal cuts with a that includes a tax on digital ads and a 3% surcharge on taxable incomes above roughly $640,000.

“The goal is not to replace the revenue; it’s to mitigate the damage,” said Democratic state Rep. Brandon Potter, one of the legislators involved.

In Washington, Democratic state Rep. Shaun Scott recently introduced legislation to address the loss of federal dollars with on large companies, applied to employee salaries exceeding $125,000 a year.

In California, the GOP law will slash the to Medi-Cal by an a year, or 25%. Enrollment in Medi-Cal could by 2028 as a result of the federal and state spending cuts, according to an analysis by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center.

In July, California will slash Medi-Cal payments that community clinics receive for certain services provided to patients with “unsatisfactory” immigration status by about . Those patients include permanent residents in the country for less than five years, refugees, asylees, and other lawfully present people.

Bracing for a ‘New Reality’?

Advocates and health care experts say finding new revenue is the only way to avoid a crisis in California’s health care system.

“Are we going to let the gaps created by federal policies and state budget cuts leave millions of people uninsured?” said Laurel Lucia, deputy executive director of programs at the UC Berkeley Labor Center. “I think a lot of that question comes down to revenues.”

Some medical professionals say that new revenue is needed in the short term but that the country needs to address its notoriously expensive health care system.

“This new reality is that we have to do our work with less money going into the future,” said Hector Flores, of the Los Angeles County Medical Association. “So, this is an opportunity for us to look at how we can do things better.”

In the meantime, efforts to raise taxes for health care abound.

Voters in Santa Clara County, home to Silicon Valley, last November approved a five-year 0.625% to offset federal Medicaid cuts. A will be on the June ballot in Contra Costa County.

The best-known initiative, and a hotly contested one, is a union-sponsored ballot proposal in California for a on the state’s . Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom strongly opposes it; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) stumped for it in California recently and has a national version in Congress.

Proponents of the temporary wealth tax say it would raise , which would mostly be used to backfill lost federal and state dollars in Medi-Cal and other safety-net programs. Proponents are trying to collect nearly 875,000 signatures needed to get it on the November ballot.

“We are on the precipice of a collapse of our health care system. So the most fortunate among us pay a modest tax that will hold us over and allow us to figure out a long-term solution,” said Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff for Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the measure’s chief sponsor. “They would still be incredibly wealthy after that.”

Billionaires Push Back

The plan has stirred considerable controversy, not just in the Golden State but nationwide, and has generated strong and others.

Critics argue the measure could prompt billionaires to leave California, putting a damper on innovation, jobs, and tax receipts. And, some warn, the measure could end up in a legal quagmire, as those deemed liable to pony up challenge it on multiple fronts.

“If this passed, you would expect it to be tied up in court for some time,” said Jared Walczak, a visiting fellow at the California Tax Foundation. “It is fairly plausible that no revenue could come in for a number of years, if there’s ever any revenue at all.”

The prospect of such complications has led some health care advocates to focus instead on local initiatives that could start generating revenue more quickly, such as the proposed sales tax in L.A. County.

That one has critics too, including leaders of multiple cities within the county who to reject a proposal they argued would add to the affordability worries of consumers and put a strain on businesses.

Kathryn Barger, a Republican and the only L.A. County supervisor to oppose putting the measure on the June ballot, said in a statement that the proposed tax would make the county “less affordable for families and less appealing for consumers to shop and businesses to operate.”

But supporters say safety-net health care is already feeling the impact of diminished funding. Last month, for example, L.A. County’s Department of Public Health announced it was due to $50 million in federal, state, and local funding cuts.

Medi-Cal enrollees are worried, too. “We get a lot of calls from panicked patients afraid they’re going to lose their Medi-Cal. Dozens of calls a day, hundreds of calls a week,” said St. John’s Mangia.

“We tell them that we’re working on a solution and hopefully we’ll have that solution come June.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/federal-cuts-state-tax-increases-budget-shortfalls-health-clinics-los-angeles-california/">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;">

The city’s mobile crisis team had just gotten a call about a man walking around outside without shoes. The man’s family told the team he was having a mental health crisis and wouldn’t come inside.

