Hundreds of detainees across at least 33 states allege in federal suits that immigration detention facilities are failing to provide adequate medical care, an investigation by Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and The Associated Press found. Detainees say they didn’t get medications on time — or at all — for conditions including high blood pressure, diabetes, depression, epilepsy, Parkinson’s, and HIV. Requests for help went unanswered for weeks. Blood sugars rose. Infections festered. Cancers remained untreated. Detainees collapsed and had seizures.

U.S. jails and immigration detention centers have to meet the medical needs of the people in their charge. But the system is sagging under an influx of detentions since President Donald Trump returned to office: More than 75,000 immigrants were being detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement , up from around 40,000 a year earlier.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and AP analyzed thousands of court cases filed since Trump’s second inauguration that use a legal route known as habeas corpus to argue people are being held illegally by ICE. The records offer a rare window into how those detained say, often under penalty of perjury, ICE is handling their medical needs. Reporters also interviewed more than 50 detainees, family members, and lawyers.

The investigation revealed that medical neglect is alleged across the sprawling detention system, including in offices not designed to house people, county jails, and quickly staged sites with nicknames such as “Alligator Alcatraz.”

ICE custody is deadlier than it has been in two decades, researchers wrote in April. The Department of Homeland Security reported 51 people had died in detention since the start of Trump’s second administration — with suicides .

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and AP asked DHS to respond to the findings six days before publication, but it did not provide comment. The department’s acting chief medical officer, Sean Conley, has “it is both policy and longstanding practice for aliens to receive timely and appropriate medical care from the moment they enter ICE custody” and that the agency recruits healthcare professionals to maintain high standards. “This is better, more responsive healthcare than many aliens have ever received in their entire lives,” he has said.

Individual facilities and private prison companies contracting with DHS that responded to requests for comment said they follow ICE standards and detainees receive medical care when it is required. Some said they were unfamiliar with the allegations outlined in court documents; others blamed some detainees for lapses in their medical care.

“I have never seen such disregard or medical neglect like this anywhere,” Vardan Gukasian, a political dissident and former paramedic who spent years behind bars in Armenia, wrote in in March to contest his detention in Henderson, Nevada, as it stretched to 13 months despite health problems.

Madeleine Skains, a spokesperson for the city of Henderson, said medical care is always available at the facility and that the court had not ordered changes to his care.

Last June, as Gukasian experienced the symptoms of uncontrolled high blood pressure — dizziness, a nosebleed, and a headache — his cellmate banged on their door for help.

“When it did not arrive, the rest of the block banged on their doors,” he wrote. Gukasian was hospitalized that day.

‘Brazen Indifference to Really Obvious Problems’

The administration’s mass deportation effort has swept up during routine immigration check-ins, at traffic stops, at their homes, and in hospitals.

About have no criminal conviction. Their immigration proceedings are civil, not criminal.

“I couldn’t understand why they treated me so harshly,” said a father of six in Georgia. He said he was injured while shackled in custody when the vehicle transporting him to an Atlanta facility jolted, throwing him out of his seat and into a metal armrest. His wound became infected with E. coli, he said, because he had to sleep on a dirty concrete floor amid leaking toilets.

Like other detainees interviewed, he spoke on the condition of anonymity; they said they fear for their safety, for the safety of their families, or that speaking out would jeopardize their immigration cases. The AP and Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News are not naming anyone identified in court documents without their consent.

Staffers at Stewart Detention Center in rural Lumpkin, Georgia, didn’t adequately respond to that man’s request for medical help, , until he passed out and was taken to a hospital about an hour away. There, he said, a doctor told him he’d narrowly escaped amputation of his left leg. Medical staff found no records of a case matching this description, according to Brian Todd, a spokesperson for CoreCivic, which runs the facility.

The 48-year-old, who moved to the U.S. from Guatemala more than two decades ago, was released in October and is now a legal permanent resident. But he is unsure if he’ll be able to return to his job in construction because, he said, he can no longer lift heavy things due to his injury.

Some detainees or their lawyers said even basic care was denied: gauze to protect an open foot wound, prenatal care for a high-risk pregnancy, a pillow to ease the pain of sleeping with advanced stomach cancer, sanitary pads for postpartum bleeding.

“I would like to believe the government has the best interest of those it holds in detention for whatever period of time,” Judge Benita Pearson, a federal judge in Ohio, said during a hearing in October concerning a 70-year-old who alleged the government lost her glasses during her arrest. “If one is unable to see due to the loss of glasses when detained, that should be fixed.”

, who worked for ICE and now serves as a special adviser to the American Bar Association, said case law requires the government to treat people in immigration detention with the same care it affords those in traditional jails awaiting trial. But administrators are granted discretion and medical care standards vary.

Detainees are frequently moved across the country, often without warning, interrupting treatment. A woman from El Salvador said she missed a week of HIV medication when she was transferred from Colorado to a county jail in Wyoming.

A Russian man wrote that, while detained in Texas, he saw a gastroenterologist about his painful gallstones and scheduled an appointment with a surgeon. “Unfortunately, I never got to see him, due to my being moved around various detention centers.”

Advocates say that even obvious disabilities, like legal blindness, are ignored.

A detainee who lost one eye and had severe glaucoma in the other required twice-daily drops to maintain what vision remained. But, he said, some days the drops never came.

“Now I can only see a little bit straight in front. It now often looks like I’m seeing through gauze,” the man wrote in a court declaration. “This makes me very afraid that one of these times I am going to open my eyes and not be able to see anything at all.”

He wrote that he was scared he wouldn’t be able to see his infant son grow up.

“It’s just sort of brazen indifference to really obvious problems, things you would have thought absurd a decade ago — like the fact that you can’t see,” the man’s attorney, Brian Hoffman, said. “Before, you could attempt to work with folks on the government side and maybe shame them into doing the right thing. Now, it’s sort of like anything you want done you have to go to court and sue over.”

Even court orders aren’t always enough. One California judge ordered the government to take a man showing signs of prostate cancer to a specialist for diagnosis and treatment. Records show they did not take him.

Lawyers representing ICE told the judge that officials missed the appointment because of an “internal scheduling error.” CoreCivic, which runs that facility, said it was unable to comment on active litigation.

A Surge in Cases

When immigrants file habeas corpus petitions, they exercise a right to challenge unlawful imprisonment that dates to .

More than 40,000 such petitions have been filed during Trump’s second term, fueled by decisions last year to deny bond to many people held on immigration charges. Judges are split on whether that’s legal; the question appears headed to the Supreme Court.

Many habeas claims , but judges typically cite reasons unrelated to the medical neglect described in the petitions, such as detainees’ being held too long before being deported.

The more than 300 medical neglect claims found in this investigation represent a fraction of the problem. The details of habeas corpus cases are often hidden due to a federal rule barring the public from viewing such documents online. Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and AP obtained some documents from courthouses and received records on 4,400 cases from , a project of the nonprofit Immigration Justice Transparency Initiative. But tens of thousands more remain largely inaccessible.

Some judges have written that the habeas process is not how to raise allegations of medical neglect and have declined to release detainees over those claims. Not every detainee who believes they experienced medical neglect files a habeas petition or cites their medical issues if they do.

