The officials, all Democrats, are running at a time when the Trump administration is reducing government funding for scientific research, restricting access to some vaccines, and making it more difficult for some Americans to obtain health insurance.

Shaughnessy Naughton, president of 3.14 Action, a political action committee that recruits Democratic candidates with science and health backgrounds, said it is unusual to see so many public health leaders running for office.

“But it’s not surprising given the moment we are living in, with an arsonist running HHS working to undermine the vaccine schedule and public health at large,” she said.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a longtime anti-vaccine activist who disparaged public health measures implemented during the pandemic, going as far as calling the covid vaccine the “.”

Neither HHS nor the White House responded to requests for comment.

Several of the candidates benefit from name recognition built during the covid pandemic, political science scholars say, when daily news briefings from local health officials became must-see-TV for many citizens sheltering in place from the novel virus. But that cuts two ways.

While many Americans regarded public health officials as offering prudent advice and a steady voice, others criticized them for pushing school closures, mask mandates, and new, quickly created vaccines. The attacks have escalated under President Donald Trump, with Republicans targeting pandemic-era public health leaders such as Anthony Fauci and a former Fauci adviser even facing .

National polls show healthcare is for many voters this year, with Democrats most worried about costs and Republicans about fraud. But that’s no guarantee of victory. Nirav Shah, an epidemiologist who led Maine’s top public health agency through the pandemic, lost a narrow Democratic primary in the state governor’s race in June.

Here are some of the public health officials on the ballot this year:

Xavier Becerra, Running for Governor in California

Becerra, who served as HHS secretary under President Joe Biden, is the highest-ranking former health official running this cycle. He won a crowded and expensive open primary and now faces Republican Steve Hilton, a British-born former Fox News host, in the general election.

Mark Peterson, a public policy professor at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, said with the pandemic in the rearview mirror, any judgment voters may have about the federal government’s response is more likely to reflect on Biden rather than Becerra, who has no medical background and maintained a low profile as HHS secretary.

Leading the nation’s health department as the pandemic lingered, Becerra focused more on expanding access to the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, overseeing record numbers of people enrolled in the publicly financed programs during his tenure. He did face criticism over the processing and placement of a massive influx of migrant children at the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as his agency’s response to a baby formula shortage brought on, in part, by major product recalls.

Becerra has said he now wants to be California’s “healthcare governor,” a mantle outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom tried to claim upon taking office in 2019.

Becerra’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Before becoming HHS secretary, Becerra served as California’s attorney general and sued the first Trump administration more than 100 times, leading a coalition of states against GOP efforts to gut the ACA. He also started a unit in his office focused solely on healthcare. During Becerra’s tenure, his office reached a $575 million antitrust settlement with the California hospital system Sutter Health, pursued pharmaceutical companies that delayed generic drugs, and helped block a Trump administration rule that let employers choose whether to cover .

Voters often regard decades of experience in government as a negative, Peterson said. But for the job of running the nation’s most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy, he added, “I think there are a lot of people out there who would like to have somebody who actually has run a big enterprise.”

In , Becerra has said California should maintain state-funded Medicaid coverage for immigrants without legal status. He is also a longtime supporter of implementing single-payer healthcare, though in recent interviews he has said it needs to be addressed at the federal level.

Amy Acton, Running for Governor in Ohio

Acton ran Ohio’s health department from February 2019 to June 2020.

During the first months of the pandemic, Acton appeared at daily news conferences with the state’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, that were jokingly dubbed “.” She earned fans with her calm and positive demeanor while explaining her approach to keeping covid at bay.

But she also attracted critics with her recommendations to stay at home, mask up, and shut down some businesses to curb the virus’ spread. Protesters even showed up at her home.

Acton’s Republican opponent in the governor’s race, Vivek Ramaswamy, has labeled her “Dr. Lockdown” on social media. His criticism of her role in shutting down businesses could prove effective with the economy at the top of many people’s minds, said Christopher Devine, a University of Dayton political science professor.

“It’s a double-edged sword, because she also really upset some people,” Devine said of Acton’s time as the health director during the pandemic.

He said that is a tricky attack for Ramaswamy to pursue, though, because DeWine — still the sitting governor and a popular conservative figure — endorsed the covid measures Acton recommended, granting her emergency powers to sign the orders, and has since said he takes all responsibility for those actions.

For her part, Acton has done little on the campaign trail to highlight her time as the state’s public health director. Instead, she has focused more on healthcare affordability, highlighting the Trump-led cuts to Medicaid and the scaled-back subsidies for ACA plans that have resulted in dropping coverage in the state.

“I hear from families across Ohio that healthcare costs are rising and they just can’t keep up,” Acton said in an emailed statement. “That’s why I will fight to protect and expand access, reduce the price of prescription drugs, forgive medical debt holding Ohioans back, and lower premiums.”

Abdul El-Sayed, Running for U.S. Senate in Michigan

El-Sayed — who ran the health departments in the city of Detroit and Wayne County, Michigan — is one of two leading Democratic candidates for Senate. The primary is Aug. 4.

El-Sayed, a progressive, is facing off against Haley Stevens, a four-term congresswoman. They are vying to run against Republican nominee Mike Rogers, a former congressman, for the Senate seat held by retiring Democrat Gary Peters.

From 2015 to 2017, El-Sayed ran the Detroit Health Department, which and privatized as part of the city’s 2013 bankruptcy. In his role, he led efforts to test Detroit schools for lead in the wake of the Flint water crisis and provide free eyeglasses to children in public schools.

