Researchers say the children at about a mile away pay the price. They discovered the students there and at other elementary schools near major pollution sites in Pennsylvania had than other children in the state.

Residents and environmental advocates saw reason for hope and relief in the form of a designed to tamp down on coke oven plant pollution. But even before it took effect, President Donald Trump granted in the U.S. — including the one in Clairton — a from the standards.

Trump and Republicans have sought to align themselves with the Make America Healthy Again movement’s populist ideals, such as improving Americans’ food choices and reducing corporate harm to the environment. But the administration is ratcheting up its attacks on the very environmental protections that MAHA followers hold dear.

Taken together, these anti-environmental initiatives will lead to more pollution-related illnesses and higher health care spending, health researchers say. They could also have political ramifications, eroding MAHA’s support for GOP candidates in the November midterm elections if followers believe the party is more beholden to industry than to the movement’s agenda.

, including about a quarter of Republicans, support rolling back environmental regulations, according to a poll by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Some MAHA supporters believe voters will support Republicans because the Trump administration is delivering on other goals important to the movement.

“MAHA has a pretty diverse set of policy goals, ranging from medical freedom to food and the environment,” said David Mansdoerfer, who served in Health and Human Services leadership during Trump’s first term. “In totality, the Trump administration has strongly delivered on much of the MAHA agenda.”

While MAHA voters have been upset at some of the administration’s actions that promote industry, it’s hard to know how that may play out in the midterms, said Christopher Bosso, a professor of public policy and politics at Northeastern University. Many were disillusioned by a Trump they viewed as promoting glyphosate, which HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has .

“The glyphosate thing really ticks off a lot of them; they’re really upset,” Bosso said. “Kennedy said it was poison. If it is a poison, why aren’t we regulating it? That’s where the tension plays out.”

The situation with the Clairton coke plant and the others granted exemptions from regulations underscores the potential public health risks. Six of the 11 factories had “high priority” violations of the Clean Air Act as of last May, according to a Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News analysis. Five coke oven plants logged major violations every quarter for at least three years straight.

“Poisoning continues to some of the most vulnerable residents of Allegheny County,” , who had lived in nearby Glassport, Pennsylvania, said at a about the coke plant.

Environmental Protection Agency spokesperson Brigit Hirsch said the president gave companies extra time because the technology needed to meet a new standard isn't ready yet.

“Forcing plants to comply before the tools exist doesn't make the air cleaner, it just shuts down facilities and kills jobs with nothing to show for it,” Hirsch said.

But environmental groups disagree that the plants were unable to comply at a reasonable cost, and they say the exemption from the EPA requirements shows the Trump administration is prioritizing the coal industry at the expense of public health.

“The Trump administration’s relentless actions to dismantle lifesaving environmental protections are a gut punch to the administration’s own promise to Make America Healthy Again,” said Cathleen Kelly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Hard Times in Clairton

Sprawled across , the Clairton plant operates ovens in which coal is heated to as much as 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit to make up to 4.3 million tons annually of the carbon-rich fuel known as coke. The product is used in blast furnaces to produce iron.

It’s a dirty operation. The process leads to hazardous emissions of that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says can lead to anemia and leukemia, as well as , which can trigger severe asthma.

The Clairton operation has had repeated problems with its emissions and operations, including and of toxic chemicals. The plant has received more than from the Allegheny County Health Department since 2022, stemming largely from a fire in 2018 that led to high emissions, and violated the Clean Air Act in each of the last , with the last compliance monitoring in July 2025, according to the EPA.

Nippon Steel Corp. last year acquired U.S. Steel, which now operates as a subsidiary. The company didn’t respond to an email seeking comment. U.S. Steel said it spends $100 million annually on environmental compliance at Clairton.

“Environmental stewardship is a core value at U. S. Steel, and we remain committed to the safety of our communities,” spokesperson Andrew Fulton said in a written statement.

Clairton was once bustling with movie theaters, a mix of grocery stores, and riverside parks, with a dance pavilion and . But the decline of steel hit hard. The town’s population dwindled from more than in the mid-20th century to as of 2024. until they were razed and replaced with signs saying to keep out. The 1978 movie , which depicts a hardscrabble industrial town, is partly set there. Today, about 33% of residents live in poverty.

While the plant brings jobs and revenue, residents of the town and the surrounding areas have long complained about health problems they attribute to its emissions.

“My parents are gone. My mom had cancer, my dad,” , a Clairton resident, said at a 2025 County Council meeting. “I lost a lot of loved ones and seen other ones pass because of this mill.”

Pediatric allergist looked into asthma rates among 1,200 children who attended school near major pollution sites in the area — including students at Clairton Elementary School. They had nearly triple the national rate of asthma, with the highest rate among African American youth, according to she led.

“We were shocked,” she said. “It was double or triple what we expected. The people are proud of their industrial background. We need steel, but they’re not running a good enough operation.”

A found children with asthma living near the coke plant had an 80% higher chance of missing school when sulfur dioxide pollution was elevated.

Allegheny County, which includes Clairton and Pittsburgh, is home to a number of industrial plants, and to increased deaths, chronic heart disease, and adverse birth outcomes. It was ranked in the top 1% of counties in the nation for cancer risk from stationary industrial air pollutants in a 2018 .

Clairton has an age-adjusted cancer death rate of 170 per 100,000 people, higher than the broader county’s rate of 150 deaths per 100,000 people, based on a Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News analysis of .

The American Lung Association in 2025 gave the county an F rating for its particle pollution levels. PennEnvironment, an environmental group that was party to a settlement with U.S. Steel involving the Clairton plant, says the coke operation caused of toxic releases in 2021, which amounted to 60% of all such releases in the county that year.

From 2020 through 2025, the Clairton plant racked up more in fines from Clean Air Act penalties than any other coke oven facility nationwide, costing U.S. Steel over $10 million, according to EPA facility reports.

“We are deeply concerned with exemptions, which allow air toxics to affect public health,” Allegheny County Health Department spokesperson Ronnie Das said in a statement.

The Clairton plant provides and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue to the area. The jobs help generate nearly $3 billion in annual economic output, according to estimates from the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association.

Some community members and advocacy groups hoped air quality would improve after the coke plant was sold. has pledged to upgrade facilities in the Monongahela River Valley.

Politics, Waivers, and Environmental Concerns

Under the Biden-era rule, coke plants were supposed to start meeting from the lids and doors of ovens that heat coal. They would also have had to monitor for benzene at their property lines and take steps to lower emissions of the carcinogen if they exceeded certain levels. Compliance deadlines were set for July 2025.

The Trump administration, which has sought to revive the coal industry, intervened. Last year, it , including coke plants such as Clairton’s, to seek from issued in 2024 by the EPA.

Then Trump in November went further, granting all coke plants a two-year compliance break.

The reprieve was necessary, the EPA spokesperson Hirsch said, because the requirements would have meant extra costs for the industry when standards already in effect work “extremely well” at reducing pollution.

Hirsch also said the agency under Trump is protecting the environment, pointing to action the administration has taken to called PFAS, prevent lead poisoning, strengthen chemical safety, and protect Americans’ food and water supply.

“We are building a future where the next generation of Americans is the healthiest in our nation's history, and they inherit the cleanest air, land and water in the world,” Hirsch said.

However, the administration has taken several steps that environmental advocates say weaken health protections.

The president's executive order on glyphosate, an herbicide the World Health Organization has linked to cancer, which touched off a furor among MAHA enthusiasts who said they felt betrayed. The EPA has decided to stop considering the of reducing pollution when making policy decisions, instead focusing on the cost to industry of complying with rules. The agency also rescinded the legal and scientific basis that had long established as dangerous to public health.