Jose-Antonio Segismundo’s petition made no mention of being unable to see an oncologist for the cancer in his abdomen while detained for more than seven months at the Florida detention facility known as Alligator Alcatraz and Folkston D Ray ICE Processing Center in Georgia. Medical records in his court filings show he was arrested about five weeks before his scheduled appointment with a cancer specialist.

His wife, Maria Jose Gonzalez, said he didn’t receive any treatment even though she sent his medical records and explained his condition to officials at Folkston. When his stomach pain erupted, often suddenly and intensely, she said, they gave him Tylenol.

Geo Group, which runs Folkston, follows ICE standards and provides healthcare and access to off-site medical specialists when needed, spokesperson Christopher Ferreira said.

This spring, Segismundo, 48, was deported to Mexico, a country he left nearly 30 years ago, Gonzalez said. Now, she said, he will have to restart his search for care in the Oaxacan village where he grew up.

Watching Loved Ones Deteriorate

Detainees receiving inadequate healthcare have little recourse. The Department of Homeland Security last year gutted the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman. In early May, it shut the office entirely, arguing that Congress didn’t fund it.

Previously, ombudsman staffers could help facilitate medical care or look into complaints of neglect, according to Matt Boles, an immigration attorney in Georgia. Now, he said, there’s no one to call.

Meanwhile, detainees’ families said they feel helpless, making desperate calls to facilities, the government, and their legislators while watching their loved ones deteriorate.

Riya Khan saw her mother get sicker at the California City Detention Facility, which is owned by CoreCivic. When she visited a week after her mother arrived at the facility in the Mojave Desert, Riya said, the 64-year-old woman stumbled into her seat. She was shaking and her breathing was labored.

Masuma Khan came to the U.S. from Bangladesh in 1997. She has no criminal history, her records say, and was detained in October when she showed up for her regular ICE check-in.

For the month she was detained, according to her daughter, she only intermittently received her medications for conditions including high blood pressure, hypothyroidism, and prediabetes. CoreCivic treats chronic conditions in line with applicable medical standards, Todd said.

“Nothing matters more to CoreCivic than the health, safety and well-being of the people in our care,” Todd said.

Khan said she got her asthma medication for the first time two days before she was released and that her eye drops for glaucoma never arrived. Staffers told Khan she needed to buy some of her medications from the commissary but it didn’t stock them, her daughter said.

Before ICE detained Masuma Khan, she made friends with everyone, her daughter said. She had worked for years at Lucky Boy, an iconic Pasadena fast-food restaurant, and in her free time fed birds and left out fruit for bees that visited her apartment’s balcony.

Now she’s too scared to go outside. She still must regularly check in with ICE, and she’s terrified each time.

Previous Next

A Stroke on a Video Call

Previously, detainees with serious medical needs would likely have been released on humanitarian parole, in part to avoid the cost of their care, Vermont attorney Andrew Pelcher said.

In fiscal year 2023 — before the detained population soared — ICE spent more than $390 million on healthcare for detained noncitizens, according to its to Congress. In May, Todd Lyons, then acting director of ICE, said at a conference that the agency had already spent “almost half a billion dollars” on detainee healthcare this year.

Now, under “mandatory detention,” people are staying locked up with serious — and expensive — conditions.

A Romanian citizen underwent several heart surgeries, including an emergency triple bypass in April 2025, before he was arrested in July. As part of his recovery, the 52-year-old was required to take 16 daily medications. While at an ICE field office in Baltimore, his court filings allege, he went two days without any medication before officials moved him to a facility in New Jersey.

He was hospitalized three times while detained, complaining of chest pains — in part, medical records and court documents say, because despite “countless requests,” the detention center did not provide all his medications. Hospital discharge papers cited by his lawyer show he received only eight of the 16 medications after his second release from the hospital.

“Can you please talk to the ICE facility to make sure they give him his medications?” his treatment providers wrote in medical records included in his court filings. “He was admitted last week for chest pain and today he was readmitted again for chest pain secondary to non compliance for medications.”

Several weeks later in August, he had a stroke while on a video call with his daughter, according to court filings. “He was struggling to breathe, and was pointing at his chest where he was again experiencing pain, and suddenly stopped speaking.” His daughter screamed for help through the video monitor, according to his petition. “Eventually an officer came in to assist him and cut the feed.”

The man lost his ability to speak for four days, the document says. He was returned to detention, where he remained until a federal judge ordered his release in November.

Impossible Choices

Cassandra Amador waits for the phone to ring every morning, desperate to ask her husband the question that’s woken her up every night for months: “Did you get your medicine?”

Her husband, Pedro Javier Amador Gutierrez, 36, has high blood pressure and depends on the state-run facility in Florida nicknamed “Deportation Depot” to administer the prescriptions that have kept him alive for years. Many mornings, he tells his wife he did not get them.

When she talks to him, she said, he sounds weaker and more scared every day, not like the upbeat man who would take her kids out for ice cream.

“You can hear in his voice how he feels,” she said.

Now, she said, he’s considering returning to Cuba, which he fled because of political persecution, out of fear that he will die in detention without his medicines. Amador and her children would go with him, she said, even though she was born in New Jersey, has never been to Cuba, and doesn’t speak much Spanish.

But he’s already collapsed twice at the Baker Correctional Institution in Sanderson, Florida, his wife said. She’s terrified that the next time, he won’t get up.

Methodology

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and The Associated Press sifted through thousands of immigration habeas corpus claims to find allegations of medical neglect from people detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the second Trump administration.

Without a comprehensive, publicly available dataset of medical complaints by those in ICE custody, we used immigration habeas corpus claims to identify detainees’ healthcare-related allegations raised in federal court. Although the intended purpose of habeas corpus is to challenge the legality of a petitioner’s detention — rather than conditions of their confinement — these filings sometimes include detainees’ claims of inadequate healthcare.

But habeas corpus filings are not always publicly available. Federal rules restrict how members of the public can access habeas petitions filed by people in immigration detention. For most of these cases, court websites publish only court orders and dockets describing other filings. The initial petitions are available only through in-person visits to federal courthouses across the country. Habeas Dockets, a project of the nonprofit Immigration Justice Transparency Initiative, coordinates a nationwide network of volunteers to gather these petitions and make them available online.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and AP analyzed the dockets of roughly 33,000 cases filed by detainees from Jan. 20, 2025, through March 2026. The vast majority of cases had only basic procedural information, like dates of court filings and rulings. Only about 4,400 included the original petitions.

We also gathered a few dozen case files from courthouses, lawyers, and the Massachusetts federal district court website, which posts most petitions under a unique standing order.

We ran keyword and semantic searches of court records, including petitions, motions, and orders, for terms and phrases potentially related to medical neglect, such as surgery, medications, inadequate medical care, and treatment for chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure.

We found about 500 cases potentially alleging medical neglect. At least two reporters reviewed each case manually, yielding more than 300 cases containing specific allegations in sworn filings of delayed, denied, or deficient healthcare.

To be conservative, we excluded dozens of cases that alleged inadequate medical care but lacked specifics, for example a petitioner writing, “I have been sick and don’t get proper treatment,” or a judge noting a petitioner “complains that ICE is ignoring his medical problems.” We also excluded cases in which petitioners claimed only that they were denied special diets, exercise, or other accommodations that they said were key to managing their health conditions, such as a petitioner writing, “I suffer from Parkinson’s and cannot properly exercise,” or claiming that the food provided was unfit for a person with diabetes.