From 2022 until 2025, he ran the health department in Wayne County, the state’s most populous county, which includes Detroit. In that job, he initiated a program to retire medical debt for thousands of residents and make naloxone available in public areas to reverse the effects of opioid overdoses.

In an interview with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, El-Sayed said his public health experience helped him become an effective communicator and challenge corporations and the role they play in healthcare.

“Politics have become overrun by big money and corporations, and my training and background in public health has taught me to think about that and push back against it,” he said.

El-Sayed, who did not practice medicine after completing his residency and is not licensed to do so, has faced criticism from some in his party for calling himself a doctor.  

El-Sayed, who has endorsements from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), supports “Medicare for All,” a policy favored by many progressives that would make more people eligible for the federal health program for people who are 65 and older or disabled.

David Dulio, a professor of political science at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, said that the broader economy, Trump’s tariffs, and trade are eclipsing healthcare this year as top concerns for voters in the state. But he added that “progressive stances such as Medicare for All are attractive in the Democratic primary electorate.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Under a law enacted last year, five of Indiana’s largest nonprofit hospital systems cannot charge patients covered by job-based health plans more than an established price cap. Hospitals that fail to keep prices below the threshold by 2029 risk losing their tax-exempt status — which would mean owing millions of dollars in state taxes.

Even before that penalty kicks in, the law requires these hospitals, which control nearly half the state’s hospital market, to offer direct-to-employer contracts — bypassing insurers — and stay within limits set by the state. Hospitals that don’t comply face a $10,000-a-day penalty.

Many other Indiana hospitals must comply with this provision beginning in September.

Indiana’s law comes amid growing frustration with rising insurance costs and hospital prices, the of growing healthcare costs.

Government price controls, of course, are nothing new in healthcare. Since the mid-1960s, the federal government has set prices it pays hospitals for treating Medicare enrollees, as states do for Medicaid patients. Those two government programs cover more than 135 million people nationwide.

But hospitals face no such government limit on what they charge for the more than 165 million Americans covered by employer-paid insurance.

Indiana isn’t the only state targeting hospital prices. Vermont also limits how much hospitals can charge for people covered by employer plans.

Washington and Oregon have made similar attempts, on a smaller scale, targeting state employee health plans. Oregon’s hospitals cannot charge the state employee plan more than two times the Medicare rate for services. This caps the state payment for a service at $200 if Medicare pays $100. Within the first two years, the plan saved more than $100 million.

Legislation has been proposed in Colorado and New York to enact similar price controls.

Hospital leaders and other opponents of price controls argue that the strategy doesn’t address the root causes of high hospital prices, such as rising labor, drug, and technology costs, and that the caps will force hospitals to cut services. Another challenge is that few employers contract directly with hospitals.

On most policy issues, Indiana and Vermont likely agree on very little, “except for this is one area where they both see that hospital prices are high,” said Brown University economist Christopher Whaley.

Wielding state power to control prices is a strategy typically led by Democrats. But Mike Braun, the Republican governor who helped muscle through the changes over the objections of the Indiana hospital industry, said the healthcare system is too broken to leave alone.

“Government has to intervene, because healthcare is run like an unregulated utility,” he told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

The five Indiana nonprofit hospital systems involved are Ascension St. Vincent, Community Health Network, Franciscan Health, Indiana University Health, and Parkview Health.

The price cap will be based on the statewide average for inpatient and outpatient hospital prices. Indiana will use Medicare as a yardstick by which to measure commercial prices, a comparison commonly used by researchers. This will show how much higher commercial prices are than the government program’s.

By June 30, the state is expected to issue a report showing average hospital prices in the state and where individual hospitals fall on the spectrum.

For years, have found that Indiana hospital prices are some of the highest in the nation.

The , produced in November, found three of the five nonprofit hospital systems exceeded a voluntary benchmark when excluding practitioner services, such as doctor fees.

However, all five hospital systems were below the voluntary benchmark when doctor services were wrapped into the overall score. This finding illustrates how prices for doctor visits may obscure overall hospital prices by bringing down the average, researchers and lobbyists for employers told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Rand researchers found that while Indiana is home to some of the highest-paid hospitals, its doctors are among the lowest paid in the nation. That’s partly because the doctors don’t have the same negotiating leverage as the handful of large health systems.

This disparity has sparked a debate over which prices should be used to calculate the upcoming cap. Including doctor services would likely allow hospitals to keep prices high because they would be offset by low doctor prices, said Whaley, who has co-authored Rand’s pricing reports. This would let hospitals off the hook from doing the work to “move the needle” on lowering prices, he said.

Indiana Hospital Association President Scott Tittle said it’s unfair to exclude doctor services.

Hospitals often acquire physician practices to help drive admissions, . But Tittle said it also helps keep doctor offices open and preserves access for residents. That comes at a cost, he said.

“We know it is absolutely part of the complete cost of care,” Tittle said.

Despite the hospital lobby’s efforts, Tittle said, the state will exclude doctor services from the cap.

Regardless, Tittle said it’s unnecessary to put price caps in state law. “Hospitals can and have done the hard work to reduce their pricing,” he said.

For employers, rising healthcare costs are a headache. They’re unpredictable and make it difficult to budget each year.

Doug Bawel, chairman of Jasper Holdings, an automotive parts company based in Jasper, Indiana, has tried various strategies to wrestle high healthcare costs. For his workers, he’s purchased diabetes drugs from New Zealand and housed on-site health clinics.