As they drove down the highway toward the city’s outskirts, team member Evan Thiessen spoke with the relative who had reached out.

“You’re doing the right thing, and we’re going to make sure he gets help today, OK?” he said.

They pulled up the man’s police record on a laptop and saw that he did have a record of some previous encounters with police, including some that had turned violent.

, a licensed therapist, had that in mind as they pulled into a neighborhood of single-family homes. He stepped out of the Ford Bronco and headed toward the front door.

A Funding Problem

Many communities around the country send out teams like this one to help people in psychiatric crisis, rather than dispatching regular police.

A found there were at least 1,800 mobile teams nationwide in 2023. But financial support for them is often inadequate and inconsistent, leaving many communities struggling to keep the teams operating.

Two programs — one in Great Falls, in central Montana, and one in Billings, in south-central Montana — recently shut down. Six units remain in Montana.

The strategy in Eugene, Oregon, but gained momentum nationally over the past 10 years.

Recent about police killing people who are experiencing a psychiatric crisis have sparked conversations about how to safely and effectively respond. Most police officers are not trained to deal with people experiencing delusions or hallucinations, nor to de-escalate situations involving threatening behaviors to themselves or others.

An across 27 states found that about a third of the victims showed signs of being in crisis. Another study found that people with a serious mental illness were at least to experience use of force by police as those without.

By contrast, crisis response teams have been trained to de-escalate such situations and provide appropriate therapeutic care.

When the team arrived at the house in Bozeman, the man had already gone back inside. The team then talked with the man’s family for about half an hour and helped them devise a plan to keep him at home — and safe. Before they left, team members determined the man wasn’t a threat to himself or others.

Also, they planned to follow up within a few days to connect him with ongoing mental health care. After an encounter with the team, some clients might need follow-up therapy, assistance with psychiatric medications, or help finding treatment for substance abuse.

The Bozeman team is available 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and costs roughly $1 million a year to run.

Police departments are generally funded by local taxpayers. Mobile crisis teams don’t have a single, reliable source of funding.

Some, despite successful operations and , are or have closed entirely. One that shuttered was Oregon’s .

Most crisis calls end with people staying where they are, avoiding a trip to the emergency room or going to jail, according to , which runs the mobile crisis program in Bozeman.

Beyond police and firefighters, members of the public can call the team directly.

“I’ve been out on calls where individuals have barricaded themselves in residences or in their vehicles with a firearm. So, helping to assist not only law enforcement, the negotiators, but consulting on the behavioral health side of that,” said Ryan Mattson, who leads the Bozeman crisis team.

The program has reduced the time that Bozeman police officers must spend on mental health calls by nearly 80%, according to Mattson, and prevented unnecessary ER visits.

Residents and political leaders see that value, he said, but finding a way to pay for the service has been difficult.

“I’m confident we’ll be here through next fiscal year. That’s about as confident as I am at this point,” Mattson said.

Mobile crisis programs in Montana, which began operating about five years ago, have cost more than the state originally projected.

Health insurance is sometimes a revenue source for mobile crisis teams. That’s because a crisis call is a type of mental health service, provided by trained professionals such as therapists or crisis intervention specialists. Still, many private insurance companies don’t reimburse for mobile crisis services.

What Medicaid Pays For — And Doesn’t

Medicaid, the government-funded insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans, is another funding source. Two-thirds of states allow Medicaid reimbursement for such calls, but rates vary.

In Montana, Medicaid reimburses the team only for the time they spend responding to a call in the field. Additional time spent on a case — documenting the encounters, or waiting for the next call — isn’t reimbursed.

“You need to pay for the capacity to be at the ready, just like we do with fire or police, regardless of whether somebody is going to be called out,” said of Inseparable, a nonprofit that advocates for mental health policy reform.

It’s not feasible for mobile crisis teams to rely solely on reimbursement from insurance companies, she said.

To deal with the shortfalls, many mobile teams rely on a patchwork of grants and other funding, according to , who studies Medicaid policy at Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

Some state governments have stepped in to help.