The cases we analyzed were neither randomly selected nor representative of immigration habeas filings nationwide. The claims were not independently verified. Many filings are not publicly available, and not all detainees raise medical concerns in court, so our account of cases represents a limited window into the landscape of claims, rather than a comprehensive picture.

Associated Press journalists Garance Burke, Valerie Gonzalez, and Tim Sullivan as well as Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News correspondent Kate Wells contributed to this report.

This report is a collaboration between The Associated Press and Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

This <a target="_blank" href="/courts/ice-immigration-detention-medical-care-neglect-court-records-ap-investigation/">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;">

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Withholding Medicaid Provider Rate Increases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Completely in the Dark’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/medicaid/medicaid-work-requirements-trump-montana-budget-shortfalls/">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;">

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The certified professional midwife pressed the button on a handheld Doppler ultrasound machine she placed on Collins’ belly. “That’s her heartbeat,” she said to Collins’ 3-year-old daughter, who sat beside her mom as a whooshing sound filled the room. “I think Mommy’s baby’s right here.”

The midwife is not licensed as a nurse. In Georgia, that makes what she’s doing illegal. Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News agreed not to identify her by name.

Georgia is one of seven states where delivering babies can earn non-nurse midwives, at minimum, a cease-and-desist letter requiring them to end their careers. In North Carolina, it’s a . In New York, .

Meanwhile, demand for their services is increasing. Intended home births rose by 42% nationally from 2020 to 2024, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, and those births are often overseen by certified professional midwives. In Georgia, they rose by 72%. Midwives who assist with home births typically see clients from prenatal appointments through after childbirth, providing more postpartum checkups than most new mothers receive.

Home births make up nationwide. In the eight states where they were most common in 2024 — Hawai‘i, Idaho, Montana, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming— they made up 3-5% of births.

As that number rises, midwifery advocates said, regulating the practice with licenses would allow home births to be safer. Free birth — without the help of a skilled professional before or after labor — can be .

“People are going to keep having their babies at home, and they deserve a trained provider,” said Missi Burgess, president of the Georgia chapter of the National Association of Certified Professional Midwives.

For decades, professional midwives have been advocating for laws to legalize and regulate their profession. More lawmakers have supported those efforts in the past 15 years, with 36 states and Washington, D.C., allowing them to get licensed to deliver babies. Last year, a wave of state lawmakers — in Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia — tried to add their states to the list, although none of their bills has become law.

Certified professional midwives deliver babies in homes or birth centers. Rather than attend nursing school — which many can’t afford — they earn a nationally recognized certificate by attending at least 55 births and demonstrating their knowledge. Nurse-midwives more often deliver babies in hospitals or clinics than in patients’ homes.

Some hospitals and doctors oppose midwife licensing proposals without certain guardrails. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists showing that infants are twice as likely to die during planned births at home or in birth centers as in hospitals, while acknowledging that the data remains limited. It doesn’t account for several factors, including who assisted in the birth.

Still, prominent stories of home births with midwives gone wrong contribute to the skepticism around licensing laws. In 2023, The Washington Post of a licensed midwife who pleaded guilty to felonies in Virginia after an infant death and assisted with home births in Maryland in which two more babies died.

In Mississippi, a bill that would have regulated and licensed professional midwives died after a state senator blocked a vote in the committee he chaired. Democratic Sen. Hob Bryan he didn’t “wish to encourage that activity.”

But midwives said they have a sympathetic ear now in the Trump administration, with its Make America Healthy Again movement. Cassaundra Jah, executive director of the , said she has been on calls with midwifery groups pushing for the Department of Health and Human Services to provide legal protections for them, and some midwives have been in contact with the agency.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard declined to comment on policy proposals but told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News that the administration “regularly meets with a wide range of stakeholders to hear input from the American public.”

Hospitals Want Guardrails

Advocates for the license say allowing certified professional midwives to provide care would help address a shortage of maternity care providers.

“Some midwives are leaving our state,” Rep. , a chiropractor who sponsored the Georgia bill, said during a hearing on the measure last year. “They’re being forced to quit. And now we have a shortage of these providers to take care of our pregnant moms.”

A by the March of Dimes found that 35% of counties in the U.S. have no birthing facility or obstetric provider. Georgia has the 13th-highest maternal mortality rate in the nation, according to the .

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022 eliminated federal protection for abortion, six-week abortion bans prompted more providers to leave states such as Georgia and Texas. Idaho lost by December 2024, two years after its abortion ban took effect. Doctors who left states with such laws cited fear of prosecution and an inability to provide the standard of care.

Of the 13 states with the fewest maternity care providers per capita, nine had a full or six-week abortion ban as of 2024, .

Licensing midwives won’t solve the larger maternity care shortage, but it’s a first step, said , a professor of midwifery and the principal investigator at the Birth Place Lab at the University of British Columbia. Certified professional midwives currently attend only about 1.4% of births in the U.S., according to federal data.

The would have granted certified professional midwives licenses through a state board, allowed them to administer lifesaving medications, and required their services to be covered by private insurance and Medicaid. They would not have needed a physician to supervise them. Without that mandate, giving birth outside of a hospital could be an option for more people.

But the Georgia Department of Public Health and the Georgia Hospital Association opposed the licensing bill, primarily because they wanted more regulations than the midwives were willing to accept — including physician supervision.

Anna Adams, a spokesperson for the hospital association, suggested establishing transfer agreements that required all women planning to have a home birth to register at the hospital first. When a laboring woman is transferred to a hospital, which happens in about , “we have no prior knowledge of this patient,” Adams said. “It’s a tricky situation to inherit when you’re trying to save the mother and the baby without any background.”

Georgia midwives said they planned to bring the licensing proposal back next year.

In early April, three midwives for restricting their ability to practice, arguing that the rules violate the state constitution.

“Every pregnant person should be able to choose where they give birth and with whom,” said Jamarah Amani, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and co-founder of the .

Black women are three times as likely to die during or after childbirth as white pregnant patients. In January, a prominent Black nurse-midwife in South Carolina died after unexpected complications from childbirth.

Today, midwives and their clients are predominantly white, but the home birth rate among Black women rose 42% nationally from 2019 to 2024, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Ultimately the system has failed us as a people,” said Tina Braimah, a Black nurse-midwife who attended home births for a decade. She then opened a in North Carolina, allowing her to see more clients from a variety of backgrounds. “When the system consistently fails you, you look for other options.”

Becoming Part of the System

Many maternal health researchers say mothers fare better when midwives are a key part of the health system. In 2018, researchers at the Birth Place Lab published a study of all 50 states showing that integrating midwives was associated with better outcomes for moms and babies, including lower rates of infant deaths. Integration involves collaboration among all kinds of midwives and doctors so that patients can easily transfer to or from a hospital. It also involves giving all midwives the authority to practice the full range of their skills, including prescribing lifesaving medication.

A by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine states that data from other countries suggests home births can be as safe as hospital births for low-risk women who are part of an integrated, regulated system.

Washington state has one of the highest rates of in the U.S., according to the . Its home birth rate is consistently higher than the national rate, while its remains lower than the national average.

One in 5 women report being mistreated during maternity care, according to a . Pregnant patients tend to be more satisfied when midwives lead their care, whether at a hospital, a birth center, or home.