Under the law enacted last year, Indiana hospitals must offer direct contracts to employers for a variety of procedures priced at or below 260% of what Medicare pays for hospital care. That’s setting a ceiling at slightly more than 2.5 times what Medicare pays.

Bawel expects the state’s price controls on direct deals to significantly strengthen his negotiating leverage with hospitals. He belongs to a consortium of southern Indiana employers that buy services directly from area hospitals.

This move represents a departure from the status quo for the business lobby. Ashton Eller, a healthcare lobbyist for the Indiana Manufacturers Association, said the group generally opposes government price controls. But it believes this is a step in the right direction, he said.

“Is this a silver bullet that will bring down prices overnight? We don’t pretend it is,” he said.

No matter what happens in the Hoosier State, Indiana’s experiment with price controls has attracted attention.

“As employers and states are dealing with double-digit premium increases, there is tremendous interest in healthcare affordability, and what happens in Indiana is being closely watched by many states and Washington, D.C.,” Whaley said.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a brief interview with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News on April 28 outside the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz said he applauds Nebraska for being the first state to begin implementing the work requirements. He acknowledged that the state is still “working out the kinks,” adding that his hope is “by the end of this year they will get into a more sophisticated place.”

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

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

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

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

More than 20 million people gained coverage from Medicaid through expansion, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 4.8 million will become uninsured over the next decade as a result of the work requirement.

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

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

Nebraska’s Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether self-attestation will broadly be allowed in other states will depend on CMS’ rules for work requirements, expected to be set this summer. Oz told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that “we don’t like self-attesting” and that “documentation is critical.”

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

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

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

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

National Mandate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

And CEO Brad Meyer fears times will soon get worse for the clinic and its 21,000 patients. That’s because Nebraska is set to become the first state to require certain Medicaid enrollees to work or lose their coverage under new rules in President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“This will have a huge financial impact on us,” Meyer said. On May 1, seven months before the law requires, the state will begin imposing work requirements on eligible adult Medicaid enrollees.

Most of Bluestem’s patients are covered by the government program for people with low incomes or disabilities. Meyer estimates up to 15% of them may be kicked off Medicaid, which could cost his center about $600,000 a year. That could mean cutting services or staff.

Nationwide, about 17,000 federally funded community health centers like Bluestem . They’re bracing for fallout from the law Trump signed last year, which could cost the nonprofit health centers $32 billion collectively over five years, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a health research foundation.

Health centers receive annual federal grants but depend on Medicaid reimbursements for patient care as their largest source of revenue. The government insurance program covered about half of their roughly 33 million patients in 2024.

Commonwealth estimates that 5.6 million patients of health centers will lose Medicaid coverage over the next decade as most states enact work requirements — a provision of Trump’s law that requires nondisabled enrollees to work, volunteer, or perform another approved activity for at least 80 hours a month.

Most are expected to lose coverage not because they don’t work but because of paperwork errors, like failing to document their hours or verify that they qualify for an exemption.

Health center officials say there’s no easy way to make up for the lost revenue other than cutting staff or services, which would affect all their patients. The cuts will coincide with an expected increase in patients, as people who lose coverage turn to the clinics for low-cost care.

By law, health centers are required to treat all patients regardless of their ability to pay.

A Double Whammy

Overall, about 10 million fewer Americans will have insurance by 2034, the Congressional Budget Office estimates, both because of Trump’s law and congressional Republicans’ decision to scale back premium subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans.

“We are incredibly worried,” said Jeffrey McKee, CEO of Community Health Centers of Burlington in Vermont. His clinics treat about 35,000 patients a year, nearly a third covered by Medicaid.

He predicts a surge in uninsured patients will cost another $3 million in lost revenue. That revenue crash could imperil street medicine programs and home care for patients 65 and older, he said.

In 2024, community health centers because of rising costs and the expiration of covid pandemic-era relief funds, according to a KFF analysis.

Centers with high rates of uninsured patients typically struggle more financially, while some centers are sustained through private donations.

People without insurance — who made up about 18% of all health center patients in 2024 — pay on a sliding scale. Those amounts are a fraction of what insurers pay.

The new Medicaid work requirements apply to Washington, D.C., and 40 states that expanded Medicaid eligibility under the ACA, and to adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level — $22,025 for a single person this year.

Republicans say the work requirements will nudge people into the workforce and help preserve Medicaid for children and people who are pregnant or have disabilities. Studies by KFF and others show most enrollees already work, go to school, or have a health condition that prevents them from working.

Nebraska Is First Up

The Trump administration approved Nebraska’s early launch of its work requirement program, which could affect about . State Medicaid officials say they plan to use state and national databases to check whether people are already working or meeting an exemption so that most won’t have to do anything to keep coverage. But thousands will need to prove they satisfy the requirements.

At Bluestem in Lincoln, Meyer worries many of his Medicaid patients won’t take the steps needed to keep coverage.

Angelisa Corum, 57, said she loves the care she has gotten from her regular doctor at Bluestem Health over the past dozen years, particularly in dealing with breast cancer. “I am cancer-free, and they helped me get through that,” she said.

She said the care was the same when she was covered by her husband’s commercial insurance through his employer and when she was on Medicaid while he wasn’t working.

The work requirements are just one part of the Republican law passed last year that could hurt the health centers. It also requires more frequent eligibility checks for adults enrolled under Medicaid expansion, which advocates say could also lead people to lose coverage. Many states now require eligibility checks only once a year.