Eight states, including New Jersey, California, and Washington, mandate that private insurers cover the cost of mobile crisis calls for people on their plans, according to Kimball. At least 10 states have implemented fees on cellphone bills to help pay for service.

Montana hasn’t followed suit.

The state provides about $2 million annually in supplemental funds to help the mobile teams pay for service calls that aren’t reimbursed through Medicaid, according to an emailed statement from Jon Ebelt, a state health department spokesperson.

But program managers counter that the paperwork to access that funding is complicated and often isn’t worth the staff time.

Will Montana Step In?

Despite this state support, mobile teams are still struggling to stay afloat, Ebelt acknowledged. He said Montana officials are considering boosting what Medicaid reimburses for each service call.

In Missoula, the mobile crisis team turned to local taxpayers for additional help. Their annual expenditure is $1.4 million, but Medicaid reimbursements were covering only about 20% of the cost, according to program manager John LaRocque. Even with local tax dollars, the program faces a $250,000 shortfall, so LaRocque is looking for grants.

Mobile crisis is still a relatively new concept, and growing pains are to be expected, said Sierra Riesberg, director of the .

Still, abrupt closures create instability and lead some patients to the ER, placing financial pressure on another distressed part of the local health system.

“A much-needed service is available and then not available, available and then not available. These things need to be taken into consideration when developing programs in communities,” she said.

If more mobile crisis teams shut down, that might interfere with Montana’s recent efforts to overhaul an outdated and underfunded mental health system. The state’s only psychiatric hospital hasn’t kept up with the to the facility.

Later this year, Montana hopes to join a federal pilot program to open a new type of clinic: , or CCBHCs. Those clinics will receive boosted levels of federal funding, but they are required to offer round-the-clock mobile crisis services as well as other crisis care.

That could be a tall order for rural communities, said , an executive at in Great Falls.

Alluvion used to operate the mobile crisis team in Great Falls before it shuttered the service. One major reason it closed was that the expected Medicaid payments covered less than anticipated. Before Alluvion would consider getting involved again, the state would need to “completely revamp” the way the service is funded, Schreiner said.

“Is it a priority for our state or not?” he asked.

This article is from a partnership with and .

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/police-mental-health-calls-988-911-mobile-crisis-teams-funding/">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 Millers resettled on Vancouver Island, their scenic refuge accessible only by ferry or plane. Justin went to work in the emergency room at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, where he became one of at least 20 U.S.-trained nurses hired since April.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fears Realized

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

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

Justin was offered a job within weeks.

Amy found one within three months.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘A Sense of Relief’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maffin said about the April event.

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

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

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

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

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/us-nurses-move-to-canada-trump-policies-care-shortages/">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 legislation introduced in , , , , , , , and builds on efforts made in other states in past years. This latest push for patient protections comes as the Trump administration has backed away from federal debt protections, health care has become , and more people are expected to go without medical coverage or but riskier high-deductible insurance plans that could lead them into debt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/medical-debt-wage-garnishment-state-legislation-patient-protection/">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;">

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Policy Impacts

Recent federal changes create more obstacles.

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

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

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

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

In Nevada, the changes would amount to an losing coverage, according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ.

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

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

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

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

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

Insights From Washington and Colorado

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

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

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

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

Colorado requires all insurers offering coverage through its marketplace to include a public option that follows state guidelines. The state set premium reduction targets of 5% a year for three years beginning in 2023. Starting this year, premium costs are medical inflation.

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

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

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

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/nevada-public-option-health-insurance-aca-obamacare-enrollment/">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;">

It’s all part of a drama that roiled the ACA’s 2026 open enrollment period. Congressional debate over whether to extend more generous subsidies made available under the Biden administration led to and focused public attention on rising health care costs and the affordability issue.

The enhanced subsidies, which expanded eligibility both by lowering the percentage of household income people had to pay toward their care and removing an income cap, expired at the end of last year. As a result, just about everyone buying ACA coverage saw their costs increase. For some, what they paid toward premiums doubled or more, even though less generous subsidies remain in place.