Hannah Haynes gave birth to her first three children in a hospital near her home in Jefferson, Georgia. During the third labor, which was induced, she received a catheter that led to a urinary tract infection and then sepsis, a life-threatening condition. She was separated from her newborn for four days while receiving treatment.

“Something has to change,” Haynes said.

Haynes regrets electing to get induced when it wasn’t medically necessary. She gave birth to her fourth child at home, with the help of a certified professional midwife she trusted. She’s pregnant with her fifth and plans to use the same midwife. She said she won’t deliver at a hospital again.

“I was a little nervous,” Haynes said, because she had heard rumors that midwives didn’t know what they were doing. But after meeting the midwife, “I just felt so confident in her.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/certified-professional-midwives-home-births-state-licensure-lack-georgia/">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;">

“They’re the folks that work at restaurants. They’re the teacher’s aides,” said Starr, a registered nurse who became Open Door’s chief executive more than six years ago. Those patients, he said, are “really the heart and soul of rural America.”

He said if his remote health centers don’t get a share of the billions of dollars Congress earmarked to transform health care in rural America, patients may soon lose services. About 50% of Open Door’s 60,000 patients are on Medicaid, the joint state and federal insurance program that, together with the related Children’s Health Insurance Program, covers with low incomes or disabilities.

When Congress approved the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer, it cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade. Now, Starr hopes the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program, which was part of the same bill, will help keep his patients covered.

Yet, small community health care providers, such as Open Door, may find they are sharing the billions with an army of corporate giants before it reaches their patients.

Months after federal leaders announced that all 50 states won first-year awards, ranging from $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas, state plans reveal that a heavy dose of prescribed spending will go to companies that can increase the use of electronic health records, strengthen cybersecurity, and improve state and health system technology platforms.

And at least four large-scale coalitions of companies are now pitching multipronged services to the states. Many of the companies already work with regional health systems and states through Medicaid contracting or mobile and telehealth operations.

How those services will help improve the health care of rural Americans at places such as Open Door remains an open question.

States Stare Down Reporting Deadlines

Federal regulators were “really interested in seeing digital health investments” when they crafted the five-year rural health program rules last year, said Maya Sandalow, an associate director at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank based in Washington, D.C. She co-authored a recent report on how the 50 states plan to invest in technology, including modernizing health care infrastructure and expanding virtual care options such as telehealth and remote patient monitoring.

“The rural health fund isn’t really designed to directly replace or offset the lost Medicaid funding,” Sandalow said, noting that the federal staffers in charge of the program — money that could help rural hospitals and clinics pay for patient care — at 15% of the total funding awarded to a state.

Federal regulators also established tight reporting deadlines, forcing states to move quickly.

States must file progress reports and obligate all first-year funding , according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency overseeing the program. States could see their awards decreased or terminated at any time if they fail to follow federal requirements, according to the .

As of early April, CMS had not approved or had only partially approved some state budgets, including those of Wyoming, Colorado, and Vermont, according to state officials. CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden, who declined to say which states still needed revised budgets approved, said the agency does not provide “state-by-state updates.”

In Alaska, the budget is approved but the state has not announced when it will release full grant proposals and awards, said Tricia Franklin, program coordinator for Alaska’s rural health transformation.

“Early summer was the target,” Franklin said. But the response from vendors and applicants has been “much greater than expected, so it may take us a little longer.”

Working with consulting companies is an established way for states to “quickly and effectively” meet federal deadlines and roll out grant money, said , national director for population health at the Milbank Memorial Fund, a nonprofit focused on state health policy work.

Upgrading Technology, Modernizing Rural Health

Science Applications International Corp., a Fortune 500 government contractor, pulled together the . SAIC does a variety of technology work such as cybersecurity and engineering support. The alliance also includes Walgreens and Mission Mobile Medical, which turns RVs into primary care clinics. A data analytics company, a telemedicine and software company, and a company that helps place medical graduates in health systems are also part of the coalition.

The SAIC alliance offers “an ecosystem” of companies that can coordinate the work states have promised, said , SAIC’s Rural Health Transformation Program lead and a former chief information officer for the Virginia Department of Health. Each of the companies has representatives focused on the rural program, he said.

A lack of digital infrastructure — such as electronic health records at different clinics and hospitals that can talk to one another — has been a consistent barrier for rural medical care teams, said the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Sandalow.

“The funding hasn’t always been there in order for rural areas to create the infrastructure that’s needed to fully adopt remote patient monitoring, telehealth, artificial intelligence in ways that will really be supportive,” Sandalow said. “It takes things like updating infrastructure, changing workflows.”

Sandalow’s found that Maine and Utah are investing in cybersecurity; Indiana, Missouri, and New Mexico plan to modernize their electronic health records; Oklahoma plans to buy hardware and software, subsidize subscriptions, and give technical support to rural providers; and states such as Arizona and South Carolina will use funds to create telehealth hubs or buy remote patient monitoring equipment.

Federal regulators, when creating the rural program’s spending rules, also said no more than 5% of a state’s total funding awarded could be used to replace electronic medical records systems that already meet federal standards. Sandalow said that means states will focus on enhancements and upgrades to their current systems.

Gainwell Technologies, which operates the systems for dozens of state Medicaid programs, is spearheading . Rushil Desai, a Gainwell senior vice president, said states’ detailed spending plans are “changing in real time.”

Maine’s Medicaid plan contracts with Gainwell, and the state’s initial application listed four contracts worth more than $16 million over five years for the company. The state confirmed it has received federal approval for only its first year of spending, which includes a to implement changes to the state’s Medicaid claims system.

James Lomastro, a senior-care advocate in rural Massachusetts with the nonprofit , said he worries that large vendors and health systems will get the state’s transformation dollars.

Clinics, home care agencies, and nursing homes that “actually provide day-to-day support in the community are mostly on the margins” of state discussions about how to spend the money, he said. A spokesperson for Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Health and Human Services, Olivia James, said state officials would “ensure that everyone has a seat at the table” with training, financial incentives, and direct investments.

Arizona’s rural fund budget, which is $167 million for the first year, allocates for medical diagnostic equipment and technology upgrades, including to electronic health records, specifically for rural health care facilities.

But it also for county public health departments, said Pima County Public Health Director Theresa Cullen. The approved budget includes up to $4 million for grants to support community health workers.

“In these rural communities, you need to be present,” Cullen said.

Alina Czekai, director of the CMS rural health transformation office, said her team plans to visit all 50 states. She spoke at the National Rural Health Association’s policy conference in Washington, D.C., in February and told the audience that her team wants “the money to go to rural communities, rural providers, rural patients.” The association’s members include rural hospitals and clinics, which are expected to suffer big losses under the Medicaid cuts.

In California, Open Door’s Starr said he provided input on his state’s initial application, which won $234 million in first-year funding, but he is not clear on what the next steps will be for getting money from the program.

For his patients, Starr said, money is needed for technology upgrades. After all, he said, updated electronic health systems could operate seamlessly and store the documentation needed to keep a patient enrolled in Medicaid.

Updated technology could be exactly what Open Door and other area clinics need to “help keep people covered,” Starr said.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News senior correspondent Phil Galewitz and rural health care correspondent Arielle Zionts contributed to this report.