The law also reduces overall federal Medicaid funding to states, which may prompt them to cut reimbursements to centers and other health providers.

The National Association of Community Health Centers, the largest advocacy group for the clinics, has tried to walk a tightrope, warning about impending cuts from the law while still working with the Trump administration. The group praised Congress for increasing base grant funding for health centers in the federal budget approved in January.

Kyu Rhee, CEO of the national association, said the clinics enjoy strong bipartisan support in Washington despite the Medicaid cuts.

He has met with Trump administration officials to discuss how health centers can play a role in keeping people from losing coverage due to work requirements. He said they can help meet other priorities of the administration’s, like improving American diets, expanding primary care, and focusing on chronic diseases — though it’s unclear how any of that would result in more funding.

To further show the reach of health centers, the association recently funded a study that found 52 million people visited the clinics over a three-year-period. “It makes a statement we serve a lot more Americans than those from just a single year,” Rhee said.

Health center officials are hopeful they will get some of the funding from the included in the GOP-passed law. States will begin spending the first tranche of that money this spring.

Rhee said he is encouraged that states will have technology to help tap into databases to verify many enrollees’ work status or health conditions to meet “medical frailty” rules that could help them avoid being disenrolled.

Others are less optimistic.

“Health centers are bracing for a major financial impact,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy professor at George Washington University and Medicaid expert who co-authored the Commonwealth Fund study. “The way they cope is the same way health systems usually cope as they go through mass layoffs, site closures, and service reductions.”

Amanda Pears Kelly, CEO of Advocates for Community Health, a trade group representing 52 health centers, said health centers are also worried about rising costs, especially for prescription drugs. The impending financial challenges will make it more difficult to hire staff both in rural areas where doctors and nurses are scarce and in more populated areas, where competition for workers is more acute, she told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

“The challenge is health centers are being hit from every direction,” Pears Kelly said.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

But seven months later, findings from five states shared with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News show that the reviews have uncovered little evidence of a widespread problem.

Only U.S. citizens and some lawfully present immigrants are eligible for Medicaid, which covers health care costs for people with low incomes and disabilities, and the closely related Children’s Health Insurance Program. Both programs are administered by states.

Spokespeople from Pennsylvania’s and Colorado’s Medicaid agencies said, as of March, the states had found no one who needed to be terminated from Medicaid. That was after checking a combined 79,000 names.

Texas has reviewed records of more than 28,000 Medicaid enrollees at the Trump administration’s request and terminated coverage for 77 of them, according to Jennifer Ruffcorn, a spokesperson for the Texas Department of Human Services.

Ohio has checked 65,000 Medicaid enrollees, of which 260 people were disenrolled from the program, said Stephanie O’Grady, a spokesperson for the Ohio Department of Medicaid.

In Utah, 42 of the 8,000 enrollees identified by the Trump administration had their Medicaid coverage terminated, said Becky Wickstrom, a spokesperson for the state’s Department of Workforce Services.

In announcing the reviews, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said: “We are tightening oversight of enrollment to safeguard taxpayer dollars and guarantee that these vital programs serve only those who are truly eligible under the law.”

Leonardo Cuello, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, said the reviews ordered by the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were unneeded because states check immigration status when people sign up.

“It is entirely predictable that all of these burdensome reviews that the federal government is forcing upon states would yield no pay dirt,” Cuello said. “The states had already done the reviews once, and CMS was just making them reverify the same information they had already checked. Making states go through the same bureaucratic process twice is incredibly wasteful and inefficient.”

CMS spokesperson Chris Krepich said in a statement to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that the ongoing checks are verifying eligibility “for certain enrollees whose status could not be confirmed through federal data sources.”

“CMS provides states with regular reports for follow-up review, and states are responsible for independently verifying eligibility and taking appropriate action consistent with federal requirements,” he said.

But the findings shared with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News also suggest that many of the enrollees whose eligibility the Trump administration said it could not confirm are indeed U.S. citizens. O’Grady said Ohio found that, of the 65,000 names referred by the federal government, the state already had information on 53,000 confirming them as citizens and an additional 11,000 showing appropriate immigration status for Medicaid.

Caseworkers then worked on the remaining 1,000 names to review their information or reach out for more details, she said.

CMS did not answer questions about the findings from the states sampled by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News or provide information about responses it received from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, which were instructed to perform verification checks.

The agency also did not respond to a question about whether it’s forwarding the names of those whose Medicaid coverage was terminated to federal immigration officials.

In June, advisers to Kennedy ordered CMS to share information about Medicaid enrollees with the Department of Homeland Security, prompting a lawsuit by some states alarmed that the administration would use the information for its deportation campaign against residents living in the U.S. without authorization.

A federal judge that Immigration and Customs Enforcement workers could access information only about people in the country unlawfully in the Medicaid databases of the states that sued.

CMS continues to send states lists of names at least every few months, though state officials say the numbers have declined since the first batch last summer.

People without legal status are ineligible for federally funded health coverage, including Medicaid, Medicare, and plans through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Medicaid does reimburse hospitals for providing emergency care to people without legal status if they meet income and other program requirements.

Seven states and the District of Columbia provide health coverage regardless of immigration status, funding the programs with their own money.

In March 2025, CMS began financial reviews of those programs. “CMS has identified over $1.8 billion in federal funds that are being recouped through voluntary returns and deferrals of future federal Medicaid payments,” Krepich said. He did not answer how much has been collected so far or from which states.