Many experts expected ACA enrollment, which hit a record 24 million in 2025, to fall this time around.

“If you raise the price of something a whole lot, economics tell us that a lot of people will buy less of it or not buy at all,” said Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy officer with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Here are things to watch now:

Initial Numbers Aren’t Final

The in December 2024 that not extending the enhanced subsidies would cause 2.2 million people to lose insurance in 2026, with further increases in following years. Analysts with the Wakely Consulting Group would opt out of insurance for this year.

Data released Jan. 28 by federal officials showed a year-over-year enrollments across the federal healthcare.gov marketplace and those run by states. Overall, there were 23 million enrollees, including 3.4 million new to ACA coverage.

At about the same time last year, there were , with 3.9 million new to the marketplaces.

But there’s more to it than those initial numbers.

For one thing, both years’ data was pegged to Jan. 15 for the federal marketplace, which closed its open enrollment period that day. But, the data for the states that run their own marketplaces included sign-ups in most cases only through Jan. 10 or 11, even though some held open enrollment until the . Thus, the numbers don’t reflect what might have happened in those last days. Was there a surge in state sign-ups? Or, conversely, did the marketplaces see more enrollees cancel their coverage?

Additionally, those initial numbers are a mix of newly minted ACA enrollees and existing customers, many of whom were auto-reenrolled for 2026 — which raises other issues.

For existing, reenrolled policyholders, the real figures won’t be known for weeks or months, when it becomes clear how many actually pay their premiums. Some consumers may not have focused on their reenrollment costs or may have hoped Congress would extend the subsidies.

That’s an important factor to keep in mind because the CBO and Wakely estimates of millions losing insurance were based on projections for full-year coverage, not initial sign-ups.

In the coming weeks, “consumers may find they really can’t afford the premiums and cancel their plans, while carriers may also cancel coverage for nonpayment,” said Pat Kelly, executive director of Your Health Idaho, a state-based ACA marketplace, during a Jan. 22 call with reporters.

Sharp Differences in State Enrollment Patterns

Changes are also afoot in the 19 other states (and the District of Columbia) that , some of which have issued more detailed data about enrollment than the federal marketplace.

Most states saw lower enrollment for 2026 than the prior year, with the biggest drop in North Carolina, where sign-ups fell by nearly 22%, federal data shows.

In a few states — including New Mexico, Texas, California, and Maryland, as well as the District of Columbia — the number of people selecting ACA plans increased.

The jump was largest in New Mexico, with its initial number of people selecting plans up by nearly 14%. Increases were in the single digits in the other states and Washington, D.C.

New Mexico — uniquely — used its own tax dollars to fully offset the loss of the more generous federal tax subsidies for all consumers. , including California, Colorado, Maryland, and Washington, used state money to help some enrollees.

The , a collective of 22 state marketplaces supported by the National Academy for State Health Policy, said initial enrollment figures . Compared with the same time last year, outright plan cancellations are up 83% in Colorado, disenrollments are four times what they were in Idaho, and Virginia has seen cancellations double.

New enrollments are from the same period last year, according to data from the state. In Pennsylvania, people ages 55 to 64, the group with the highest premiums, and young people 26 to 34 in higher numbers than other age groups, state data shows.

“We have drastically higher rates of people dropping their coverage,” said Devon Trolley, executive director of the Pennsylvania Health Insurance Exchange Authority. “We had 70,000 drop in the last two months, from early retirees to small-business owners to farmers not knowing how to make ends meet.”

On Feb. 9, Pennsylvania released , showing enrollment dropped by about 2% from last year, although that figure masks some of the effects. The state says nearly 18% of enrollees dropped coverage altogether, with older and rural residents being the most likely to fall out.

Some Republicans credited Trump-administration-backed anti-fraud measures, which included a range of , for tightening the system. Although some of those actions were paused by a federal court and have not taken effect, those ACA critics, some of whom have produced that millions may have been improperly enrolled, say that’s behind the decline. They have previously for unauthorized enrollments or ACA plan-switching by commission-seeking brokers.