This <a target="_blank" href="/rural-health/rural-health-transformation-program-cms-state-contractors-ehr-patients/">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;">

HAY SPRINGS, Neb.— The sun was just warming the horizon as Mark Pieper left his house near his cattle ranch on a crisp February morning.

It’s not unusual for the rancher to wake up early to tend to livestock, but at 5:45 a.m. this day his cattle wouldn’t come first. For the past 3½ years, three days a week, Pieper has made an early-morning commute to get dialysis at the nearest hospital.

Pieper lives outside Hay Springs, which has 599 residents, according to a sign at the edge of town. He makes sure not to forget his chocolate-brown cowboy hat before starting up his pickup truck for the half-hour drive to Chadron.

That February morning was one of his last dialysis sessions there before the hospital shuttered the service at the end of March.

“I guess I’ll just bloat up and die in a month,” Pieper remembered thinking when he learned the center was closing, eliminating the only option near his home.

He needs dialysis to survive after cancer treatment damaged his kidneys.

Pieper and 16 other patients relied on Chadron Hospital for the life-sustaining therapy that filters waste and fluid from their blood — a job their failing kidneys could no longer do. Treatment lasts about four hours.

The closure is just one example of the long decline of health care services in rural America, where people have higher rates of many chronic conditions but less access to care than elsewhere.

The Trump administration promised to address this problem, when it launched the $50 billion federal Rural Health Transformation Program in September. It may not be enough to stop the trend.

“[President Donald] Trump says he is going to help the rural health care,” Pieper said. Dialysis “is one thing that we really need here.”

Some patients have moved to live closer to care, including several nursing home residents. Their new facilities may be farther from their families.

Others are making long drives to dialysis centers. Pieper eventually found treatment in Scottsbluff, which, with about 14,000 residents, is the biggest city in the rural Panhandle region of western Nebraska. The hour-and-a-half drive will triple his time on the road to more than nine hours each week.

Jim Wright and his wife reduced their drive time — but are spending more money — by renting a small home near Rapid City, South Dakota, and living there on weekdays so he can get dialysis. Wright said he understands that rural hospitals face financial challenges.

“But we’re talking about something that’s lifesaving. It’s not a matter of, ‘Oh, I would like to be there’” getting treatment, he said. “It’s a case that if you don’t, you die.”

An Influx of Money That’s Out of Reach

Jon Reiners, CEO of the independent, nonprofit Chadron Hospital, wrestled with the decision to end dialysis services. He and several patients said that the closure was announced as the $219 million the state will receive in first-year funding from the .

But the five-year program is aimed at exploring new, creative ways to improve rural health, not to help existing services stay afloat. States can use only up to 15% of their funding to pay providers for patient care.

At least 11 states — Nebraska is not among them — have mentioned using funding for rural dialysis programs, according to a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News review of applications. Their ideas include starting a mobile dialysis unit and helping people get treatment at home or in long-term care facilities.

Reiners said Chadron Hospital lost $1 million a year on its dialysis service due to low reimbursement rates that didn’t cover operational costs.

The facility is a critical access hospital, a designation that allows certain small, mostly rural hospitals to get increased reimbursement rates for their Medicare patients. While most of the affected patients were on Medicare, the critical access program doesn’t cover outpatient dialysis, Reiners said.

Reiners said the hospital worked for more than a year to find solutions, such as reaching out to four private companies to potentially take over the center. But he said they all passed after realizing they would lose money.

Nephrologist Mark Unruh said the dialysis closure in Chadron reflects a wider trend of staffing and funding challenges.

“You do end up in situations where you have people who are displaced like this, and it’s just sad,” said Unruh, chair of the Internal Medicine Department at the University of New Mexico.

People in rural America face significant disparities in kidney health and treatment, published in 2024 in the American Journal of Nephrology. They’re and face after diagnosis, according to data from the National Institutes of Health.

The best way to address this is to focus on prevention, Unruh said. He pointed to a that helps primary care doctors in rural and other underserved areas prevent end-stage renal failure.

Another idea, Unruh said, is boosting the rate of kidney transplantation for rural patients. He’s looking at whether it’s helpful to “fast-track” tests patients need to get approved for a transplant by scheduling all of them over a couple of days to limit travel time.

Unruh said the U.S. health system also needs to recruit more staff who can train patients and their caregivers to administer dialysis at home.

Exploring the Option of Home Dialysis

Rural dialysis patients are more likely than urban ones to get home dialysis, according to . In 2023, the rate was nearly 18% for rural patients and about 14% for urban ones.

One type of home dialysis requires surgery to get a catheter placed in the abdomen and . The other kind requires . The nearest facility to Chadron that offers training for the first option is in Scottsbluff. The nearest that offers training for the latter kind is three hours away in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Pieper said doctors told him he’s not a candidate for home dialysis or a transplant. The Panhandle has a nonprofit, rural transit system, but its schedule won’t work for Pieper. He said that leaves him with no choice but to get treatment in Scottsbluff, a 200-mile round trip.

It takes Linda Simonson even longer — more than four hours round trip — to drive her husband, Alan, from their ranch to his treatment in Scottsbluff.

Linda sat in the waiting room with a yellow legal pad during one of Alan’s final treatments in Chadron. The paper was scrawled with phone numbers of politicians to call and driving distances to dialysis centers in the region. She said facilities closer to their ranch either don’t have room for new patients or lack good spots along the route to take a driving break in bad weather.

“It’s just unreal,” she said.

She said even if Alan took a bus, she’d have to ride along to support him during the trip and his treatment.

Jim and Carol Wright, the couple staying near Rapid City on weekdays, said they can’t afford to rent a second home forever. Their weekly commute is already taking a physical and emotional toll. They said they’ll eventually have to move to a bigger city, giving up the house they love in the scenic Nebraska National Forest.

Carol said she feels for the dialysis staffers in Chadron, who are wonderful.

“It just doesn’t seem right to sacrifice one unit that’s so vital,” she said while standing next to a pile of moving boxes stacked inside their rental.

The Wrights wrote letters to politicians and hospital leaders to share their concerns and ideas for keeping the unit open, including using the federal rural health funding.

Simonson said she spoke with aides for the governor and her state representatives but none of the leaders called her back.

“It feels like they don’t know that we exist at this end of the state,” she said.

This <a target="_blank" href="/rural-health/dialysis-unit-closes-rural-transformation-health-fund-nebraska/">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 first time, it’ll ring interminably. Next time, it’ll go to a voicemail that just hangs up on you,” said the 48-year-old, who lives in Delaware. “Sometimes you’ll get a person who says they’re not the right one. They transfer you, and it hangs up. Sometimes, it picks up and there’s just nobody on the line.”

She spent months trying to figure out whether her Medicaid coverage had been renewed. As of late March, she hadn’t been reapproved for the year for the state-federal program, which provides health insurance for people with low incomes and disabilities.

Crouch, who suffered a debilitating brain aneurysm a decade ago, also has Medicare, which covers people who are 65 or older or have disabilities. Medicaid had been paying her monthly Medicare deductibles of $200, but she’d been on the hook for them for the past three months, straining her family’s fixed income, she said.

Crouch’s challenges with Delaware’s Medicaid call center aren’t unique. State Medicaid agencies can struggle to keep enough staff to help people sign up for benefits and field calls from enrollees with questions. A shortage of such workers can keep people from fully using their benefits, health policy researchers said.