Medicaid’s overall spending topped $900 billion in fiscal year 2024.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

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 Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl 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, Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl 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 article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Warning patients could deter them from signing up for a program called Emergency Medicaid, through which the government reimburses hospitals for the cost of emergency treatment for immigrants who are ineligible for standard Medicaid coverage.

But if hospitals don’t disclose that the patients’ information is shared with federal law enforcement, they might not know that their medical coverage puts them at risk of being located by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“If hospitals tell people that their Emergency Medicaid information will be shared with ICE, it is foreseeable that many immigrants would simply stop getting emergency medical treatment,” said , a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families. “Half of the Emergency Medicaid cases are for the delivery of U.S. citizen babies. Do we want these mothers avoiding the hospital when they go into labor?”

For more than a decade, hospitals and states have assured patients that their personal information, including their home addresses and immigration status, would not be shared with immigration enforcement officials when they apply for federal health care coverage. guaranteed the agency would not use information from health coverage applications for enforcement activities.

But that changed last year, after President Donald Trump returned to the White House and ordered one of the most aggressive immigration crackdowns in recent history. His administration began funneling data from a variety of government agencies to the Department of Homeland Security, including filed with the IRS.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, agreed last spring to give ICE officials direct access to a Medicaid database that includes enrollees’ addresses and citizenship status.

Twenty-two states, all but one led by Democratic governors, the Medicaid data-sharing agreement, which the administration did not formally announce until a federal judge ordered it to do so last summer. The judge that in those states, ICE could access information in the Medicaid database only about people in the country unlawfully. Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News contacted more than a dozen hospitals and hospital associations in states and cities that have been targets of ICE sweeps. Many declined to comment on whether they’ve updated their disclosure policies after the ruling.

Of those that responded, none said they are directly warning patients that their personal information may be shared with ICE when they apply for Medicaid coverage.

“We do not provide legal advice about federal government data-sharing between agencies,” Aimee Jordon, a spokesperson for M Health Fairview, a Minneapolis-based hospital system, said in an email to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. “We encourage patients with questions about benefits or immigration-related concerns to seek guidance from appropriate state resources and qualified legal counsel.”

Information on Applications

Some states’ Emergency Medicaid applications specifically ask for a patient’s immigration status — and still assure people that their information will be kept secure and out of the hands of immigration enforcement officials.

For example, as of Feb. 3, California’s application still included language advising applicants that their immigration information is “confidential.”

“We only use it to see if you qualify for health insurance,” states the 44-page form, which the state’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, in January.

California Department of Health Care Services spokesperson Anthony Cava said in a statement that the agency, which oversees Medi-Cal, will “ensure that Californians have accurate information on the privacy of their data, including by revising additional publications as necessary.”

Until late January, Utah’s Medicaid website also claimed its Emergency Medicaid program did not share its information with immigration officials. After Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News contacted the state agency, Kolbi Young, a spokesperson, said Jan. 23 that the language would be taken down immediately. It was removed that day.

Oregon Health & Science University, a hospital system based in Portland, offers immigrant patients developed by the state Medicaid program for those with concerns about how their information might be used. The document does not directly say that Medicaid enrollees’ information is shared with ICE officials.

Hospitals rely on Emergency Medicaid to reimburse them for treating people who would qualify for Medicaid if not for their citizenship status — those in the country illegally and lawfully present immigrants, such as those with a student or work visa. The coverage pays only for emergency medical and pregnancy care. Typically, hospital representatives help patients apply while they are still in the medical facility.

The main Medicaid program, which covers a much broader range of services for over 77 million low-income and disabled people, does not cover people living in the country illegally.

Examining Emergency Medicaid enrollment is the most obvious way, then, for deportation officials to identify immigrants, including those who might not reside in the U.S. lawfully.

HHS spokesperson Rich Danker said in an email that CMS — which oversees Medicaid, a joint state-federal program — is sharing data with ICE after the judge’s ruling. But he would not answer how the agency is ensuring it is sharing information only on people who are not lawfully present, as the judge required.

With ICE now getting direct access to the personal information of millions of Medicaid enrollees, hospitals — while “definitely in a tough position” — should be up-front about the changes, said Sarah Grusin, at the National Health Law Program, an advocacy group.

“They need to be telling people that the judge has permitted sharing of information, including their address, for people who are not lawfully residing,” she said. “Once this information is submitted, you can’t protect it from disclosure at this point.”

Grusin said she advises families to weigh the importance of seeking medical care against the risk of having their information shared with ICE.

“We want to give candid, honest information even if it means the decision people have to make is really hard,” she said.

Those who have previously enrolled in Medicaid or can easily search their address online should assume that immigration officials already have their information, she added.

Emergency Medicaid

Emergency Medicaid coverage was established in the mid-1980s, when a federal law began requiring hospitals to treat and stabilize all patients who show up at their doors with a life-threatening condition.

Federal government spending on Emergency Medicaid accounted for nearly $4 billion in 2023, or of total federal spending on Medicaid.

States send monthly reports to the federal government with detailed information about who enrolls in Medicaid and what services they receive. The judge’s ruling in December limited what CMS can share with ICE to only basic information, including addresses, about Medicaid enrollees in the 22 states that sued over the data-sharing arrangement. ICE officials are not supposed to access information about the medical services people receive, per the judge’s order.

The judge also prohibited the agency from sharing the data of U.S. citizens or lawfully present immigrants from those states.

Deportation officials have access to personal Medicaid information of all enrollees in the remaining 28 states.