States that run their own ACA marketplaces, however, reported little or no such unauthorized switching. Relative to the federal marketplace, the state-based ACA platforms employ additional safeguards to prevent brokers from accessing consumers’ coverage without authorization.

Among consumers not returning to the marketplace, the main reason is cost, said Mila Kofman, executive director of the DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority, which runs the district’s ACA marketplace.

“When we looked at who these folks are, half are small-business owners,” Kofman said. “They are not folks committing fraud.”

Lower Premiums, Higher Deductibles

Rather than sticking with automatic reenrollment, existing customers in many states shifted sharply into lower-priced “bronze” plans that come with higher deductibles than silver, gold, and platinum plans.

California saw 73% of renewing members who switched plans move to a bronze plan, up from 27% at the same time last year, the State Marketplace Network reported. In Maine, bronze enrollment now represents almost 60% of all plans purchased.

People are “looking at what works in their monthly budget, looking for that lower premium,” said Stacey Pogue, a senior research fellow at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “Some might be crossing their fingers that they won’t need to meet their deductible.”

On average, bronze plans have an . All ACA plans are required to cover certain preventive services — such as some vaccinations, cancer screenings, and other tests — without a copayment or deductible, but most everything else is covered only after an annual deductible is met.

High deductibles can lead some patients to avoid seeking medical care, Hempstead said.

“People are terrified to use their care,” she said. “They may delay something until it’s more serious.”

She added that medical providers, including hospitals and doctors, are bracing for an increase in the number of insured patients who can’t afford to pay their deductibles.

“Everyone is anticipating that hospitals will have to give out more charity care, which will hurt their bottom lines and might lead them to have to lay off people or close or reduce services,” she said.

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/affordable-care-act-aca-obamacare-sign-ups-subsidies-higher-premiums/">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;">

Finally, after decades of advocacy, the Biden administration in 2023 tackled the problem of perennial understaffing of long-term care facilities. Officials backed a Medicare regulation that would mandate at least 3.48 hours of care from nurses and aides per resident, per day, and would require a registered nurse on-site 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The mandated hours were lower than supporters hoped for, said Hunter, who directs Washington state’s long-term care ombudsman program. But “I’m a pragmatic person, so I thought, this is a good start,” she said. “It would be helpful, for enforcement, to have a federal law.”

In 2024, when the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adopted the standards, advocates celebrated. But industry lawsuits soon blocked most of the rule, with two federal district courts finding that Medicare had exceeded its regulatory authority.

And after the 2024 elections, Hunter said, “I was concerned about the changing of the guard.” Her concerns proved well founded.

In July, as part of Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Congress prohibited Medicare from implementing the staffing standards before 2034. Last month, CMS altogether. They never took effect.

“It was devastating,” Hunter said.

As with environmental law and consumer protections, the Trump administration’s enthusiasm for deregulation has undone long-sought rules to improve care for the aged. And it has introduced , now getting underway in six states, that has alarmed advocates, congressional Democrats, and a good number of older Americans.

Taken together, the moves will affect many of the facilities and workers providing care and introduce complications in health coverage in several states.

On the nursing home front, “it’s clear CMS has no interest in ensuring adequate staffing,” said Sam Brooks, the director of public policy for the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care.

“They’re repealing a regulation that could have saved 13,000 lives a year,” he added, citing by University of Pennsylvania researchers.

Industry groups argued that nursing homes, with high rates of staff turnover, were already struggling to fill vacancies.

The staffing mandate “was requiring nursing homes to hire an additional 100,000 caregivers that simply don’t exist,” said Holly Harmon, a senior vice president at the American Health Care Association.

The organization had brought one of the suits that largely vacated the rule. “Facilities would have been forced to limit admissions or downsize to comply with the requirements, or close altogether,” Harmon said.

For supporters, the action is now likely to shift to updating requirements in 35 states, along with the District of Columbia, that have already established , and to developing them in those that haven’t.

Rules for Home Help

A second rescinded regulation, this one more unexpected, brought about upheaval in July, when the Labor Department announced a return to from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Some history: Dating back to the New Deal, the FLSA mandated that workers receive the federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 an hour) and overtime pay. It exempted most “domestic service workers” until 1975, when a new Labor Department regulation included them — with the exception of home care workers.

“There was a misinterpretation of home care work as being casual, nonprofessional, non-skilled,” the equivalent of teenage babysitting, said Kezia Scales, a vice president at PHI, a national research and advocacy organization. “Just someone popping into your mother’s house now and then and keeping her company.”

For almost 40 years, workers and their supporters lobbied to change the rule, seeing it as a contributor to the low wages and meager benefits of a swiftly growing workforce, one made up primarily of women and minority groups, with many immigrants.

In 2013, the Labor Department responded with a rule that , entitled to minimum wage, time and a half for overtime work, and payment for travel time between clients.

After industry lawsuits failed to overturn it, “everything settled down,” Scales said. “It was in place successfully for a decade.”

Home care workers brought hundreds of compliance complaints annually. In 87% of them, the Labor Department found , according to a 2020 Government Accountability Office report.

Since 2013, home care agencies have paid about , PHI has calculated.

Then in July, the Labor Department abruptly announced that it would return to the 1975 regulations and , which it said “had negative effects on the ground” and hindered consumer access to care.

The agencies employing most home care workers, primarily funded through Medicaid, would agree. “Many workers never got any benefit from this,” said Damon Terzaghi, a vice president at the National Alliance for Care at Home.

“States made a lot of moves to essentially absolve themselves of any responsibility,” he said. A 2020 federal report, for example, found that 16 states had at 40, thus averting overtime payment.

The alliance, which estimates that the number of impacted agencies and businesses has declined by 30% since 2013, supported the rescission. Scales, who hopes for congressional action, called it “a shocking step backward.”

Where they concur is that the United States has never really committed to sufficiently funding long-term care at home. With the July legislation setting the stage for a over the coming decade, that seems unlikely to change anytime soon.

Medicare’s AI Referee

Beyond rolling back policies for care of the aged, the Trump administration has established a pilot program to introduce one to traditional Medicare: prior authorization, using artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies.

Touting it as a boon to taxpayers, Medicare calls it WISeR — Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction.

, in which private insurers review proposed treatments before agreeing to pay for them, is widely used in Medicare Advantage plans despite its unpopularity with patients, doctors, and health care organizations. It has rarely been used in traditional Medicare.

This month, however, in six states (Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington) in a six-year trial to determine whether review by tech companies can reduce costs and improve efficiency, while maintaining or improving quality of care.

Initially, that CMS said “historically have had a higher risk of waste, fraud and abuse.” The list includes knee arthroscopy for arthritis, electrical nerve stimulation devices for several conditions, and treatment for impotence.

The pilot program excludes emergency services and inpatient hospital care, or care where delay poses “a substantial risk.” Algorithmic denials will trigger review by “an appropriately licensed human clinician.” The tech companies get “a share of averted expenditures.”

“It injects some of the worst of Medicare Advantage into traditional Medicare,” said David Lipschutz, co-director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy. The six vendors that approve or reject treatments “have a financial stake in the outcomes,” he said, and therefore “an incentive to deny care.”

Moreover, the CMS Innovation Center overseeing the pilot could theoretically bypass Congress and expand prior authorization to include more medical services in more states.

The agency did not respond to questions about what kind of human clinicians would review denials, except to say that they would have “relevant experience” and that tech companies would be “financially penalized for inappropriate denials, high appeal rates or poor performance.”

It plans an “independent, federally funded evaluation” and will release public reports annually.

Democrats in Congress have in both houses to repeal WISeR. “We should be reducing red tape in Medicare, not creating new hurdles that second-guess health care providers,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington, one of the bill’s sponsors.

For now, though, WISeR has opened for business, receiving prior authorization requests through its electronic portals.

“The New Old Age” is produced through a partnership with .

This <a target="_blank" href="/aging/long-term-care-nursing-homes-medicare-ai-prior-authorization/">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;">