Now, congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law last summer, will soon demand more from staff at state agencies in places where lawmakers expanded Medicaid to more low-income adults — nearly all states and the District of Columbia.

Under the law, which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by almost $1 trillion over the next eight years, these staffers will have to not only determine whether millions of enrollees meet the program’s new work requirements but also verify more frequently that they qualify for the program — every six months instead of yearly.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News reached out to agencies that will need to stand up the work rules, and many said they’ll need additional staff.

The mandates will put extra strain on an already-stressed workforce, potentially making it harder for enrollees like Crouch to get basic customer service. And many could lose access to benefits they’re legally entitled to, said consumer advocates and health policy researchers, some of them with direct experience working at state agencies.

States are already “struggling significantly,” said Jennifer Wagner, the director of Medicaid eligibility and enrollment at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a former associate director of the Illinois Department of Human Services. “There will be significant additional challenges caused by these changes.”

Long Wait Times for Help

Republicans argue the Medicaid changes, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2027, in most states, will encourage enrollees to find jobs. Research on other Medicaid work requirement programs has found little evidence they increase employment.

The Congressional Budget Office would cause more people to lose health coverage by 2034 than any other part of the GOP budget law. It said last year more than 5 million people could be affected.

Many states don’t have the staff to process Medicaid applications or renewals quickly, said consumer advocates and researchers.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services tracks whether states can handle the most common type of benefit application within a 45-day window.

In December, about 30% of all Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, applications in Washington, D.C., and Georgia to process. More than a quarter took that long in Wyoming. In Maine, 1 in 5 applications missed that deadline.

CMS began publicly sharing state Medicaid call center data in 2023, revealing a taxed system, researchers and consumer advocates said.

In Hawaii, people waited on the phone for more than three hours in December. They waited for nearly an hour in Oklahoma, and more than an hour in Nevada.

In 2023, state Medicaid agencies began making sure enrollees who were protected from being dropped from the program during the covid pandemic still qualified for coverage. That Medicaid unwinding process didn’t go well in many states, and lost their benefits.

Health policy researchers and consumer advocates say rolling out the new Medicaid rules will be a bigger challenge. The Medicaid work rules will require extensive IT system changes and training for workers verifying eligibility on a tight timeline.

“It is a much larger scale of administrative complexity,” said Sophia Tripoli, senior director of policy at Families USA, a health care consumer advocacy organization.

After months of trying to get someone on the phone, Crouch said, she finally got answers to questions about her Medicaid benefits after writing to the office of U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.). McBride’s office contacted the state’s Medicaid agency, which eventually called with an update, Crouch said.

Crouch didn’t qualify for Medicaid after all. She said that had never come up in two years of interactions with the state.

“It makes absolutely no sense” that the state never realized she shouldn’t have been on the program, Crouch said.

Delaware’s Medicaid agency didn’t respond to requests for comment on Crouch’s situation.

States Short-Staffed for Medicaid

Some states told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News in late March that they’ll need more staff to roll out the work rules effectively.

Idaho said it has 40 eligibility worker vacancies. New York estimated it will need 80 new employees to handle the additional administrative work, at a cost of $6.2 million. Pennsylvania said it has nearly 400 open positions in county human services offices in the state. Indiana’s Medicaid agency has 94 open positions. Maine wants to hire 90 additional staffers, and Massachusetts wants to hire 70 more.

As of early March, Montana had filled 39 of 59 positions state officials projected it would need. The state still plans to roll out the rules early, starting July 1, despite its long struggle with system backlogs that applicants said have delayed benefits.

Missouri’s social services agency has been cutting staff and has 1,000 fewer front-line workers than it did roughly a decade ago — with more than double the number of enrollees in Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, according to comments Jessica Bax, the agency director, made in November.

“The department thought that there would be a gain in efficiency due to eligibility system upgrades,” Bax said. “Many of those did not come to fruition.”

States could have a hard time finding people interested in taking those jobs, which require months-long training, can be emotionally challenging, and generally offer low pay, said Tricia Brooks, a researcher at the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.

“They get yelled at a lot,” said Brooks, who formerly ran New Hampshire’s Medicaid and CHIP customer service program. “People are frustrated. They’re crying. They’re concerned. They’re losing access to health care, and so sometimes it’s not an easy job to take if it’s hard to help someone.”

States are paying government contractors millions of dollars to help them comply with the new federal law.

Maximus, a government services contractor, provides eligibility support, such as running call centers, in 17 states that expanded Medicaid and interacts with nearly 3 in 5 people enrolled in the program nationally, according to the company.

During a February earnings call, company leadership said Maximus can charge based on the number of transactions it completes for enrollees, independent of how many people are enrolled in a state’s Medicaid program.

Maximus has “no one-size-fits-all approach” to the services it offers or the way it charges for those services, spokesperson Marci Goldstein told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

The company, which reported bringing in $1.76 billion in 2025 from the part of its business that includes Medicaid work, expects that revenue to continue to grow, even as people fall off the Medicaid rolls, “because of the additional transactions that will need to take place,” David Mutryn, Maximus’ chief financial officer and treasurer, said during the earnings call.

Losing Medicaid health coverage isn’t just an inconvenience, since many people enrolled in the program probably don’t make enough money to pay for health care on their own and may not qualify for financial help for Affordable Care Act coverage, said Elizabeth Edwards, a senior attorney with the National Health Law Program.

People could be unable to afford medications or get essential care, which could lead to “devastating” health impacts, she said.

“The human stakes of this are people’s lives,” she said.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News correspondents Katheryn Houghton and Samantha Liss contributed to this report.

This <a target="_blank" href="/medicaid/medicaid-cuts-work-requirements-state-staff-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 would prohibit state and local governments from requiring crisis pregnancy centers to perform abortions, provide referrals for abortion services, or inform patients about such services or contraception options. It also would allow crisis pregnancy centers to sue the violating government entity.

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

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

The Wyoming bill says that pregnancy centers, many of which are affiliated with religious organizations, need legal protection after facing “unprecedented attacks” following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. It says that several state legislatures have introduced bills that . Opponents of these centers say they falsely present themselves to consumers as medical clinics, though they are not subject to state and federal laws that protect patients in medical facilities.

“Across the country, government officials are increasingly, increasingly targeting pregnancy care centers,” Valerie Berry, executive director of the in Cheyenne, said at a February legislative hearing on the Wyoming bill. “This legislation is not about creating division. It’s about protecting constitutional freedoms, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience.”

Wyoming state , a Republican, expressed concern at the hearing about granting protections to pregnancy centers that other private businesses do not have.

“They have protections in place,” he said. “My issue with this is giving extra special protections.”

In 2022, Wellspring Health Access, the only clinic in Wyoming that provides abortions, in an arson attack.

“We are the ones providing the accurate information on reproductive health care, and we suffer the consequences for that,” Julie Burkhart, the president and founder of Wellspring Health Access, told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

, a professor at the University of California-Davis School of Law, said the proposed legislation would insulate crisis pregnancy centers from having to meet the standards that medical organizations face. It would blur the line between advocacy and medical practice, she said. And such legislation provides Republicans with a potentially useful campaign message ahead of midterm elections.

“The GOP needs a messaging strategy as for how it cares about women even if it bans abortion and even if it doesn’t want to commit state resources to helping people before and after pregnancy,” Ziegler said. “The strategy is to outsource that to pregnancy counseling centers, which of course increases the incentive to protect them.”

Model Legislation

The Alliance Defending Freedom is the same group that , the 1973 court ruling that protected the right to abortion nationwide. The group drafted model legislation to establish a 15-week abortion ban that was the basis of a 2018 Mississippi law. That led to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case that overturned Roe.

The alliance said its attorneys were unavailable to comment on the organization’s strategy for the CARE Act. In for the bill, the group said federal, state, and local efforts are targeting pregnancy care centers in a “clear attempt to undermine and impede” their work and shut them down.

In recent years, have been targeted with vandalism and threats.

But the attacks the model legislation primarily aims to address are the legal and regulatory efforts by some states seeking more oversight of the crisis pregnancy centers, including a California law requiring centers to clearly inform patients about their services. That law was overturned when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of crisis pregnancy centers’ argument that it violated their First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court is that will decide whether states can subpoena the organizations for donor and internal information.

It’s unlikely that crisis pregnancy centers would face such regulatory measures in the conservative states where the legislation is under consideration. One Wyoming lawmaker acknowledged that in the February committee hearing.

Differing Services

During that hearing, state , a Republican who heads the committee sponsoring the bill, presented the measure as “so important, especially with our maternity desert,” referring to a lack of access to maternity health care services.

Some crisis pregnancy centers may have a few licensed clinicians, but many do not. Many offer free resources, such as diapers, baby clothing, and other items, sometimes in exchange for participation in counseling or parenting classes.

Planned Parenthood clinics, by contrast, provide a range of health services, such as testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, primary care, and screenings for cervical cancer. They also are regulated as medically licensed organizations.

Since Roe was overturned, the abortion rights movement has faced significant challenges. Congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law last summer, to abortion providers. The move contributed to Planned Parenthood closing last year.

As of 2024, operated nationwide, according to a map created by researchers at the University of Georgia, compared with providing abortions at the end of 2025.

a research organization affiliated with the anti-abortion nonprofit SBA Pro-Life America, has suggested that pregnancy centers could help fill the gap left by the Planned Parenthood closures.

Ziegler said that would leave patients vulnerable to medical risks.

Centers’ Growing Power

Previous efforts in , Colorado, and Vermont to regulate crisis pregnancy centers arose from concerns over allegations of and questions about .

In 2024, in five states to investigate whether centers were misleading patients into believing that their personal information was protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, known as HIPAA, and to find out how the centers were using patients’ information.

Courts, including the Supreme Court, have regularly that argue the attempts at regulation are violations of their First Amendment rights to free speech and religious expression.

Crisis pregnancy centers also have seen a flood of funding since Roe was overturned.

At least , including crisis pregnancy centers, according to the Lozier Institute.

Six states distribute a portion of their federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funding — cash payments meant for low-income families with children — to crisis pregnancy centers. Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Oklahoma have provided tens of millions of dollars for the organizations.

One analysis found that crisis pregnancy centers also received from 2017 to 2023, including from the 2020 relief package signed into law during Trump’s first term amid the covid pandemic.

Despite the challenges clinics that provide abortions face, Burkhart, the head of the Wellspring facility in Wyoming, said it’s important to continue offering access to people who need it. She’s helped open clinics in rural parts of other conservative states and said those clinics continue to see people walking through their doors.

“That proves to me, regardless of your religion, political party, there are times in people’s lives that people need access to qualified reproductive health care,” she said. “That includes abortion.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/courts/abortion-bans-clinics-crisis-pregnancy-centers-maternity-care-wyoming/">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;">

But plans to spend those nine-digit awards aren’t all warmly received.

At least one group of Republican state lawmakers appears to have scuttled an initiative preapproved by federal officials. And at least one hospital association persuaded its state health leaders to alter who greenlights spending. Other critics are taking a more cautious approach.

That’s because the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which manages the five-year Rural Health Transformation Program, says states could lose money if they make major changes to the plans approved in their applications. Changes could also delay states’ ability to get projects rolling in time to show the agency that they’re meeting progress deadlines.

“During the application period, states were advised to only propose initiatives and state policy actions that the state deemed feasible,” said CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden, who noted that the agency will work with states case by case.

The recent pushback reflects “tension” over state plans — which were approved by the federal government — from state lawmakers and health leaders who want more input amid tight deadlines, said Carrie Cochran-McClain, chief policy officer of the National Rural Health Association, the largest organization representing rural hospitals and clinics.

Cochran-McClain said many states must pass a bill to allow federal dollars to be spent and added that because the program rolled out so quickly “there’s important work that still needs to be done in some states between the legislatures and the governors.”

State lawmakers want to have a say, she said, in “how the funding is being allocated — how the implementation will go.”

Congressional Republicans created the program as a last-minute sweetener to include in their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law last summer. The funding was intended to offset concerns about the anticipated in rural communities from the law, which is expected to slash Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion over a decade.

CMS officials announced first-year funding — ranging from $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas — on Dec. 29, after scoring applications. Federal officials will begin evaluating progress in late summer and announce 2027 allocations at the end of October.

A chorus of critics say the program won’t make up for harm caused by Medicaid cuts.

The program is “a complete sham,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said at a rural policy conference in February.

Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for low-income and disabled Americans, serves nearly , and many rural hospitals depend on it to stay afloat.

But the rural health program tilts toward seeding innovative projects and technologies, not shoring up rural hospital finances. States can use only up to 15% of their funding to pay providers for patient care.

That hasn’t stopped some federal officials and lawmakers from framing the program as a rural hospital rescue.

For example, the White House , “President Trump secured $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals.”

Now that applications have been approved, some state Republican lawmakers — who are than Democrats are — and hospital associations are upset that the political rhetoric doesn’t match what they see.

They’re also lobbing criticisms at specific aspects of their states’ plans, including the proposed projects, what’s not included, and the spending approval process.

In Wyoming, lawmakers didn’t just criticize an initiative from their state’s application. They moved to kill it.

State Rep. John Bear, a Republican, said he and other lawmakers declined to fund “BearCare,” a proposed state-sponsored health insurance plan that patients could use only after medical emergencies. But they did approve other aspects of the rural health program.

The Wyoming Department of Health won’t “proceed with BearCare without express legislative authority to do so,” said spokesperson Lindsay Mills.

While Wyoming lawmakers removed an initiative from their state’s rural health plan, a group in Ohio wants to add something.

Ohio Rep. Kellie Deeter and other Republican lawmakers to use the maximum allowed funding for provider payments — 15% — to support 13 independent, rural hospitals.

“We understand that the rural transformation fund is not designed to be given directly to prop up hospitals,” Deeter said. “We just want to capitalize on the mechanism of the fund that can be utilized for that purpose.”

Those hospitals “operate with very, very narrow margins, and it’s just difficult and, frankly, unsustainable,” she added.

Ken Gordon, a press secretary responding for the governor’s office and the state health department, said, “It’s still very early in this process, and many details are being worked out.”

State lawmakers around the country are also trying to ensure the federal program’s dollars benefit rural areas.

In North Dakota, Rep. Bill Tveit, a Republican who lives in a town with about 2,000 residents, that would have required the state to reserve its funding for programs located more than 35 miles from urban areas and small cities.

During a hearing, lawmakers appeared sympathetic to Tveit’s concerns but quickly shot down his idea.

State Sen. Brad Bekkedahl said the North Dakota health department already committed to prioritizing funding for the most pressing rural health needs. He also said he’s concerned any significant changes could cause the state to lose funding because CMS already reviewed and approved the plan.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in Michigan and North Carolina have criticized their states’ definitions of “partially rural” or “rural,” saying that counties that include urban population centers could take money from lower-density counties, according to and .

Lawmakers aren’t the only ones speaking out.

The Colorado Hospital Association to state lawmakers denouncing how the state created its plan and two of its proposed initiatives.

“Not only were Colorado’s rural hospitals’ recommendations disregarded,” president and CEO Jeff Tieman wrote, but the plan includes ideas “they actively oppose and believe will harm the communities they serve.”

The department responded to one of the association’s concerns by adding rural health leaders to the .

Meanwhile, and Nebraska, some health groups are upset that their states’ plans lack specific funding streams for rural hospitals.

Lauren LaPine-Ray, who oversees rural health policy at the Michigan Health & Hospital Association, predicted the state’s rural hospitals will compete with other organizations, such as academic centers and health clinics, for funding. She said about 65% of the group’s rural members have never applied for a state grant before.

“The rural hospitals, the ones that really need the funding the most, will not be well equipped to apply for and pull down these dollars,” LaPine-Ray said.

Jed Hansen, executive director of the Nebraska Rural Health Association, said the federal funding won’t go to “rural hospitals, rural clinics, and rural providers in a meaningful way.”

“Rural Health Transformation will not save a single hospital in our state,” he said. “I don’t think it will save a hospital nationally.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/rural-transformation-fund-lawmakers-health-groups-resist-state-spending-plans/">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;">

But when Quinn chipped a tooth and it became infected, she could not find a dentist near her home who would accept her government health coverage and was taking new patients.

She went to an emergency room, receiving painkillers and antibiotics, but she remained in agonizing pain weeks later and paid a dentist $200 to extract the tooth.

Years later, it still hurts to chew on that side, she said, but Quinn — a 34-year-old who has four children and, with her husband, earns about $30,000 a year — still can’t find a dentist nearby.

“You should be able to get dental care,” she said, “because at the end of the day dental care is health care.”

The federal government has long required states to offer dental coverage for children enrolled in Medicaid, the joint state-federal health program for people who are low-income or disabled. Paying for adults’ dental care, though, is optional for states.

In recent years, several states have opted to expand the coverage offered by their Medicaid programs, seeking to boost access in recognition of its importance to overall health. So far, increasing adult dental care is a work in progress: In a sampling of six of those states by Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News, fewer than 1 in 4 adults on Medicaid see a dentist at least once a year.

But under congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law last year, the federal government is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over the next decade. The range from about $184 million for Wyoming to about $150 billion for California.

State Medicaid programs typically expand or reduce benefits depending on their finances, and such massive federal cuts could force some to shrink or eliminate what they offer, including dental benefits.

“We will lose all the gains we have made,” said Shillpa Naavaal, a dental policy researcher at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

Tennessee’s Medicaid program, for instance, spent nearly $64 million on its dental coverage in 2024 and saw a 20% decrease in dental-related ER visits, said Amy Lawrence, the program’s spokesperson.

But under the new law, Tennessee is projected to lose about $7 billion in federal funding over the next decade.

As of last year, 38 states and the District of Columbia offered enhanced dental benefits for adult Medicaid beneficiaries, according to the American Dental Association. Most of the others offer limited or emergency-only care. Alabama is the only state that offers no dental coverage for adult beneficiaries.

Since 2021, 18 states have enhanced their coverage to include checkups, X-rays, fillings, crowns, and dentures, while loosening annual dollar caps for benefits.

Use of dental benefits in states with the enhanced benefits is greater than in states with only limited or emergency coverage, though still low overall, according to with the latest data as of December. No more than a third of adult Medicaid recipients saw a dentist in 2022 in any state.

To review more recent progress, Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News asked one-third of the states that have expanded their benefits in the past five years for their most recent data on the percentage of adults on Medicaid who visit a dentist at least once a year:

• Maryland — 22% (in 2024)
• Oklahoma — 16% (in 2025)
• Maine — 13% (in 2025)
• New Hampshire — 19% (in 2025)
• Tennessee — 16% (in 2024)
• Virginia — 21% (in 2025)

In comparison, about 50% to 60% of adults with private dental coverage see a dentist at least once a year, according to the ADA.

Nationwide, 41% of dentists reported participating in Medicaid in 2024, a share that has remained stable over the past decade despite the dental benefit expansions in many states, the ADA says. Many participating dentists, though, limit the number of Medicaid enrollees they treat, and some will not accept new patients on Medicaid.

Reimbursement rates have not kept up with costs, deterring dentists from accepting Medicaid, said Marko Vujicic, chief economist and vice president at the ADA Health Policy Institute.

Because of a lack of dentists who take Medicaid in southwestern Virginia, the Appalachian Highlands Community Dental Center in Abingdon sees patients who travel more than two hours for care — and must turn many away, said Elaine Smith, its executive director.

The center’s seven residents treated about 5,000 patients last year, most of them on Medicaid. About 3,000 people are on its waitlist, waiting up to a year to be seen.

“It’s sad because they have the means now to see a dentist, but they still don’t have a dental home,” Smith said.

Low-income adults face other barriers to dental care, including a lack of transportation, child care, or time off work, she said.

The inability to see a dentist has consequences broader than tooth pain. Poor dental health can contribute to a host of other significant health problems, such as heart disease . It can also make it harder to do things like apply for jobs and generally lead a healthy life.

Robin Mullins, 49, who has been off and on Medicaid since 2013, said a lack of regular dental visits contributed to her losing her bottom teeth. Unable to find a dentist near her home in rural Clintwood, Virginia, she drives almost 90 minutes to Smith’s clinic — that is, when she can afford to get time away from driving for DoorDash or find help watching her daughter, who has special needs.

She gets by with partial dentures but misses her natural teeth, she said. “It’s absolutely horrible, as you can’t chew your food properly.”

In New Hampshire, though, the challenges have more to do with low demand than a low supply of dentists, said Tom Raffio, chief executive of Northeast Delta Dental, which manages the state’s Medicaid dental program. The company has added new dentists to its list of participating providers, along with two mobile dental units that traverse the state, he said.

Raffio said Northeast Delta Dental also has publicized the state benefits using radio advertising and social media, among other efforts.

Until 2023, New Hampshire Medicaid covered only dental emergencies.

“Culturally, it’s going to take a while,” he said, “as people just are used to not going to the dentist, or going to the ER when have dental pain.”

Brooks Woodward, dental director at Baltimore-based Chase Brexton Health Care, called Maryland’s rate of roughly 1 in 5 adults on Medicaid seeing a dentist in 2024 “pretty good” considering the benefits had been enhanced only since 2023.

Woodward said many adults on Medicaid believe that you go to a dentist only when you’re in pain. “They’ve always just not gone to the dentist, and that’s just the way they had it in their life,” he said.

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/medicaid-cuts-dental-coverage-republicans-big-beautiful-bill/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">