The federal health agency has not clarified how it is ensuring that certain states’ information on citizens and legal residents is not shared with ICE. But Medicaid experts say it would be nearly impossible for the agency to separate the data, raising questions about whether the Trump administration is complying with the judge’s order.

The Trump administration’s efforts to deport immigrants living in the country illegally have had implications on immigrant families seeking care. About a third of adult immigrants reported skipping or postponing health care in the past year, according to a released in November. (KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.)

Bethany Pray, the chief legal and policy officer at the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, warned that sharing Medicaid data directly with deportation officials will force even tougher decisions upon some families.

“This is very concerning,” Pray said. “People should not have to choose between giving birth in a hospital and wondering if that means they risk deportation.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

It was a contrast to how Cole, 18, spent part of the 2024 holiday season. She was in the hospital — a frequent occurrence with sickle cell disease, a genetic condition that damages oxygen-carrying red blood cells and for years caused debilitating pain in her arms and legs. Flare-ups often would force her to cancel plans or miss school.

“With sickle cell it hurts every day,” she said. “It might be more tolerable some days, but it’s a constant thing.”

In May, Cole completed a several-months-long that helps reprogram the body’s stem cells to produce healthy red blood cells.

She was one of the first Medicaid enrollees nationally to benefit from a in which the federal government negotiates the cost of a cell or gene therapy with pharmaceutical companies on behalf of state Medicaid programs — and then holds them accountable for the treatment’s success.

Under the agreement, participating states will receive “discounts and rebates” from the drugmakers if the treatments don’t work as promised, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

That’s a stark difference from how Medicaid and other health plans typically pay for drugs and therapies — the bill usually gets paid regardless of the treatments’ benefits for patients. But CMS has not disclosed the full terms of the contract, including how much the drug companies will repay if the therapy doesn’t work.

The treatment Cole received offers a potential cure for many of the 100,000 primarily Black Americans with sickle cell disease, which is estimated to shorten lifespans by more than two decades. But the treatment’s cost presents a steep financial challenge for Medicaid, the joint state-federal government insurer for people with low incomes or disabilities. Medicaid covers roughly half of Americans with the condition.

There are two gene therapies approved by the Food and Drug Administration on the market, one costing $2.2 million per patient and the other $3.1 million, with neither cost including the expense of the long hospital stay.

The CMS program is one of the rare health initiatives started under President Joe Biden and continued during the Trump administration. The Biden administration with the two manufacturers, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Bluebird Bio, in December 2024, opening the door for states to join voluntarily.

“This model is a game changer,” Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, said announcing that 33 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico had signed onto the initiative.

Asked for further details on the contracts, Catherine Howden, a CMS spokesperson, said in a statement that the terms of the agreements are “confidential and have only been disclosed to state Medicaid agencies.”

“Tackling the high cost of drugs in the United States is a priority of the current administration,” the statement said.

Citing confidentiality, two state Medicaid directors and the two manufacturers declined to reveal the financial terms of agreements.

New Therapies

The gene therapies, approved for people 12 or older with sickle cell disease, offer a chance to live without pain and complications, which can include strokes and organ damage, and avoid hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and other costly care. The Biden administration estimated that sickle cell care already costs the health system almost $3 billion a year.

With many more expensive gene therapies on the horizon, the cost of the sickle cell therapies presages financial challenges for Medicaid. Hundreds of cell and gene therapies are in clinical trials, and dozens could get federal approval in the next few years.

If the sickle cell payment model works, it will probably lead to similar arrangements for other pricey therapies, particularly for those that treat rare diseases, said Sarah Emond, president and CEO of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an independent research institute that evaluates new medical treatments. “This is a worthy experiment,” she said.

Setting up payment for drugs based on outcomes makes sense when dealing with high treatment costs and uncertainty about their long-term benefits, Emond said.

“The juice has to be worth the squeeze,” she said.

Clinical trials for the gene therapies included fewer than 100 patients and followed them for only two years, leaving some state Medicaid officials eager for reassurance they were getting a good deal.

“What we care about is whether services actually improve health,” said Djinge Lindsay, chief medical officer for the Maryland Department of Health, which runs the state’s Medicaid program. Maryland is expected to begin accepting patients for the new sickle cell program this month.

Medicaid is already required to cover almost all FDA-approved drugs and therapies, but states have leeway to limit access by restricting which patients are eligible, setting up a lengthy prior authorization process, or requiring enrollees to first undergo other treatments.

While the gene therapy treatments are limited to certain hospitals around the country, state Medicaid officials say the federal model means more enrollees will have access to the therapies without other restrictions.

The manufacturers also pay for fertility preservation such as freezing reproductive cells, which could be damaged by chemotherapy during the treatment. Typically, Medicaid doesn’t cover that cost, said Margaret Scott, a principal with the consulting firm Avalere Health.

Emond said pharmaceutical companies were interested in the federal deal because it could lead to quicker acceptance of the therapy by Medicaid, compared with signing individual contracts with each state.

States are attracted to the federal program because it offers help monitoring patients in addition to negotiating the cost, she said. Despite some secrecy around the new model, Emond said she expects a federally funded evaluation will track the number of patients in the program and their results, allowing states to seek rebates if the treatment is not working.

The program could run for as long as 11 years, according to CMS.

“This therapy can benefit many sickle cell patients,” said Edward Donnell Ivy, chief medical officer for the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America.