The actions have rankled some MAHA enthusiasts who counted on the administration to tackle chronic disease, especially among children. A petition to Trump on with more than 15,000 signatures called for the removal of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, it said supported corporations over MAHA goals.

Some MAHA enthusiasts have sounded off on social media.

“No one should believe that MAHA is being upheld at the EPA at this point,” , a leader of American Regeneration, which focuses on a conservation approach to farming, said Feb. 8 on X.

, host of a , also aired her concerns on X, saying “there is something really freaking spooky going on at the EPA and I refuse to let the American people be gaslit into thinking they’re upholding the MAHA agenda.”

“A significant number of people who supported Trump are worried these rollbacks are going to hurt their health,” said , a Democratic strategist and the founder of the communications firm Third Degree Strategies. “The MAHA voters, especially women, are very sensitive to this. Republicans have put themselves in a bind.”

MAHA supporters shouldn’t be surprised by a Trump administration that doesn’t prioritize environmental protections over industry, because the president has always championed fossil fuels, said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a nonpartisan election forecasting newsletter published by the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

The coke plant exemptions have disappointed some community members, environmental groups, and regulators concerned about public health and emissions.

Nearly 300,000 people live within 3 miles of the 11 active coke plants across the U.S., according to EPA data compiled by the Environmental Defense Fund.

Weakening environmental rules has helped boost Trump with the U.S. coal industry. In February, mining industry executives and lobbyists gathered at the White House, .

Coal miners, including some in white hard hats bedecked with American flags, with a bronze-colored trophy emblazoned “The Undisputed Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal.”

At the event, Trump praised their work. “We love clean, beautiful coal,” he said.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Other drivers stopped, broke the car window, and pulled him to safety. A passing volunteer firefighter performed CPR until an ambulance arrived to take Masterson to UPMC Mercy hospital.

He spent 18 days in the medical intensive care unit there, 14 of them on a ventilator. He developed delirium, a common ICU condition, and needed antipsychotic drugs. Despite a feeding tube, he lost weight. “We honestly weren’t confident that he would pull through,” said Ron Dedes, his brother-in-law.

But he did. Masterson was discharged Feb. 1 and returned home with near-constant family support. Working diligently with several kinds of therapists, he has regained his ability to walk, despite lingering weakness, and to manage his personal care. His once-garbled speech has markedly improved. He can make himself a sandwich.

Now, “our biggest concern is his memory,” Dedes said. Masterson, who so recently handled complex legal matters, forgets conversations and events that happened a few hours earlier, said Patti Dedes, his sister. He can’t yet operate a microwave or place a phone call.

In an interview, he described himself, accurately, as “much, much better than I was” — but misstated his age. Screening tests after his discharge indicated cognitive impairment and depression.

Among critical-care doctors, prolonged symptoms like his are known as “post-intensive care syndrome,” or PICS. The fallout can be physical or psychological, as well as cognitive, and can persist for months or years.

More than are admitted to intensive care across about 5,000 American hospitals, and research shows that . Older age increases the odds.

Patients and families are often startled by these continuing difficulties. “The belief is that they’ll be discharged from the hospital and in two or three weeks, they’ll be back to normal,” said Brad Butcher, who was Masterson’s doctor and in the medical journal JAMA. “That doesn’t comport with reality.”

In fact, with greater ICU use and improved treatments — the Society of Critical Care Medicine estimates that their stays — the population likely to encounter the syndrome is growing.

“Everyone is grateful that the patient has survived,” said Lauren Ferrante, a pulmonary critical-care doctor and researcher at the Yale School of Medicine. “But that’s just the start of a long road to recovery.” In a study of patients 70 and older that she co-authored, within six months after discharge only about half had .

Intensive care patients face a . PICS symptoms — weakness, pain, neuropathy (tingling in arms and legs), and malnutrition — to , primarily anxiety and depression. like Masterson’s are commonplace, including problems with memory, attention and concentration, and language.

“For many people, surviving a critical illness is a life-altering experience,” Butcher said. Patients in intensive care after emergency or elective surgery also of new physical, mental, and cognitive problems a year later.

The same aggressive treatments that save lives contribute to the syndrome. Intensive care patients “have some sort of dramatic organ failure that requires immediate attention” and constant monitoring, explained Carla Sevin, a pulmonary critical-care doctor who directs the ICU Recovery Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

That could mean a breathing tube attached to a ventilator, which in turn often requires sedating drugs. Sedation “can precipitate delirium, and delirium is the key factor in cognitive symptoms,” Butcher said.

It doesn’t help that constant beeps and alarms from monitors and round-the-clock bright lighting disrupt sleep, and that restrictive family visiting hours deprive patients of reassuring faces and voices.

Gregory Matthews, a retired accountant in St. Petersburg, Florida, spent nearly a month in an ICU after a lung transplant in 2014. He still vividly remembers his hallucinations, including mice running across the wall and someone trying to frame him for drug running.

“One day, I thought a doctor was an assassin — I could see the rifle,” said Matthews, now 80. “So I jumped out of bed,” he said, and yanked out his IVs. The staff put his arms in restraints for days.

But immobilization exacts its own toll as patients quickly lose muscle mass and strength. “Our bodies were not meant to lie in bed all day,” Ferrante said.

Psychologically, “PTSD is pretty common, similar to what’s seen in combat veterans or sexual assault survivors,” Sevin said, referring to post-traumatic stress disorder. Families can suffer anxiety and depression along with the patients.

Alarmed by such discoveries, doctors and administrators at about 35 U.S. hospitals have established , where teams of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, therapists (physical, occupational, cognitive, speech), and social workers screen for a host of conditions and help guide patients through them.

Vanderbilt’s clinic saw its first patient in 2012. The Critical Illness Recovery Center at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which Butcher founded in 2018, works with about 100 patients a year, including Masterson. Yale opened its clinic in 2022.

They rely on six practices recommended by the Society of Critical Care Medicine that are shown to . The measures call for changes such as using lighter sedation, getting patients up and moving earlier, testing their breathing daily to wean them from ventilators sooner, and removing restrictions on family visiting.

Clinics often offer support groups for patients and families. There’s evidence that keeping an ICU diary, in which patients and caregivers record their experiences, and engaging in exercise and physical rehabilitation after discharge.

Also on the clinics’ agenda: discussions of what other options patients might prefer if they face another critical illness, as many do. Would they agree to undergo intensive care and risk its aftereffects again? Or choose palliative care, which emphasizes comfort rather than cure? Some post-ICU patients remain permanently impaired.

Butcher, although he said that the use of the new practices needed to expand dramatically, sounded optimistic about the future of critical care. “We’re going to find better diagnostic tools, better preventive strategies, and better therapies,” he said.

For now, though, the ICU experience remains disorienting and sometimes traumatic. When Butcher asked 117 patients in his post-ICU clinic those next-time questions, many wanted to place limits on further medical interventions.

About a third would want to lower the level of aggressive care. Of those, about a quarter would want “do not resuscitate” and “do not intubate” orders, and almost 7% said they never wanted to return to an ICU.

Masterson is working hard to further his recovery. “I haven’t been out and about much,” he said. “I’ve been kind of homebound.” He hopes to get strong enough to resume running — he used to log 3 to 4 miles several times a week.

The future for patients contending with post-ICU syndrome often depends on their physical, mental, and cognitive health before their admission. Masterson’s previous fitness and cognitively demanding work bode well for his further progress, Butcher said.

His family remains alternatively hopeful and worried. “Down the road, what’s it going to be like?” Dedes, his brother-in-law, wondered. “We just take it day by day.”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with .

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Pero, siete meses después, los resultados de cinco estados compartidos con Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News muestran que las revisiones han encontrado poca evidencia de que este sea un problema generalizado.

Solo los ciudadanos de Estados Unidos y algunos inmigrantes con presencia legal pueden acceder a Medicaid, que cubre costos de atención médica para personas con bajos ingresos y discapacidades, así como al Programa de Seguro Médico Infantil (CHIP, por sus siglas en inglés). Ambos programas son administrados por los estados.

Voceros de las agencias de Medicaid de Pennsylvania y Colorado dijeron que, hasta marzo, los estados no habían encontrado a nadie que debiera ser dado de baja de Medicaid. Esto después de revisar un total combinado de 79.000 nombres.

A solicitud de la administración Trump, Texas revisó los registros de más de 28.000 inscritos en Medicaid y canceló la cobertura de 77, según Jennifer Ruffcorn, vocera del Departamento de Servicios Humanos de Texas.

Ohio ha revisado 65.000 inscritos en Medicaid, de los cuales 260 personas fueron dadas de baja del programa, dijo Stephanie O’Grady, vocera del Departamento de Medicaid de ese estado.

En Utah, 42 de los 8.000 inscritos identificados por la administración Trump perdieron su cobertura de Medicaid, dijo Becky Wickstrom, vocera del Departamento de Servicios Laborales estatal.

Al anunciar las revisiones, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretario del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS), dijo: “Estamos reforzando la supervisión de las inscripciones para proteger el dinero de los contribuyentes y garantizar que estos programas vitales sirvan solo a quienes realmente cumplen con los requisitos de la ley”.

Leonardo Cuello, profesor de investigación en el Centro para Niños y Familias de la Universidad de Georgetown, indicó que las revisiones ordenadas por los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS) eran innecesarias porque los estados verifican el estatus migratorio cuando las personas se inscriben.

“Es totalmente predecible que todas estas revisiones, que imponen una carga a los estados por parte del gobierno federal, no arrojen resultados”, dijo Cuello. “Los estados ya habían hecho las revisiones una vez, y los CMS solo los estaba obligando a verificar de nuevo la misma información. Hacer que los estados pasen por el mismo proceso burocrático dos veces es increíblemente ineficiente y una manera de malgastar dinero”.

Chris Krepich, vocero de los CMS, dijo en un comunicado a Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News que las verificaciones en curso están confirmando la elegibilidad “de ciertos inscritos cuyo estatus no pudo ser confirmado mediante fuentes de datos federales”.

“Los CMS proporcionan a los estados informes periódicos para revisiones de seguimiento, y los estados son responsables de verificar de forma independiente la elegibilidad y tomar las medidas apropiadas de acuerdo con los requisitos federales”, agregó.

Sin embargo, los hallazgos compartidos con Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News también sugieren que muchos de los inscritos, cuyo estatus la administración Trump dijo no poder confirmar, son ciudadanos de Estados Unidos.

O’Grady dijo que Ohio encontró que, de los 65.000 nombres enviados por el gobierno federal, el estado ya tenía información sobre 53.000 que confirmaba que eran ciudadanos y otros 11.000 con estatus migratorio adecuado para Medicaid.

Luego, los trabajadores de casos revisaron los 1.000 nombres restantes para evaluar su información o solicitar más detalles, dijo.

Los CMS no respondieron preguntas sobre los hallazgos de los estados analizados por Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News ni proporcionaron información sobre las respuestas recibidas de los 50 estados y el Distrito de Columbia, a los que se les ordenó realizar las verificaciones.

La agencia tampoco respondió a una pregunta sobre si está enviando los nombres de las personas cuya cobertura de Medicaid fue cancelada a las autoridades federales de inmigración.

En junio, asesores de Kennedy ordenaron a los CMS compartir información sobre los inscritos en Medicaid con el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS), lo que provocó una demanda de algunos estados preocupados de que la administración usara la información para su campaña de deportaciones contra personas que viven en Estados Unidos sin autorización.

Un juez federal que los trabajadores del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) podían acceder solo a información sobre personas en el país sin autorización en las bases de datos de Medicaid de los estados que presentaron la demanda.

Los CMS siguen enviando a los estados listas de nombres al menos cada pocos meses, aunque funcionarios estatales dicen que las cifras han disminuido desde la primera tanda de envíos el verano pasado.

Las personas sin estatus legal no pueden acceder a cobertura de salud financiada con fondos federales, incluyendo Medicaid, Medicare y los planes de los mercados de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA). Medicaid sí reembolsa a los hospitales por brindar atención de emergencia a personas sin papeles si cumplen con los requisitos de ingresos y otros criterios del programa.

Siete estados y el Distrito de Columbia ofrecen cobertura de salud sin importar el estatus migratorio, financiando los programas con sus propios recursos.

En marzo de 2025, los CMS iniciaron revisiones financieras de esos programas. “Los CMS han identificado más de $1.800 millones en fondos federales que están siendo recuperados mediante devoluciones voluntarias y aplazamientos de pagos federales futuros de Medicaid”, dijo Krepich. No respondió cuánto se ha recuperado hasta ahora ni de qué estados.

El gasto total de Medicaid superó los $900.000 millones en el año fiscal 2024.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

“I call it the unaffordable care act,” he said. He reprised the line in his address, blaming “the crushing cost of health care” on Obamacare.

Trump’s words also play off an ongoing congressional debate that began late last year with the expiration of the enhanced tax subsidies that had lowered the cost of ACA insurance for millions of Americans — and thrust the issue of ACA-related costs back to center stage.

Without those enhanced subsidies, the amount people pay toward monthly Obamacare premiums doubled, on average. The number of people enrolled in ACA coverage for this year has dropped by more than a million, and experts say more people could abandon coverage once premiums come due. Democrats are using this development to crank up the heat on Republicans ahead of the November elections and steer the conversation on the affordability issue.

Republicans fault the law itself for driving up these costs. For instance, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) that premiums “skyrocketed across the country since it took effect.”

Critics routinely point to several provisions within the ACA as the culprits — among them, essential health benefits, or EHBs. Under the law, Obamacare plans must cover certain essential services, including emergency care, hospitalization, maternity, and prescription drugs, without annual or lifetime dollar limits. But connecting EHBs to the premium increases felt by consumers is not straightforward.

Here’s a primer on key issues involved.

Checking the Numbers

It’s clear that Obamacare premiums have increased.

An analysis by the right-leaning Paragon Health Institute shows that the average premium for a 50-year-old with Obamacare since 2014. The average premium for employer-based plans grew 68% during that same time.

Paragon’s president, , told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that this shows the ACA has made health care on the individual market more expensive.

Still, the comparison overlooks a couple of points. Pre-ACA, employer plans generally offered more generous coverage than individual market plans, so work-based coverage cost more. And individual plans were cheaper in part because they could bar applicants with health problems. Beginning in 2014, the ACA forced individual policies to look more like employer plans, covering a broader range of benefits and accepting both healthy and unhealthy applicants. As a result, premiums rose that first year. In the years that followed, ACA plans often experienced faster growth in premiums than job-based plans. Some policy analysts say this isn’t surprising because ACA plans started at a lower dollar base and had more room to rise.

States that saw less dramatic post-ACA premium increases, such as Massachusetts and New York, already mandated that individual-market plans provide EHB-like coverage, noted , a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. These states also had higher premiums due to that and other provisions, such as not allowing plans to exclude people with preexisting conditions.

“It was a combination of things,” he said.

Blase acknowledges that the two types of insurance started at different price points. But he said the percentage change over time shows that the ACA faces “underlying inflationary pressures” — including the now-expired, more generous, covid pandemic-era subsidies — that affect its policyholders more so than employer plans.

Aside from that point, however, were on the rise even before the ACA took effect.

An analysis by Jonathan Gruber at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that between 2008 and 2010, premiums grew by at least 10% a year and were highly variable across states and insurers.

Consumers’ Other Costs

Over time, ACA deductibles — the amounts policyholders must satisfy in a given year before insurance kicks in — have seen large increases, with “bronze” plans now averaging $7,476 annually, up from $5,113 in 2014, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. Bronze plans tend to have lower premiums than the other metal-level categories — “silver,” “gold,” and “platinum” — in part because of their higher deductibles.

The Trump administration is doubling down on high-deductible plans as part of its emphasis on affordability, making it easier this year for people age 30 and up to qualify for what are called “catastrophic plans.” These come with even larger deductibles than bronze plans.

The administration pitched a broad regulatory plan for 2027 to cement those changes, saying it was designed to lower premiums and expand choices. It would raise next year’s deductibles for catastrophic plans to $15,600 a year for an individual or around $30,000 for a family. It isn’t clear how popular such plans would be. Detailed enrollment figures for this year are not yet available, but estimates indicate only about 54,000 people chose catastrophic plans in 2025, and consumers can’t use federal subsidies to purchase them.

Before this Trump proposal, though, recent data showed that the rising rate of ACA plan deductibles had not outpaced deductibles for employer plans.

The weighted average — a calculation that gives more weight to ACA plans with the most people enrolled — shows in annual deductible amounts since 2014, from $1,881 to $2,912. During that same period, deductibles in plans offered by 59%, from $1,186 to $1,886, according to KFF’s annual employer survey.

Essential What?

To be clear, the ACA’s catastrophic and bronze plans must cover essential health benefits, as do all Obamacare plans. These EHBs fall into 10 categories of medical services and were included in the ACA to ensure individual policies meet a minimum standard of coverage and are comparable to employer-based health insurance.

Preventive services, such as annual checkups, vaccines, and certain cancer screenings, must be covered at no additional cost to patients. All plans must completely cover the cost of specific vaccines, including the annual flu shot. And insurers cannot refuse to pay for emergency care provided at an out-of-network hospital. Other EHBs are subject to out-of-pocket costs, such as copays at the doctor’s office or pharmacy counter.

In some ways, EHBs save money because they’ve increased access to preventive care, said , a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Services such as cancer screenings and lab tests can lead to earlier detection of serious conditions, when treatment is less costly, and positive outcomes are more likely.

“If you look down the list of essential health benefits, I think most people would reach the judgment that those are health care services that people should have access to,” said Larry Levitt, KFF’s executive vice president for health policy.

Joseph Antos, a senior fellow emeritus at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said ACA requirements — such as requiring insurers to accept anyone, regardless of their health status, and limiting insurers’ ability to charge older people more for coverage — also have played roles in boosting premiums.

“Really, it’s practically impossible to tease any one thing out,” Antos said.

States do have latitude to add benefits that fall under the EHB umbrella. For example, bariatric surgery is covered as an EHB in , but not in . Pennsylvania’s EHBs also don’t include hearing aids, but do.

But the Trump administration’s 2027 regulatory proposal : When “states enact benefit mandates, plan premiums must generally increase to account for the additional coverage,” it reads. It also signals that added benefits can raise consumer costs and proposes that states be required to use their own funds to offset some of those costs.

Paragon’s Blase echoed this take in his bottom line. Mandating that plans cover EHBs without annual or lifetime caps, as required under the ACA law, encourages clinicians to overbill and overprescribe, he said. That drives up premiums and means a bigger check for insurers and medical providers at the expense of taxpayers. “You just turn patients into money factories,” he said.

, a senior research fellow at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, disagrees, saying that whatever EHBs’ role, they aren’t to blame for the year-over-year premium hikes.

People aren’t consuming medical care at exponential rates just because certain services are now covered: “Me not paying anything for that colonoscopy doesn’t make me want to get more of them,” she said.

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and share your story.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Miller, quien es neurocientífica, dijo que consultó a varios psiquiatras y recibió receta tras receta de distintos medicamentos. Durante dos años, probó cuatro antidepresivos y dos antipsicóticos. Nada de eso ayudó hasta que su doctor de atención primaria notó niveles altos de un marcador autoinmune en su sangre.

Un especialista luego le hizo “todas las pruebas posibles”, dijo Miller. Finalmente, la diagnosticaron con la enfermedad autoinmune lupus y le recetaron un esteroide para reducir la inflamación. Algunos de sus síntomas mejoraron en cuestión de horas. Su depresión disminuyó poco después.

“Estaba convencida de que era un efecto placebo”, dijo Miller, “pero luego siguió funcionando”.

¿Había contribuido la inflamación a sus problemas de salud mental todo el tiempo? Miller cree que sí, aunque no puede saberlo con certeza. Sus psiquiatras nunca mencionaron esa posibilidad, dijo.

En la mayoría de las especialidades médicas, los doctores pueden confirmar si deben seguir un tipo de tratamiento mediante pruebas, como análisis de sangre, estudios de imagen y biopsias. Sin embargo, los trastornos mentales históricamente se han diagnosticado y tratado en base a síntomas visibles. Eso podría cambiar.

En la Asociación Americana de Psiquiatría incluyó ideas sobre cómo podría incorporar biomarcadores —indicadores biológicos de enfermedad mental que pueden aparecer en pruebas diagnósticas— en futuras versiones de su Manual Diagnóstico y Estadístico de los Trastornos Mentales (DSM, por sus siglas en inglés).

El DSM, a veces llamado por su influencia en el campo, proporciona criterios de diagnóstico. Lo utilizan clínicos que evalúan a pacientes y aseguradoras para decidir si cubren la atención.

Se necesita investigación “coordinada”

Los biomarcadores psiquiátricos aún no están listos para un uso generalizado, enfatiza el documento. Los científicos han investigado el tema por décadas, con pocos resultados. Se necesita más investigación para demostrar que estas mediciones son lo suficientemente válidas y confiables para usarse en la atención de pacientes, señala el documento de la asociación, y otros investigadores han planteado dudas sobre cómo su uso podría afectar los costos de la atención médica, la cobertura y la privacidad de los pacientes.

Agregar biomarcadores al DSM sería “algo muy importante”, dijo Jonathan Alpert, autor del documento de enero y vicepresidente del Comité Estratégico del Futuro del DSM de la asociación profesional.

El acceso a resultados de pruebas, junto con los síntomas, podría agilizar las decisiones de cobertura de seguros y ayudar a los clínicos a hacer diagnósticos y recomendaciones de tratamiento más rápidos y precisos, dijo. Si la biología de los pacientes sugiere que responderán mejor a un tratamiento que a otro, el doctor podría comenzar de inmediato con esa opción.

Actualmente, recetar medicamentos psiquiátricos puede ser “algo incierto”, ya que los clínicos no pueden predecir si funcionarán en un paciente en particular, dijo Matthew Eisenberg, director del Centro de Políticas de Salud Mental y Adicciones de la Escuela de Salud Pública Bloomberg de la Universidad Johns Hopkins.

En de principios de la década de 2000 financiado por el Instituto Nacional de Salud Mental, alrededor del 30% de los participantes con depresión vieron desaparecer sus síntomas con su primer tratamiento antidepresivo. Ese estudio sigue siendo uno de los ensayos más sólidos realizados sobre antidepresivos, aunque investigadores que menos personas se curan con estos medicamentos de lo que sugieren sus resultados.

Este enfoque de prueba y error puede llevar a recetas ineficaces e innecesarias, un tema criticado por defensores del movimiento Make America Healthy Again, encabezado por el secretario del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Kennedy ha sido especialmente , al vincularlos con la violencia después de sin evidencia y culpar a los doctores por recetar en exceso medicamentos a niños.

El HHS está analizando tendencias en diagnósticos y recetas psiquiátricas y evaluando enfoques alternativos de tratamiento en salud mental, con especial atención en niños, dijo la vocera Emily Hilliard en un comunicado. Hilliard no respondió a una pregunta sobre comentarios previos de Kennedy.

Los biomarcadores ya se utilizan para guiar tratamientos en otras áreas médicas, como la oncología. Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Texas y exigen que las aseguradoras cubran este tipo de pruebas. También se utilizan análisis de sangre y estudios de imagen para ayudar a diagnosticar la enfermedad de Alzheimer.

La Asociación Americana de Psiquiatría incluyó en su artículo varias formas en que los biomarcadores psiquiátricos podrían usarse en el futuro, como pruebas de actividad cerebral, perfiles genéticos o marcadores inmunológicos asociados con ciertas condiciones psiquiátricas, incluidas la esquizofrenia y las adicciones.

En la depresión, por ejemplo, alrededor de una cuarta parte de los pacientes tiene niveles elevados de una proteína inflamatoria llamada proteína C reactiva, que puede detectarse mediante un análisis de sangre. Las que las personas con niveles altos de esta proteína parecen responder mejor cuando reciben medicamentos que modifican los niveles de dopamina en el cerebro, en lugar de usar solo inhibidores selectivos de la recaptación de serotonina (ISRS), un tipo común de antidepresivo.

La proteína C reactiva aún necesita ser “validada de manera sólida” como biomarcador, según el documento de la APA, pero es una de las opciones más prometedoras bajo estudio.

Se necesita un esfuerzo de investigación “coordinado y bien financiado” para lograr esa validación, escribió la asociación, lo cual es incierto ya que la administración Trump recortó el financiamiento para investigación.

Solo al Instituto Nacional de Salud Mental se le cancelaron en 2025 al menos 128 subvenciones, por un valor de casi $173 millones, según en la revista JAMA. Aunque desde entonces algunas subvenciones han sido restauradas, los investigadores que dependen de fondos federales aún temen recortes.

“Hay una gran necesidad de financiamiento continuo y activo para la investigación relacionada con la salud mental”, dijo Alpert, pero los científicos tendrán que enfrentar “incertidumbres en el panorama de financiamiento”.

Efectos en cobertura y costos

Los costos de la atención médica entre pacientes con enfermedades mentales mal controladas, como hospitalizaciones, consultas ambulatorias y medicamentos. Algunas investigaciones sugieren que las pruebas de biomarcadores podrían ahorrar dinero al encontrar tratamientos adecuados más rápido y evitar algunos de estos costos.

Unestimó que las pruebas para identificar componentes genéticos que pueden influir en la efectividad de un medicamento podrían ahorrar al sistema de salud de Canadá $956 millones en 20 años si se aplican en adultos con depresión mayor en British Columbia., de investigadores españoles, encontró que estas pruebas redujeron costos para la mayoría de los 188 participantes con enfermedad mental grave.

No se sabe si ocurriría lo mismo en el sistema de salud de Estados Unidos. A corto plazo, dijo Eisenberg, un enfoque que use biomarcadores podría aumentar el gasto en atención médica debido al costo de las pruebas.

Las aseguradoras podrían negarse a cubrir pruebas de biomarcadores costosas, agregó. “Toma tiempo demostrar que la nueva evidencia científica es segura y efectiva”, dijo Eisenberg. “Y una vez que lo es, las aseguradoras no la cubren de inmediato”.

Algunos investigadores han expresado preocupación de que aseguradoras o empleadores puedan discriminar a personas cuyos perfiles biológicos sugieren riesgo de desarrollar afecciones neuropsiquiátricas graves.

Es un “momento crítico” para considerar enfoques legislativos que protejan a los pacientes y capaciten a los clínicos sobre cómo usar estas herramientas de manera adecuada, dijo Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz, miembro del Centro de Bioética de la Escuela de Medicina de Harvard.

“No creo que el campo de la psiquiatría esté listo en este momento para manejar esto”, dijo.

El sistema de salud mental no está listo para “avanzar por completo”, dijo Andrew Miller, profesor de psiquiatría y ciencias del comportamiento en la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad Emory, quien estudia la depresión relacionada con la inflamación. Pero la adopción de biomarcadores por parte de la asociación de psiquiatría marca “el inicio de una revolución”, dijo.

“Esto es un reconocimiento… de que lo que hemos hecho hasta ahora no ha sido suficiente”, dijo Miller. “Y podemos hacerlo mejor”.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Miller, a neuroscientist, said she saw several psychiatrists and got prescriptions for drug after drug. Over two years, she tried four antidepressants and two antipsychotics. None of that helped — until her primary care doctor noticed high levels of an autoimmune marker in her blood.

A specialist then ran “every test in the book,” Miller said. Eventually, she was diagnosed with the autoimmune disease lupus and prescribed an inflammation-lowering steroid. Some of her symptoms let up within hours. Her depression subsided not long after.

“I was convinced it was a placebo effect,” Miller said, “but then it kept working.”

Had inflammation been contributing to her mental health problems all along? Miller thinks so, although she can’t know for sure. Her psychiatrists never raised that possibility, she said.

In most medical specialties, doctors can confirm whether to pursue a type of treatment through tests, such as blood work, imaging, and biopsies. Mental illnesses, however, have historically been diagnosed and treated based on outward symptoms. That could change.

The American Psychiatric Association included ideas for how it might incorporate biomarkers — biological indicators of mental illness that could show up on diagnostic tests — into future versions of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

The DSM, sometimes because of its influence in the field, provides criteria for diagnoses. It’s used by clinicians assessing patients and by insurance companies deciding whether to cover care.

‘Coordinated’ Research Needed

Psychiatric biomarkers are not ready for widespread use yet, the paper emphasized. Scientists have researched the topic for decades, with little to show for it. More research is needed to prove these metrics are valid and reliable enough to be used in patient care, the APA’s paper said, and other researchers have raised questions about how their use could affect health care costs, insurance coverage, and patient privacy.

Adding biomarkers to the DSM would be “a very big deal,” said Jonathan Alpert, an author of the January paper and vice chair of the APA’s Future DSM Strategic Committee.

Access to test results, along with symptoms, could streamline insurance coverage decisions and help clinicians make faster and more accurate diagnoses and treatment recommendations, he said. If patients’ biology suggested they’d respond better to one treatment than another, their doctor could waste no time in starting there.

Currently, prescribing psychiatric medications can be “a bit of a crapshoot,” with clinicians unable to predict whether they will work for a particular patient, said Matthew Eisenberg, director of the Center for Mental Health and Addiction Policy at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.

In a funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, about 30% of the study’s participants with depression saw symptoms disappear with their first antidepressant treatment. That study is still one of the most robust antidepressant trials conducted — although researchers have that fewer people are cured by these medications than its results suggest.

Such a trial-and-error approach can lead to ineffective and unnecessary prescriptions, a topic of attack by proponents of the Make America Healthy Again movement, spearheaded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy has been especially , having linked them to violence after a without evidence and blaming doctors for overprescribing medications for children.

HHS is analyzing psychiatric diagnosis and prescription trends and evaluating alternative mental health treatment approaches, with a particular focus on children, spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in a statement. Hilliard did not respond to a question about Kennedy’s previous comments.

Biomarkers are already used to guide treatment in other medical disciplines, such as oncology. Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Texas, and require insurers to cover such testing. Blood and imaging tests are now used to help diagnose Alzheimer’s disease as well.

The APA included in its article a variety of ways psychiatric biomarkers could be used in the future — such as testing for brain activity, genetic profiles, or immune markers associated with certain psychiatric conditions, including schizophrenia and substance use disorders.

In depression, for example, about a quarter of patients have elevated levels of an inflammatory protein, called C-reactive protein, that can be found through a blood test. that people with high levels of this protein seem to respond better when given drugs that alter dopamine levels in the brain, rather than using only selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, a common type of antidepressant. C-reactive protein still needs to be “robustly validated” as a biomarker, according to the APA’s paper, but it’s among the most promising currently under investigation.

A “coordinated, well-funded” research effort is needed to achieve such validation, the APA wrote — a tenuous prospect since the Trump administration slashed funding for research.

The National Institute of Mental Health alone had at least 128 grants, worth almost $173 million, canceled in 2025, according to a . Though some grants have since been restored, researchers relying on federal money still fear their work is vulnerable to cuts.

“There’s a great need for continued, active funding of research related to mental health,” Alpert said, but scientists will have to grapple with “uncertainties of the funding landscape.”

Ripple Effects on Coverage, Costs

Health care costs among patients with poorly controlled mental illnesses, like hospital visits, outpatient appointments, and prescriptions. Some research suggests biomarker testing could save money by landing on the right treatments faster and avoiding some of these costs.

estimated that testing to look for genetic components that may influence a drug’s effectiveness could save the Canadian health system $956 million over 20 years if used among adults with major depression in British Columbia. , by Spanish researchers, found that such testing reduced costs for most of the 188 participants with serious mental illness.

Whether the same would be true in the U.S. health care system is unknown. In the short term, Johns Hopkins’ Eisenberg said, an approach that uses biomarkers could raise health care spending due to the costs of testing.

Insurers may decline to cover pricey biomarker tests, he added. “It takes a while for new science to be proven safe and effective,” Eisenberg said. “And once it is, insurance companies don’t cover it immediately.”

Some researchers have raised concerns that insurers or employers could discriminate against people whose biological profiles of developing serious neuropsychiatric conditions.

It’s a “critical moment” to consider legislative approaches to protect patients and train clinicians about how to appropriately use these tools, said Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz, a member of Harvard Medical School’s Center for Bioethics.

“I do not think that the field of psychiatry is currently ready to manage this,” he said.

The mental health system isn’t ready to “jump in with both feet,” said Andrew Miller, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Emory University School of Medicine, who studies inflammation-related depression. But the APA’s embrace of biomarkers signals “the beginning of a revolution,” he said.

“This is a recognition … that what we’ve done up to this point has not been good enough,” Miller said. “And we can do better.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Después de que Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretario del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS, por sus siglas en inglés), despidiera a Susan Monarez, directora de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC, por sus siglas en inglé), por negarse a lo que sus abogados calificaron , Newsom para ayudar a modernizar el sistema de salud pública de California.

También dio trabajo a Debra Houry, ex directora científica y médica de la agencia, quien había renunciado en protesta pocas horas después del despido de Monarez.

Newsom también se asoció con los gobernadores demócratas Tina Kotek, de Oregon; Bob Ferguson, de Washington; y Josh Green, de Hawaii para formar la , una agencia regional de salud pública.

Los gobernadores que sus recomendaciones “defenderán la integridad científica en la salud pública mientras Trump destruye” la credibilidad de los CDC. Newsom argumentó que crear la alianza independiente era vital mientras Kennedy lidera el retroceso de las recomendaciones nacionales de vacunación de la administración Trump.

Más recientemente, California se convirtió en el primer estado en de respuesta a brotes coordinada por la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), seguido por Illinois y Nueva York. Colorado y Wisconsin indicaron que planean unirse.

Esto ocurrió después de que el presidente Donald Trump a Estados Unidos de la agencia, argumentando que la OMS “se ha desviado de su misión principal y ha actuado en contra de los intereses de Estados Unidos para proteger al público estadounidense en múltiples ocasiones”.

Newsom dijo que unirse al consorcio liderado por la OMS permitirá a California responder más rápido a brotes de enfermedades contagiosas y a otras amenazas a la salud pública.

Aunque otros gobernadores demócratas y líderes de salud pública han criticado abiertamente al gobierno federal, pocos han sido tan directos como Newsom, quien considera postularse a la presidencia en 2028 y está en su segundo y último mandato como gobernador.

Miembros de la comunidad científica han elogiado su esfuerzo por construir una defensa de salud pública frente a los recortes de financiamiento y la reducción de las recomendaciones de vacunas por parte del gobierno federal.

Lo que está haciendo Newsom “es una gran idea”, dijo Paul Offit, crítico de Kennedy y experto en vacunas que anteriormente formó parte del comité asesor de vacunas de la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA, por sus siglas en inglés), pero fue removido bajo la administración Trump en 2025.

“La salud pública se ha puesto de cabeza”, dijo Offit. “Tenemos a un activista antivacunas y negador de la ciencia al frente del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos. Es peligroso”.

La Casa Blanca no respondió a preguntas sobre la postura de Newsom y el HHS rechazó solicitudes para entrevistar a Kennedy.

En cambio, funcionarios federales de salud criticaron a los demócratas en general y argumentaron que los estados gobernados por demócratas están participando en fraude y mala administración de fondos federales en programas de salud pública.

Emily Hilliard, vocera del HHS, dijo que la administración está actuando contra “estados gobernados por demócratas que impulsaron confinamientos sin base científica, mandatos de máscaras para niños pequeños y estrictas tarjetas de vacunación durante la era del covid”. Señaló que esas medidas “han erosionado completamente la confianza del pueblo estadounidense en las agencias de salud pública”.

Salud pública guiada por la ciencia

Desde que Trump regresó al poder, Newsom ha criticado al presidente y a su administración por impulsar políticas que considera una amenaza para la salud y la seguridad públicas. Ha calificado a los líderes federales como “extremistas” que intentan “usar los CDC como arma y difundir desinformación”.

También a funcionarios federales por vincular erróneamente a las vacunas con el autismo y que la administración está poniendo en peligro la vida de bebés y niños pequeños al reducir las recomendaciones de vacunas infantiles. Además, argumentó que la Casa Blanca está generando “caos” en el sistema de salud pública de Estados Unidos al retirarse de la OMS.

El gobernador rechazó una solicitud de entrevista. Marissa Saldivar, vocera de Newsom, dijo que es una prioridad del gobernador “proteger la salud pública y brindar a las comunidades orientación basada en ciencia y evidencia, no en política ni conspiraciones”.

Las acciones de la administración Trump han generado incertidumbre financiera que, según funcionarios locales, ha reducido la moral dentro de los departamentos de salud pública y ha dejado a los estados menos preparados para brotes de enfermedades y .

El año pasado, la Casa Blanca propuso recortar el gasto del HHS en , incluidos . En enero, el Congreso rechazó en gran medida esos recortes, aunque para programas centrados en determinantes sociales de la salud, como el acceso a alimentos, vivienda y educación.

La administración Trump anunció que retiraría en fondos de salud pública de California, Colorado, Illinois y Minnesota, argumentando que los estados liderados por demócratas financiaban iniciativas “woke” que no reflejaban las prioridades de la Casa Blanca.

En cuestión de días, y un juez el recorte.

“De repente siguen cancelando subvenciones y luego se revierte en los tribunales”, dijo Kat DeBurgh, directora ejecutiva de la Asociación de Oficiales de Salud de California. “Gran parte del daño ya está hecho porque los condados ya dejaron de hacer el trabajo”.

Según un análisis de 2025 de KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro de información sobre salud que incluye a Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, el financiamiento federal representa de los presupuestos de los departamentos de salud estatales y locales en todo el país. Ese dinero se destina a combatir el VIH y otras infecciones de transmisión sexual, prevenir enfermedades crónicas y fortalecer la preparación en salud pública y la respuesta a enfermedades contagiosas.

Los fondos federales representan $2.400 millones del presupuesto de salud pública de $5.300 millones de California, lo que dificulta que Newsom y los legisladores estatales compensen posibles recortes. Ese dinero ayuda a financiar operaciones estatales y es vital para los departamentos de salud locales.

Los recortes afectan a todos

Barbara Ferrer, directora de salud pública del condado de Los Ángeles, dijo que si el gobierno federal logra recortar esos $600 millones, el condado —con casi 10 millones de residentes— perdería unos $84 millones en los próximos dos años, además de otras subvenciones para la prevención del VIH y otras infecciones de transmisión sexual.

Ferrer señaló que el condado depende de casi $1.000 millones en financiamiento federal al año para rastrear y prevenir enfermedades contagiosas y combatir problemas crónicos de salud, incluidos la hipertensión y la diabetes. El condado el cierre de que ofrecían vacunación y pruebas de enfermedades, en gran parte por pérdidas de financiamiento relacionadas con recortes a subvenciones federales.

“Es una estrategia mal informada”, dijo Ferrer. “La salud pública no se preocupa por si tu afiliación política es republicana o demócrata. No se preocupa por tu estatus migratorio ni por tu orientación sexual. La salud pública tiene que estar disponible para todos”.

Un solo caso de sarampión requiere que los trabajadores de salud pública rastreen a unas 200 personas que pudieron haber estado en contacto con el paciente, dijo Ferrer.

Estados Unidos , pero está cerca de perder ese estatus debido al escepticismo sobre las vacunas y a la desinformación difundida por sus críticos. El año pasado hubo , la mayor cifra desde 1991, con un 93% en personas no vacunadas o cuyo estado de vacunación era desconocido.

Este año, la enfermedad altamente contagiosa se ha reportado en , y en .

Funcionarios de salud pública esperan que la West Coast Health Alliance ayude a contrarrestar las políticas de Trump al generar confianza mediante recomendaciones de salud pública basadas en evidencia.

“Lo que estamos viendo del gobierno federal son políticas partidistas en su peor forma y represalias por diferencias sobre políticas públicas; esto pone en un riesgo extraordinario la salud y el bienestar del pueblo estadounidense”, dijo Georges Benjamin, director ejecutivo de la Asociación Estadounidense de Salud Pública (APHA, por sus siglas en inglés), una coalición de profesionales de salud pública.

Un calendario de vacunación más sólido

Erica Pan, principal funcionaria de salud pública de California y directora del Departamento de Salud Pública de California, dijo que la West Coast Health Alliance está defendiendo la ciencia al recomendar un calendario de vacunación más sólido que el del gobierno federal.

California forma parte de una coalición que por su decisión de retirar las recomendaciones de siete vacunas infantiles, incluidas las de la hepatitis A, la hepatitis B, la influenza y covid-19.

Pan expresó una profunda preocupación por la situación de la salud pública, especialmente por el aumento de casos de sarampión.

“Estamos retrocediendo”, dijo Pan sobre las inmunizaciones.

Sarah Kemble, epidemióloga estatal de Hawaii, dijo que el estado se unió a la alianza después de escuchar a residentes que apoyan las vacunas y quieren tener la seguridad de que seguirán teniendo acceso a ellas.

“Recibíamos muchas preguntas de personas con ansiedad que sí entendían las recomendaciones basadas en la ciencia, pero se preguntaban: ‘¿Todavía voy a poder ir a ponerme mi vacuna?’”, dijo Kemble.

Otros estados liderados principalmente por demócratas también han formado alianzas. Pennsylvania, Nueva York, Nueva Jersey, Massachusetts y varios otros estados de la costa este se unieron para crear el .

Hilliard, del HHS, dijo que aunque los gobernadores demócratas establezcan coaliciones asesoras sobre vacunas, el Comité Asesor sobre Prácticas de Inmunización federal “sigue siendo el organismo científico que guía las recomendaciones de vacunación en este país, y el HHS garantizará que la política se base en evidencia rigurosa y ciencia de alto nivel, no en la política fallida de la pandemia”.

Influencia en estados republicanos

Por su parte, Newsom aprobó una asignación anual recurrente de casi $300 millones para apoyar al Departamento de Salud Pública de California, así como a las 61 agencias locales de salud pública en el estado. El año pasado también que autoriza al estado a emitir sus propias recomendaciones de inmunización.

La ley exige que las aseguradoras de salud en California cubran las vacunas recomendadas por el estado, incluso si el gobierno federal no las recomienda.

Jeffrey Singer, doctor y investigador principal del Cato Institute, un centro de pensamiento libertario, dijo que la descentralización puede ser beneficiosa. Esto se debe a que las campañas informativas locales que reflejan distintas ideologías políticas y prioridades comunitarias pueden tener más posibilidades de influir en el público.

Un análisis de KFF encontró que algunos estados republicanos se están sumando a estados demócratas para desvincular sus recomendaciones de vacunación del gobierno federal. Singer dijo que doctores en su estado natal de Arizona están mirando a California, más liberal, para guiarse sobre consejos de vacunación.

“La ciencia nunca está completamente establecida y hay muchas áreas de este país donde existen diferencias de opinión”, dijo Singer. “Esto puede ayudarnos a cuestionar nuestras suposiciones y aprender”.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Health Guided by Science

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

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

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

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

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

Federal funding has accounted for of state and local health department budgets nationwide, with money going toward fighting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, preventing chronic diseases, and boosting public health preparedness and communicable disease response, according to a 2025 analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

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

Funding Cuts Hurt All

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robust Vaccine Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

Influencing Red States

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

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

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

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

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Jamie Estrada of Albuquerque, New Mexico, twice received injections of lidocaine in his upper spine to test if a permanent nerve ablation would treat his chronic neck pain. His pain vanished — until the numbing agent wore off about six hours later. The real zinger: His insurer was billed $28,000 for each 10-minute procedure.

Mark McCullick of Longmont, Colorado, was sent for a whole-body PET scan to find out whether his prostate cancer was back. The two-hour scan showed no evidence of cancer, but the $77,000 bill sent to the company that administered his insurance alarmed him.

Medical inflation has general inflation for years, with bills for many brief, routine procedures reaching tens of thousands of dollars.

These cases highlight the questions that haunt the American health system and the patients caught in its grip: What is a reasonable price for any health care visit or procedure, and how is it determined? How hard do insurers, the purported stewards of the patient’s hard-earned health dollars, fight to lower charges, and how closely do they scrutinize bills for accuracy?

Smith, Estrada, and McCullick’s cases are all “chargemaster” bills, calculated from the master price list that health providers place on services. Patients who have insurance don’t generally pay them. But they matter because they are often the starting point for the negotiated price the insurer agrees is reasonable to pay for the services. Patients are typically responsible for 10% to 20% of the negotiated price, their coinsurance — and when prices are this high, that can be a big number. What’s more, those negotiated rates are difficult for patients to access (until they get the bill) and seemingly arbitrary.

Also, because health insurers can offset high outlays one year by raising premiums and deductibles the next, they have little incentive to bargain hard for good deals for the patients they cover. So patients all pay unknowingly, indirectly.

In the cases of Smith and Estrada, their insurers paid the majority without questions. Penn State’s Hershey Medical Center, which treated Smith, received $61,000, or 62% of what it charged. New Mexico Surgery Center Orthopaedics, which treated Estrada, received $46,000, or 82%.

McCullick’s insurer, on the other hand, said it would pay Intermountain Health just 28% of his $77,000 bill. Then came another curveball: The hospital, which said it had gotten preauthorization, discovered after the fact that his scan was not covered. So it billed McCullick the full chargemaster rate of $77,000 — or, it offered, he could pay the cash rate of $14,259.

In an emailed statement, Chris Bond, a spokesperson for AHIP, the leading trade group for health insurers, blamed hospitals for the trouble, saying that plans are “focused on making benefits and coverage as affordable as possible for their members,” and that: “As the largest single category per premium dollar spent, increases in the cost of hospital-based care have an outsized impact on premiums.”

In a health system in which prices can vary exponentially with little transparency, how can patients afford to get sick?

‘It Makes No Sense’

Americans as a top priority for government in 2026, according to an Associated Press-NORC poll, expressing particular concern about cost, access, and insurance coverage.

The first Trump administration required insurers and hospitals to publish files containing cash, gross, and negotiated prices for various items and services. These raw, machine-readable price lists — often hundreds of pages filled with medical billing codes — to patient-customers.

Five years later, they’ve been ingested, parsed, and enriched by academics and startups, shedding light on the often-shocking disparities in prices and how they’ve come to exist.

“When we look at the data, whether it’s from a chargemaster or what insurers paid, it’s all over the map — it makes no sense,” said Marcus Dorstel, senior vice president of operations at Turquoise Health, a price transparency startup with payers and providers as clients. “The variation is huge, even in a specific area.”

When researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health looked at the data, they discovered that the price different insurers pay for the same billed charges “can be three or more times different at the same hospital,” said Ge Bai, a professor of health care accounting who was among the researchers.

The prices insurers pay are determined by numerous factors, including what’s in their contracts with health systems. Some health plans, such as Smith’s, automatically pay a percentage of the hospital’s billed charges, incentivizing hospitals to increase their rates. Hershey Medical Center increased its prices for 11 common hospital billing codes by an average of about 30% from 2023 to 2025, Dan Snow, a data scientist at Turquoise Health, calculated for this article. But those prices were not much different than those of other hospitals in Pennsylvania.

In other cases, an insurer might agree to pay a health system a case rate — a standard rate for a type of care, say a colonoscopy or an inpatient stay for pneumonia.

But there’s a lucrative catch, called a “carve-out,” which refers to a particular benefit that’s negotiated and paid separately. If the hospital used expensive drugs or devices, for instance, they can be billed in addition to the bundled case rate, with no limits on hospital markups. That was the case with McCullick’s PET scan; about 80% of the charge was not for the scan, but for a new kind of drug injected before the scan to detect cancer.

Most often the final prices depend on the relative negotiating power of the insurer and the health system: Which side has enough market sway to walk away if the other doesn’t meet its demands?

Such factors “can explain the price variations and patterns that we see,” Dorstel said. “In some markets insurers are price-makers, and in others they are price-takers.”

For Insurers, Paying More Is Profitable

Insurers aren’t incentivized to lower prices, because high prices mean they “get a slice of a bigger pie,” Bai said.

By law, insurers must spend 80% or 85% of premiums on patient care. But when prices rise, they can pass on the increase to customers in the form of higher premium costs and still meet their legal obligation. So higher premiums mean less money for the patient and more profit for the insurer.

For each spinal injection Estrada received, his insurance company’s contracted rate was $23,237.50. Estrada’s coinsurance was $5,166.20. With a high-deductible plan, he was asked to pay all of that more than $5,000 bill.

When he called to challenge the big bill, he said, the surgery center’s administrator told him the charges were the result of a “legacy contract” with the insurer that is “advantageous” and “favorable” to the center.

New Mexico Surgery Center Orthopaedics’ charges are many times those of the hospital where the center’s doctors admit patients, for example; there, Estrada’s insurance company’s contracted rate for the same spinal injection is just $2,058.67. And compared with the roughly $20,000 the insurer paid for each of Estrada’s injections, other insurers pay the center about $700 for the same procedure, Snow found.

The surgery center is part of a national group that owns more than 535 surgical facilities, United Surgical Partners International, which in turn is owned by Tenet Healthcare, a for-profit health conglomerate. That kind of market dominance can lend companies the negotiating power to charge — and get paid — what they want, Bai said.

The surgery center, United Surgical Partners International, and Tenet Healthcare did not reply to multiple requests for comment from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

With charges prenegotiated, insurers have little incentive to scrutinize questionable bills. When Smith asked for an itemized bill for her surgery, she discovered that she had been billed for two surgeries: one for the ectopic pregnancy removal and another because the surgeon noticed signs of endometriosis and performed a biopsy. Both were billed at the contracted rate of $37,923.

She was livid at the charges, which to her seemed like double-dipping. “That was one surgery,” she said. “There was one incision.”

A Yale University-trained lawyer, Smith consulted the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ , which note the two billing codes used for her surgery generally can’t be “billed together for the same patient encounter” because one more or less is bundled with the other.

Smith said she reached out to the Penn State hospital, the insurer, and even the state attorney general without resolution. So she expects she will, reluctantly, have to pay the $5,250 coinsurance that the hospital and insurer say she owes.

In response to questions from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Scott Gilbert, a spokesperson for the health system, did not respond to the specifics of this case, but wrote: “Penn State Health recognizes that health care billing can be confusing and often overwhelming for patients. The process involves many factors, including the type of care provided, where it’s delivered and the details of a patient’s insurance coverage.”

A ‘Reasonable’ Price?

After a reporter sent multiple inquiries to Intermountain Health, McCullick said an agent asked him what would be “a reasonable amount to resolve the situation.”

Sara Quale, a spokesperson for Good Samaritan Hospital, the Intermountain affiliate where he got the PET scan, wrote: “We sincerely regret the frustration this situation has caused Mr. McCullick,” noting that “we have been in consistent contact with him and will continue to follow up as needed.”

McCullick said he wants to pay his fair share but is still trying to figure out what that is — certainly less than the different self-pay prices he’s been offered, which all top $10,000. “The fluid nature of these numbers is mind blowing,” he wrote in an email.

As for Estrada, he was so angry that he decided not to go ahead with the nerve ablation. While he was being prepped for the procedure, Estrada recalled, the physician said he had “heard he might sue” and chastised him for being a troublemaker. The hospital did not respond to a request for comment on the allegations, and Estrada said he had never threatened legal action.

Estrada got off the table and put his shirt back on. “I’m not going to let this person put a big needle into my back.”

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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

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

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

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

Here are things to watch now:

Initial Numbers Aren’t Final

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, some of which have issued more detailed data about enrollment than the federal marketplace.

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

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

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

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

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

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and share your story.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).