He said the federal model will help more patients access the treatment, though he noted utilization will depend in part on the limited number of hospitals that offer the multimonth therapy.

Hope for Sickle Cell Patients

Before gene therapy, the only potential cure for sickle cell patients was a bone marrow transplant — an option available only to those who could find a suitable donor, about 25% of patients, Ivy said. For others, lifelong management includes medications to reduce the disease’s effects and manage pain, as well as blood transfusions.

About 30 of Missouri’s 1,000 Medicaid enrollees with sickle cell disease will get the therapy in the first three years, said Josh Moore, director of the state’s Medicaid program. So far, fewer than 10 enrollees have received it since the state began offering it in 2025, he said.

Less than a year into the federal program, Moore said it’s too early to tell its rate of success — defined as an absence of painful episodes that lead to a hospital visit. But he hopes it will be close to the 90% rate seen over the course of a couple of years in clinical trials.

Moore said the federal program based on how well the treatment works was preferred over cutting fees for a new and promising therapy, which would put the manufacturers’ ability to develop new drugs at risk. “We want to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars,” he said.

He declined to comment on how much the state may save from the arrangement or disclose other details, such as how much the drug companies might have to pay back, citing confidentiality of the contracts.

Lately Cole, who underwent gene therapy at St. Louis Children’s Hospital, has been able to focus on her hobbies — playing video games, drawing, and painting – and earning her high school diploma.

She said she was glad to get the treatment. The worst part was the chemotherapy, she said, which left her unable to talk or eat — and entailed getting stuck with needles.

She said that her condition is “way better” and that she has had no pain episodes leading to a hospital stay since completing the therapy last spring. “I’m just grateful I was able to get it.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Advocates say the push burdens states with duplicative verification checks and could lead people to lose coverage just for missing paperwork deadlines. But the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Mehmet Oz, said in a post on the social platform X on Oct. 31 that more than $1 billion “of federal taxpayer dollars were being spent on funding Medicaid for illegal immigrants” in five states and Washington, D.C.

Medicaid’s overall spending topped $900 billion in fiscal year 2024.

It wasn’t clear from Oz’s statement or an accompanying video over what period the spending happened, and CMS spokespeople did not immediately respond to questions, either for an earlier version of this article or after Oz’s statement was posted.

Only U.S. citizens and some lawfully present immigrants are eligible for Medicaid, which covers low-income and disabled people, and the closely related Children’s Health Insurance Program. Those without legal status are ineligible for federally funded health coverage, including Medicaid, Medicare, and plans through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

Several states disputed Oz’s comments.

“Our payments for coverage of undocumented individuals are in accordance with state and federal laws,” said Marc Williams, a spokesperson for Colorado’s Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, which administers the state’s Medicaid program. “The $1.5 million number referenced by federal leaders today is based on an incorrect preliminary finding, and has been refuted with supporting data by our Department experts.”

He added: “It is disappointing that the administration is announcing this number as final when it is clearly overstated and the conversations are very much in the education and discussion phase.”

Illinois Medicaid officials blasted Oz’s comments.

“Once again, the Trump administration is spreading misinformation about standard uses of Medicaid dollars,” said Illinois Medicaid spokesperson Melissa Kula. “This is not a reality show, and there is no conspiracy to circumvent federal law and provide ineligible individuals with Medicaid coverage. Dr. Oz should stop pushing conspiracy theories and focus on improving health care for the American people.”

The Washington State Health Care Authority, which runs the state’s Medicaid program, was also blunt.

“The numbers Dr. Oz posted on social media today are inaccurate,” said spokesperson Rachelle Alongi. “We were very surprised to see Dr. Oz’s post, especially considering we continue to work with CMS in good faith to answer their questions and clear up any confusion.”

In August, CMS began sending states the names of people enrolled in Medicaid that the agency suspected might not be eligible, demanding state Medicaid agencies check their immigration status.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News in October reached out to Medicaid agencies in 10 states. Five provided the approximate number of names they had received from the Trump administration, with expectations of more to come: Colorado had been given about 45,000 names, Ohio 61,000, Pennsylvania 34,000, Texas 28,000, and Utah 8,000. More than 70 million people are enrolled in Medicaid.

Most of those states declined to comment further. Medicaid agencies in California, Florida, Georgia, New York, and South Carolina refused to say how many names they were ordered to review or did not respond.

Oz said in his X post that California had misspent $1.3 billion on care for people not eligible for Medicaid, while Illinois spent $30 million, Oregon $5.4 million, Washington state $2.4 million, Washington, D.C., $2.1 million, and Colorado $1.5 million.

“We notified the states, and many have begun refunding the money,” he said. “But what if we had never asked?”

Washington, D.C.’s Medicaid director, Melisa Byrd, said CMS had identified administrative expenses for the district program that covers people regardless of immigration status that should not have been billed to the federal government and her agency has already fixed some of those areas. “We run a big program that is very complex and when mistakes or errors happen, we fix them,” she said.

The program plans to pay $654,014 back to CMS by mid-November.

All five states, plus Washington, D.C., are led by Democrats, and President Donald Trump didn’t win any of them in the 2024 election.

In recent days, Deputy Health and Human Services Secretary Jim O’Neill on X of people he said are convicted criminals living in the U.S. without authorization who had received Medicaid benefits.

O’Neill could not be reached for comment.

“We are very concerned because this seems, frankly, to be a waste of state resources and furthers the administration’s anti-immigrant agenda,” said Ben D’Avanzo, senior health advocacy strategist with the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group. “This duplicates what states already do,” he said.

As part of the administration’s crackdown on people in the U.S. without authorization, President Donald Trump in February directed federal agencies to take action to ensure they are not obtaining benefits in violation of federal law.

In June, advisers to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered CMS to share information about Medicaid enrollees with the Department of Homeland Security, drawing a lawsuit by some states alarmed that the administration would use the information for its deportation campaign against unauthorized residents.

In August, a federal judge ordered HHS to with immigration authorities.

State Medicaid agencies use databases maintained by the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security to verify enrollees’ immigration status.

If states need to go back to individuals to reverify their citizenship or immigration status, it could lead some to fall off the rolls unnecessarily — for example, if they don’t see a letter requesting paperwork or fail to meet a deadline to respond.

“I am not sure that evidence suggests there really is a need for this” extra verification, said Marian Jarlenski, a health policy professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health.

Oz made clear that the Trump administration disagrees.

“Whether willful or not, the states’ conduct highlights a terrifying reality: American taxpayers have been footing the bill for illegal immigrants’ Medicaid coverage, despite many Democrats and the media insisting otherwise,” Oz said in his X post.

In an August press release, CMS said it would ask states to verify eligibility for enrollees whose immigration status could not be confirmed via federal databases. “We expect states to take quick action and will monitor progress on a monthly basis,” the agency said.

Leonardo Cuello, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, called the CMS order to states “unprecedented” in the Medicaid program’s 60-year history.

He said the federal government may have been unable to verify certain individuals’ immigration status because names were misspelled or outdated, such as when a beneficiary is identified by their maiden instead of married name. The names may also include people helped by Emergency Medicaid, a program that covers the cost of hospital emergency services, including labor and delivery, for people regardless of immigration status.

“CMS is conducting pointless immigration status reviews for people whose hospital bills were paid by Emergency Medicaid,” Cuello said.

Oz noted in his post that federal law “does permit states to use Medicaid dollars for emergency treatment, regardless of patients’ citizenship or immigration status,” and that states can “legally build Medicaid programs for illegal immigrants using their own state tax dollars, so long as no federal tax dollars are used.”

The states Oz mentioned all such programs.

The verification checks create an added burden for state Medicaid agencies that are already busy preparing to implement the tax and policy law Trump signed in July. The measure, which Republicans call the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, makes many changes to Medicaid, including adding a work requirement in most states starting by 2027. The law also requires most states to more frequently check the eligibility of many adult Medicaid enrollees — at least twice a year.

“I fear states may do unnecessary checks that create a burden for some enrollees who will lose health coverage who should not,” Cuello said. “It’s going to be a whole lot of work for CMS and states for very little pay dirt.”

Cuello said the effort may have “greater political value than actual value.”

Brandon Cwalina, a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, which runs Medicaid in the state, said the state already requires every Medicaid applicant to verify their citizenship or, where applicable, their eligible immigration status.

However, he said, the directive issued by CMS “constitutes a new process, and DHS is carefully reviewing the list in order to take appropriate actions.”

Oz did not name Pennsylvania, which Trump won in 2024, in his post.

If a lawful resident does not have a Social Security number, the state confirms their legal status by checking a database from Homeland Security, as well as verifying specific immigration documents, he said.

Other state Medicaid agencies said they also needed to regroup before reaching out to enrollees.

“Our teams just received this notice and are working through a process by which we will perform these reviews,” Jennifer Strohecker, then Utah’s Medicaid director, told a state advisory board in August.

Renuka Rayasam and Rae Ellen Bichell contributed reporting.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Premiums for job-based health insurance rose 6% in 2025 to an average of $26,993 a year for family coverage, according to an annual survey of employers released Oct. 22 by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

It’s the first time in two decades that the cost of covering a family of four has risen by 6% or more for three consecutive years, data from KFF shows.

Over the last five years, the average premium for family coverage has increased by 26%, compared with a 29% increase in workers’ wages and nearly 24% growth in inflation. The average cost for family coverage is now about the same as

The average annual premium for an individual health plan provided by employers increased by 5% to $9,325 — nearly $3,000 higher than in 2016, according to the survey.

“It’s a concern as health costs just keep going up,” said Eric Trump, controller at Steve Reiff Inc., a small company in South Whitley, Indiana, that specializes in sandblasting and painting heavy equipment.

Trump, who is not related to President Donald Trump, said his company’s health insurance costs rose 8% for the 2026 fiscal year — roughly the same as they have in the last few years.

Workers at Reiff pay about half the cost of their health coverage. About half of its 20 current employees decline the insurance because they get coverage through a family member or choose to go uninsured, he said. “There’s not a lot we can do as we don’t have enough employees to spread out the costs.”

Most people with job-based insurance contribute to the cost of their premiums, with the average worker this year contributing $1,440 for individual coverage or $6,850 for family coverage.

Over time, more workers have paid increasingly higher deductibles, the amount they must spend out-of-pocket on medical services before their insurer pitches in. More than one‑third of covered workers are enrolled in a plan with a deductible of $2,000 or more for an individual. The share of workers with such a plan has increased 32% over the last five years and 77% over the last 10 years, the report said.

Rising drug and hospital costs as major culprits for rising health insurance costs, and neither shows signs of ebbing.

“Early reports suggest that cost trends will be higher for 2026, potentially leading to higher premium increases unless employers and plans find ways to offset higher costs through changes to benefits, cost sharing, or plan design,” the KFF survey said.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .