“They called me a ‘liability to the job site,’” Pugh said, recalling the words of his manager when a seizure cost him his last job at a fast-food restaurant in this western Montana city.

When the 46-year-old lost work in the past, his wife of 10 years covered their rent and he tended to their home until he found another job. But his wife died last year. Soon after, Pugh became homeless. His problem with alcohol became worse, which made managing his seizures more difficult.

“When she died, my whole base was depleted,” Pugh said.

Medicaid pays for the prescriptions that keep Pugh’s seizures at bay. The government-subsidized health coverage would also pay for an addiction treatment program that Pugh said he has tried to get into, but he was told there’s a waitlist.

Pugh’s goal has been to get healthy enough to work again. But he’s worried about being able to keep the Medicaid coverage he needs to get to that point.

Early Embrace of New Rules

In the spring, the federal government finalized regulations requiring millions of people who receive Medicaid benefits to prove they’re working, volunteering, or going to school to keep their coverage. States have until January to begin those checks. Montana, Arkansas, and Nebraska have already started implementing them.

The Trump administration’s federal work requirements exempt certain groups of people: those with disabilities, those older than 64, pregnant people and Native Americans, among others. To receive an exemption, anyone without a clear-cut qualification — such as through their age or disability status — will have to prove they’re too sick to work.

But the administration decided that being homeless isn’t a medical condition and can’t count as an automatic out from having to meet the new requirements. Many conservative policymakers support work requirements, and some states have attempted to implement such rules for years. At least four states — Montana, Arizona, Kentucky, and Utah — previously proposed policies that included homelessness as an exemption.

But federal officials have said that’s not allowed. In an email to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declined to provide a comment on the record. But the agency confirmed that states must stick to the federal government’s list of exemptions. Homelessness in the U.S. increased by 27% from 2013 to 2025, from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Last year, about 746,000 people .

Many, like Pugh, qualified for Medicaid, though the number of enrollees who are homeless is difficult to measure. In 2023, who received medical or behavioral health services through one of the nation’s roughly 300 programs were enrolled in Medicaid.

Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, said the federal regulations are a lot stricter than many states had expected, even those on board with work requirements. (KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.)

“It took everyone by surprise,” Tolbert said.

Mehmet Oz, who leads CMS, touted the regulations as a “path to prosperity” during a press conference in June.

“We need to get people to try to work,” Oz said. In June, 25 mostly Democratic-led states over the regulations, arguing the medical frailty standard would be too hard for enrollees to meet — and for states to assess. The work requirements are projected to increase the number of uninsured people nationwide by by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Most states will begin to implement the Medicaid work requirements in January. 

Montana plans to begin booting Medicaid enrollees from coverage this October if they can’t prove they’re in compliance with the work requirement.

“My Medicaid is still active, but when are they gonna cut that off from me?” Pugh said. “I can’t get employed. How am I supposed to survive?”

The differences between the states’ and federal government’s exemption lists don’t end with people who are homeless. In Montana, lawmakers also planned to excuse people fleeing domestic violence and caregivers of hospitalized family members — two other groups left off the federal exemption list.

“These are simply parties that, due to a number of conditions, cannot meet those requirements,” Republican state Rep. Ed Buttrey said in 2019 when the Montana Legislature passed its first Medicaid work requirement bill. Buttrey did not comment for this article.

Federal officials have said many people who are homeless could fall under another exemption, such as being too sick to work. But, like many states, Montana’s system to automatically conduct those checks through existing medical records isn’t ready, though health department spokesperson Jon Ebelt said it should be in place by October. Anyone not automatically exempted by the state would have 30 days to prove their case.

A Possible Exemption for Health

Pugh might qualify for a pass due to his seizures. But getting to doctor appointments the past year has been hard for him.

The anniversary of his wife’s death just passed. Typically, Pugh has to find a new place to sleep outside each night. One night while camping, Pugh lost his wallet and important documents. And with the addiction treatment centers that accept Medicaid patients overbooked, Pugh has had to rely on willpower to avoid drinking.

“I’m taking it one day at a time,” he said.

A little over two hours north, in Kalispell, Dustin Goss, a case manager at a homeless shelter called Samaritan House, said Pugh’s experience reflects why he’s worried that people who qualify for an exemption will get tangled in bureaucratic tape.

“You can’t really worry about getting paperwork done when you don’t know where you’re eating today,” Goss said.

Cassidy Kipp, who heads Samaritan House, said once people find shelter and start to stabilize, they typically find work. But even then, meeting the new requirements can be challenging. Clients often start with temporary and informal jobs — such as cleaning out a storage unit — that don’t come with a pay stub, Kipp said. 

Kaitlyn Bosshardt, a social worker at Partnership Health Center, a health clinic in Missoula, has seen more people priced out of longtime rentals as housing costs outpace people’s paychecks. Meanwhile, affordable housing and rental aid are limited.

Partnership Health is one of roughly 1,400 health centers nationwide that receive federal funding to serve patients based on what they can afford — meaning even those who lose Medicaid can receive care. But organizations representing health centers have said if too many patients lose the coverage, some clinics won’t be able to fill the financial hole.

The other problem is that these clinics generally don’t provide specialty care.

One day in June, as temperatures hovered around 90,  Pugh visited Watershed Navigation Center, a refuge run by Partnership for people without steady housing to have a meal or see a doctor. His doctor, Atarah Sidey, told Pugh that the neurology clinic that managed his seizures had dismissed him from their care after he missed three appointments.

She referred Pugh to the other neurologist in town and talked about trying to find treatment for his addiction.

“It’s just that if I don’t make the effort at changing, it ain’t gonna happen and I’m gonna end up found on the side of the road somewhere,” Pugh told Sidey.

“You got this, though, Tywon,” she responded as Pugh nodded his head. “You can do this.”

Pugh has connected with a social worker for help keeping his Medicaid. By late July, he was waiting for space to open at a Missoula addiction treatment center and waiting on responses from two job applications.

In the hard moments, Pugh imagines his wife telling him to stay calm, that things will get better.

“I just don’t wanna lose hope in the meantime,” he said.

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

More than 900 people in Washtenaw County, Michigan, have been sickened with cyclosporiasis since mid-June. Linda Kim, a public health nurse, has called more than 100 of them. Almost everyone has said the same thing: It’s excruciating, and one of the worst illnesses they’ve experienced.

But on a Wednesday in July, she called one man who said he wouldn’t mind having it again, actually.

“You’re enjoying the weight loss?” Kim said, laughing as she took notes in a small conference room at the Washtenaw County Health Department building, just outside Ann Arbor. “Well, I’m glad to hear that. At least you got something good out of it!”

Normally, Kim’s supposed to be working downstairs in the clinic, where families wait in gray plastic chairs in the lobby for free or low-cost immunizations. But she hasn’t been there in months.

In March, Kim was transferred to a different department to help deal with a measles outbreak that sickened seven people in the county, five of them children. It was an all-hands-on-deck situation; everyone worked overtime. The state issued an advisory urging families in Washtenaw and surrounding counties to get babies 6 months or older vaccinated ahead of schedule, if possible.

The contact-tracing calls for measles could be contentious, Kim said. People were suspicious, asking her how she knew they had tested positive, or why they should give her any information.

“People were like, ‘Oh, you’re just trying to restrict my life,’ or ‘You’re just trying to get information out of me and get me in trouble,’” she said. “It’s like, no, we’re actually not doing that at all.”

As she tried to explain to them, tracing the spread of the virus and publicizing possible exposure sites was an effort to “keep it contained, so it doesn’t become something huge.”

The county’s measles outbreak ended in late May. Then in June, reports of cyclosporiasis cases started pouring in — so far in Michigan, including two deaths. Both people who died had “significant underlying health conditions that may have been impacted by cyclosporiasis and dehydration,” the state health department said on its website Aug. 3. Health officials aren’t providing more details, department spokesperson Lynn Sutfin said in an email, but are stressing that cyclosporiasis generally isn’t life-threatening and that deaths from it are uncommon in the U.S.

Kim said the cyclosporiasis surveillance has been very different from her experience with the measles outbreak. Now, people seem eager to divulge even the most graphic details, such as “pooping their beds, and, like, putting down towels and it’s not enough.”

Since she’s a nurse, such confessions don’t faze her, she said. Still, staffers have hundreds of these calls to make, so they try to keep each conversation under an hour.

But foodborne illness investigations are complex. Especially for this parasite, cyclospora. Symptoms can take as long as two weeks to appear after people have eaten contaminated food. And no one remembers what they ate two weeks ago, public health staffers said.

The interview process can be extremely detailed. Kim and her colleagues ask people to pull up their restaurant receipts, scroll through purchases on their grocery store apps, even try to recall details such as the exact brand of bagged salad mix they bought, or the type of taco they got at Taco Bell.

“Is that the crunchy one or the soft one?” Kim asked on a recent call, typing on a laptop decorated with cat and vaccine-themed stickers.

Kim has been working with the health department for two years, a period defined by federal funding cuts.

Laina Stebbins, a spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, said the Trump administration’s sweeping cuts to public health grants eliminated a contract between the state health department and 44 of the state’s 45 local departments that funded 123 full-time employees.

Those cuts also affected the state’s disease surveillance labs, “reducing funding for equipment maintenance contracts, data modernization, and the ability to innovate laboratory processes during emerging disease response,” Stebbins said.

Some of that funding was restored after Michigan against the Trump administration. But Washtenaw’s health department still had to scale back some disease surveillance and outbreak response work. Currently, employees who leave or retire aren’t replaced, except for those on the nursing team, which is hiring but still understaffed.

The county’s , which aims to reduce health disparities, including in mental health, was shuttered suddenly in early 2025. Nearly a year later, it resumed its work, with funding at least through this September.

An employee from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had been stationed at the department. During the funding chaos, the worker was fired, then rehired, then furloughed.

The federal response to cyclosporiasis has felt frustratingly slow, according to Christina Zilke, a nursing supervisor at the Washtenaw health department.

“It took them forever to say that this was lettuce, and fast-food restaurants were taking it off the shelves before the CDC ever said what it was,” she said.

During a July 14 press call, the deputy director of the CDC’s Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, Gwen Biggerstaff, said it’s not unusual for it to take a specific source for cyclosporiasis — if it’s identified at all. That’s partly due to the lag time between exposure and the appearance of symptoms, and the complexity of tracing this particular parasite.

Meanwhile, Zilke’s been stocking the coffee station and bringing in pizza, trying to keep up staff morale. It’s not a reward, she said. “It’s more like: ‘Here’s some food for survival. Here’s a break so you don’t quit.’”

Kim, for her part, remains enthusiastic about the job but said it’s been a surreal introduction to a public health career — first measles, now cyclospora.

“If nationally they don’t know what’s going on, how are we locally expected to know what’s going on?” she said. “And also just frustrating to be, like, ‘Wow, I don’t think even our government knows how important public health is.’”

But there’s no time to dwell. She has to move on to the next call, as soon as she can wrap up this one. She gives each person her work number, so people can call or text with any follow-up questions.

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

The race is in Iowa, whose Medicaid program has been plagued with controversy since 2016, when the state hired national insurance companies to manage billions of dollars’ worth of benefits.

That shift was made by then-Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican. With his executive order, Iowa joined most other states in privatizing the management of Medicaid, which covers healthcare for more than 67 million Americans with low incomes or disabilities.

The arguments have resurfaced this year during the competition to replace Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who was Branstad’s protégé and continued contracting with private companies to manage Medicaid benefits. Zach Lahn, the Republican candidate to succeed the retiring governor, supports the practice. Rob Sand, the Democratic candidate, wants to end it.

“It’s been a disaster,” said Sand, Iowa’s state auditor. “The number of complaints has been catastrophic.”

Pros and Cons

Supporters of privatization say the insurers, known as managed-care organizations, make Medicaid more effective and efficient. Critics contend the companies pad their profits by denying payment for crucial health services and by shortchanging agencies and professionals who provide care.

Iowa is among 41 states, plus the District of Columbia, that contract with outside companies to run at least part of their Medicaid programs. Overall, private insurers manage the benefits of more than three-quarters of Medicaid patients. Connecticut is the only state that has fully reversed course after privatizing its Medicaid system.

Sand has criticized privatized Medicaid for years. As state auditor, he alleging that the national insurers systematically deny or delay payment for services to which Medicaid participants are entitled.

He has vowed not to renew state contracts with the three insurers managing care for more than 600,000 Iowans on Medicaid, which is jointly financed by the state and federal governments. He would rather have state employees or nonprofit agencies review and pay bills from clinics, hospitals, and other healthcare providers.

Lahn told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that Sand’s pledge to resume state administration of Medicaid “is the exact wrong idea.”

Lahn is a former activist for Americans for Prosperity, a national pro-business group affiliated with the Koch family. He contends that state governments and Medicaid participants benefit when insurers compete to serve them.

“There are very few things that government does more efficiently than the private sector,” he said.

Lahn, who is a businessman and farmer, emphasized that state officials should strictly enforce contract requirements, ensuring that the insurers treat Medicaid recipients fairly and make prompt payments to care providers. He also said he would bar insurers from using artificial intelligence systems to determine whether to pay for medical claims under Medicaid. “Iowans deserve to have a human looking at their case,” he said.

Sand said in a recent interview that he doesn’t want Iowa to fully return to a “fee-for-service” Medicaid system, in which hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare agencies would effectively be paid piecemeal for whatever services they provided. Instead, he said, state employees or nonprofit organizations could take over operation of a managed-care system, in which administrators review services to help ensure Medicaid participants receive what they need without wasting public money on ineffective services.

A few months ago, Republicans controlling the Iowa Legislature considered a bill to require the state to have a privately managed Medicaid system. That proposal would have blocked future governors from unilaterally shifting back to public management of the program. But the bill

Sand, a former assistant state attorney general, said he is confident he would have legal authority as governor to stop contracting with private Medicaid managers, although he cautioned that the transition would be complicated and could take time.

A Toss-Up Race

National political observers say the Iowa governor’s race

This June, Lahn won an underdog primary campaign to beat a sitting congressman backed by President Donald Trump. Lahn gained Trump’s endorsement after winning the Republican primary. He is a vocal supporter of the Make America Healthy Again movement, led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which aims to improve Americans’ diets and reduce environmental poisons.

Sand noted that Lahn’s past political activism included a failed 2014 attempt to defeat a proposal to cover more people under Montana’s Medicaid program.

Lahn said that at the time he worried the federal government would reduce how much money it would contribute to such Medicaid expansions, leaving states to foot much of the bill. He said he also didn’t want to see public programs such as Medicaid giving benefits to adults capable of providing for themselves. But he said those concerns have been allayed, partly by the Trump administration’s moves to require millions of Medicaid recipients to prove they are working, volunteering, or going to school.

If elected governor, he said, he would not try to reverse Iowa’s expansion of Medicaid, which happened in 2014 under Branstad.

Branstad also is the governor who decided in 2016 to hire private insurers to manage Medicaid.

Branstad, who declined to comment for this article, did not need the legislature to approve his momentous decision. He weathered controversy over the change, including allegations that the companies systematically denied payment for care that people with disabilities needed to remain in their homes.

Andy Schneider, a who studies health policy issues, said it’s understandable that many government leaders see an advantage in hiring private Medicaid management companies. Each state’s Medicaid program pays claims for hundreds of thousands or even millions of members, and administrators must scrutinize bills from thousands of hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare organizations. “That’s a heavy lift,” said Schneider, who worked in federal Medicaid administration when Barack Obama was president.

Schneider noted that Medicaid expenses are among the biggest parts of any state’s budget. The costs can vary dramatically year to year, he said, which is hard for legislators and governors to plan for. Management companies sign contracts for set amounts of money per enrollee, depending on people’s ages and health conditions. Managed-care companies say they can improve Medicaid members’ health and reduce expenses. But Schneider said have been unable to confirm or disprove those claims.

Federal law gives states flexibility in how they run their Medicaid programs, including whether they hire private insurers to manage the programs. “Unwinding those arrangements might take a little time, but there’s no question they can do it,” Schneider said.

Connecticut of private insurers to run Medicaid in 2012. to contract only with nonprofit insurers, starting in 2025, and that state’s governor doing away with private management altogether.

Gary Jessee, a former Texas Medicaid director who helped transition that state’s program into managed care, noted that most Americans’ health coverage is managed by some kind of insurance company, whether they obtain it on their own or get it through a government or employer plan.

Jessee now helps run a whose clients include Medicaid managed-care companies. He said states rarely talk about totally scrapping contracts with such companies. Instead, he said, states have options to change the contracts, including to increase oversight or limit profits.

Overall, Jessee said, managed-care companies help Medicaid enrollees obtain the services they need to stay healthy. But it’s hard to calculate how much money the companies save states, he said, because all healthcare costs have been rising, and new members of managed-care plans may at first use more services as the insurance companies encourage them to get regular checkups instead of waiting for emergencies.

Iowa’s Medicaid program is managed by three insurers: Molina Healthcare, Elevance Health subsidiary Wellpoint, and Centene subsidiary Iowa Total Care.

None responded to requests for comment for this article.

Catherine Gray of Des Moines helps run a Facebook page for families who use Iowa’s Medicaid system. Her adult son, John, is on Medicaid because of a disability. Gray said the managed-care companies have made it much harder for people to obtain services, including mental healthcare, dental care, and transportation to health appointments. Iowa’s shift to the private system was abrupt and chaotic, she said. “We know people have died,” she said.

Gray said she probably will vote for Sand for governor, even though she doesn’t agree with every nuance of his stance on Medicaid. She suspects many other Iowans who use the program will do the same. “They’ve really been put through the wringer for 10 years, and they’re exhausted.”

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

Her team tends to “cringe” anytime they hear about patients having to fill out lots of paperwork, like when applying for Social Security Disability payments, because it can be a difficult, burdensome process.

Thornton tries to support her patients, she said, but understands the limits of her training.

“A lot of times the forms are so complex that I don’t really know what’s the true definition of what this form is asking me,” she said. “We refer them to a disability provider.”

Doctors including Thornton worry they’ll see more of those kinds of requests because of coming changes to Medicaid, the government health insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities. Starting Jan. 1 in most of the country, some enrollees — mainly adults without dependents — must prove they’re working or performing other qualifying activities 80 hours a month.

issued in June say people can obtain an exemption if they’re “medically frail,” or too sick or disabled to work, which may require them to submit documentation from a medical professional. That standard prompted a lawsuit at the end of June from dozens of mostly Democratic-led states and has Thornton worried it could force her and her staff to assess things like how much a patient can lift or how far they can walk.

“If I’m asked, ‘Is this person medically frail?’ What does that even mean?” Thornton said. “I don’t know, and I’ve been doing this for 25 years.”

Last year’s GOP tax-and-spending law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act established the work rule, which will affect an estimated when more states start enforcing it. The mandate is expected to cause a larger increase in the number of people without health insurance than any other part of the law, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Doctors say they aren’t trained to accurately assess whether someone’s health keeps them from working. Many don’t have time to handle another administrative task that takes them away from patient care. And being involved in whether someone gains access to a public benefit undermines the doctor-patient relationship, several doctor groups and physicians said.

“When you introduce unnecessary, non-evidence-based, confusing, and bureaucratic policies like this into clinical care, it just raises the level of moral distress for providers,” said Christopher Chen, a senior healthcare adviser at the consulting firm Manatt.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declined to respond on the record about doctors’ concerns. But the agency confirmed that enrollees may need to get documentation from a clinician to prove they’re too sick to work and said states would make final determinations.

The Trump administration has previously said states should use available data sources — such as medical claims and payment data — before making patients submit proof of medical frailty from a provider.

“Documentation should be relatively easy to provide,” Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, said during a June 1 press call.

But deciding whether a patient is too sick to work is a subjective, high-stakes decision, said Chen, who also practices as a hospitalist at Valley Medical Center in Renton, Washington.

“We’re trained to take care of people,” he said. “We’re trained to learn about someone’s symptoms, make diagnoses, treat them. We’re not trained to make these kinds of work determinations.”

When they apply and every six months after, Medicaid enrollees subject to the rule will have to prove that they’re performing the minimum monthly hours of qualifying activities — or will likely have to prove as frequently that they qualify for an exemption.

If states can’t find sufficient evidence that someone is too sick to work, that person will be able to self-attest to it under penalty of perjury — but only for a short time. States may take someone’s word that they’re medically frail twice in 2027 and only once in 2028.

Last month, 25 mostly Democratic-led states over the final regulations, arguing the medical frailty standard would be too hard for enrollees to meet — and for states to assess.

The standard, they argue, requires state Medicaid agencies to “take on the role of occupational medicine experts” or adds that burden to physicians who are not necessarily trained in occupational medicine.

CMS declined to comment on the litigation.

The Trump administration has crusaded against fraud in government health programs including Medicaid. It recently — including medical professionals — over more than $6.5 billion in alleged fraud schemes.

CMS has said it will keep a close watch on how states administer the work requirements and may take corrective action if states step out of line.

That has doctors concerned about the potential repercussions if they incorrectly assess whether someone is too sick to work, as farfetched as those worries might be, said Rahul Vanjani, a primary care and addiction medicine physician and researcher at Brown University.

“We, using our imaginations, wonder if someone is auditing these forms in the background and if they’re going to reach out to the licensing board.”

The country is short of primary care providers, and it could be hard for people seeking an exemption to find a clinician to help them document that they’re too sick to work, doctors said.

It will be even more challenging for someone without insurance, said Jennifer Wagner, who researches Medicaid eligibility at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“How could an applicant who doesn’t have health coverage get a doctor’s note?” she asked.

The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest professional association of doctors and medical students, lobbied federal officials to change the standard for documenting medical frailty in the days before the final regulations were made public.

In May, the AMA sent to Oz, the CMS administrator, arguing that forcing doctors to attest to their patients’ ability to work wouldn’t just be an administrative headache but would affect the way they interact with those in their care.

In a statement, the association’s president, Willie Underwood III, said the work rule “transforms the clinical encounter into an eligibility gatekeeping process.”

“Patients will likely sense that shift,” he said. “And if they begin to suspect that what they share with their physician could affect their coverage, the conditions for open and honest communication will start to break down.”

Doctors have a fixed amount of time to spend with patients and would rather focus on treating medical conditions than filling out forms, especially ones that put them in a position to “represent the state,” said John Ayanian, an internal medicine physician and researcher at the University of Michigan.

“Their first obligation is to serve the best interest of their patients,” Ayanian said.

Lauren Davis, an attorney with Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, helps clients navigate other public benefit programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which has a similar work rule. Enrollees can get an exemption from it if they’re too sick to work.

She recalled a client with a cognitive condition that affected her memory. The client’s doctor wasn’t comfortable filling out an exemption form without seeing her in person, but she kept forgetting to make an appointment and eventually gave up, said Davis, who worries Medicaid enrollees could face similar barriers to getting exemptions.

“This person is eligible,” Davis said. “The reason that they’re not able to get what they need to show that they’re eligible is because of their medical condition.”

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

Now she worries the cost of those drugs could rise — not because of price increases, but because of a tax system revamp put on the ballot by the state’s Republican-dominated legislature and backed by the Republican governor.

Prescription drugs and doctor visits are currently exempt from taxes in the state. But in August, Missouri voters will weigh in on a proposed constitutional amendment to give the legislature the power to replace the state’s income tax with expanded sales taxes, including on goods and services currently exempt.

“Politicians want Missourians to trust them when they say not to worry about our medications and healthcare being up for grabs,” Ortbals said at a June press event organized by Progress MO, a progressive advocacy group.

“I have spent enough time in Jefferson City to know better,” said Ortbals, who works for a Democratic state legislator but was speaking in her personal capacity. “I have watched them speak about protecting life while making lifesaving healthcare less accessible.”

Taxes on healthcare are unusual in the United States but not unprecedented. Most states over-the-counter drugs. Illinois, Missouri’s neighbor, prescription drugs. Delaware, Hawai‘i, New Mexico, and Washington all on services by physicians, dentists, out-of-hospital nursing providers, and medical laboratories.

Critics of the amendment to eliminate income tax in Missouri say it’d be difficult to make up the lost revenue without also imposing taxes on healthcare. Nearly two-thirds of the state’s general revenue budget comes from income taxes, about $8.7 billion in 2026. Failing to make up that revenue could lead to steep cuts in state services.

The proposed tax cut comes at an already precarious time for the state budget. Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe in spending in this year’s budget over concerns of lagging revenues. The state legislature has passed a since 2022, including . Federal covid aid has propped up the budget in recent years, but the that the surplus is dwindling. And the state is projected to in federal Medicaid funding over 10 years due to cuts from President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Proponents of the Missouri income tax proposal, such as of the Show-Me Institute, a conservative think tank, say the cut would in the state, both of which have been flat in recent years. He doubts healthcare would be among the things subject to sales tax. But even if it were, he said, it could be done in ways that wouldn’t target lower-income residents. New Jersey, for example, (excluding reconstructive surgeries), which tend to be performed on wealthier people.

In a statement to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Kehoe spokesperson Gabby Picard said the governor “will never support extending sales taxes on agriculture, healthcare, or real estate,” noting that the legislature would have to decide what to exempt if the ballot measure passes.

Federal law already prohibits states from imposing taxes on many healthcare services covered by government programs such as Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors, and Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities, Picard wrote. More than were insured through those two programs in 2024.

But Jay Hardenbrook, advocacy director for AARP Missouri, argued that raising taxes on healthcare, real estate, and agriculture is the for the amendment, considering the legislature doesn’t need special permission to cut income taxes. He cautioned that because the amendment opens the door to new taxes on anything, it could unleash a “weird feeding frenzy” with special-interest groups lobbying for exemptions.

“Let’s say we do protect prescription drugs from a tax increase; does that mean that the cost of food goes up?” Hardenbrook said.

And if the Missouri measure passes and the legislature exempts healthcare and real estate from new taxes, Hardenbrook worries about cuts to state-funded services like home and community-based care.

“When I talk about taxes going up, and the price of every good and services going up, that’s the best-case scenario,” Hardenbrook said. “The worst-case scenario is that the income tax just goes away, and we just don’t have the money to do the things that we need to do.”

have no income tax, and Washington taxes only capital gains, but of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a progressive think tank, said the way Missouri is going about its elimination is nearly unprecedented. Only Alaska has repealed a broad-based personal income tax that had previously accounted for a significant portion of the state budget, Davis said.

“The situation in Alaska was they struck oil, and they had this gusher of economic activity and tax revenue that resulted from that,” Davis said. “Missouri has not struck oil.”

A 2012 tax cut in Kansas that reduced income taxes for individuals and eliminated them for some types of businesses created a large budget hole, prompting lawmakers there to the cuts five years later.

Tsapelas of the Show-Me Institute said Missouri’s income tax elimination wouldn’t happen overnight but would instead be more akin to in the state: phased in and tied to revenue targets that would shield the state from massive budget gaps.

“It’s not as doom and gloom as some people are worried about,” Tsapelas said.

But Ortbals, the healthcare advocate, said too many Missourians are already delaying medical care because of costs.

“I want a Missouri where young people can afford to stay, where families can afford to grow, where chronic illness does not become financial ruin,” Ortbals said.

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

California lawmakers an expired law that would require the state to identify companies that employ 100 or more people and have employees enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. Nevada has had a similar law in place since 2017, though a proposal for one in Oregon stalled when its legislative session ended in March.

The California bill author, Democratic state Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, said she is deeply troubled by what is going to happen when work requirements kick in. According to the state, out of more than on Medi-Cal will be subject to the rule.

“We think this is a bill that’s about fairness,” Smallwood-Cuevas said. “It’s a basic principle that taxpayers deserve transparency about which large employers are shifting their healthcare costs onto the public.”

Large employers that regularly top Nevada’s list, such as Walmart and Amazon, have said that the state included part-time and seasonal workers in their counts and that their full-time hourly employees to qualify for Medicaid.

Walmart spokesperson Katrina Proffitt said that the company offers affordable medical coverage to most employees, including eligible part-time workers, and that most of its plans include no-cost virtual care options.

“Healthcare affordability and access to quality care remain real barriers for many Americans, and Walmart continues to be committed to being part of the solution,” Proffitt said.

The push to name and shame companies reflects dueling narratives about the biggest abusers of the joint state-federal Medicaid program, which reached nearly in government spending in 2024. The Trump administration, led by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, has called out blue states for not doing enough to fight insurer fraud and abuse. State Democratic leaders, meanwhile, are pushing back by calling attention to big employers that don’t offer affordable health benefits, which leaves taxpayers subsidizing healthcare costs for the low-wage workforce.

Some states have considered financial penalties. Democratic New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed a bill in June that have at least 50 Medicaid-enrolled employees. Companies with 50 to 249 workers on Medicaid per person, and those with at least 500 will pay $725.

Bills that would have penalized companies with workers enrolled in Medicaid failed in this year.

In Sacramento, California, Democrats want to figure out a way to make large businesses pay for their employees’ health coverage. State lawmakers struck a deal with Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is contemplating a presidential bid as he wraps up his final year in the governor’s office, to explore tax options. Any tax hike would be up to the new governor.

States face of dollars under HR 1, the GOP tax-and-spending law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, notably through that requires nondisabled Medicaid enrollees ages 19 to 64 in most states to prove they are working, volunteering, or going to school at least 80 hours a month to keep their coverage.

Yet federal work requirements are projected to increase the number of uninsured people nationwide by more than 5 million by 2034, according to the . Nebraska and Montana have begun enforcing the rule.

One health policy researcher said employer Medicaid reports highlight the lack of affordable healthcare options available to low-wage workers. More than half of adults enrolled in Medicaid who don’t have dependent children already meet the 80-hour-a-month requirement or face challenges that would likely qualify them for an exemption, .

“There’s a whole set of people who are working — they may not satisfy the work requirement provisions, they may not get the exemption that they’re qualified for, and they don’t have access to that employer-sponsored insurance either,” said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University.

Employers Push Back

While employer lists haven’t succeeded in bringing down Medicaid costs, supporters say measuring the burden can be the first step and help lawmakers make the case for further action.

In Nevada, Amazon has employed more Medicaid enrollees than any other company since 2020, according to the state’s report . For state fiscal year 2025, Walmart, the Clark County School District, the state government, and Tesla rounded out the top five.

Employers that the reports are misleading because they have included part-time and seasonal employees. The state’s includes only full-time employees, plus those who could not be confirmed as either full- or part-time employees.

That came to 4,914 Amazon employees and 3,503 Walmart workers in Nevada on Medicaid in 2025.

There are no penalties for companies on the list.

Amazon said it pays its workers more than double the $7.25-an-hour federal minimum wage and noted that Medicaid eligibility is based on household income and size rather than an individual’s wage. That means two employees who earn the same pay may have different eligibility depending on whether they have children or live with parents.

“Pointing fingers at Amazon over Medicaid is a red herring,” said spokesperson Alisa Carroll. “What really needs to happen is a significant and large increase in the federal minimum wage — that would be a big boost for American families.”

Nevada Medicaid spent nearly $950 million on healthcare for more than 133,000 full-time employees and more than 140,000 of their dependents. While the total amount spent dipped in fiscal year 2025, the average cost per member per year increased by nearly 17%.

Yvanna Cancela, a former Nevada lawmaker who sponsored the legislation on Medicaid work reports, said the annual reports force an important conversation “about whether or not this is the kind of economy we want and whether or not it is right or just that people who work full-time don’t make enough to have health insurance.”

A Fraying Safety Net

Health researchers say that uninsured people delay or skip and that their children may end up losing coverage, too.

One analysis found that more than were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program this April than in January 2025. California is among the states with the among children.

The loss in healthcare coverage among residents will be compounded by the loss of public food assistance benefits, Smallwood-Cuevas said. is pending in the legislature.

She compared Medi-Cal to a trampoline that has become a “very tattered kind of fishnet” overwhelmed by people falling into it. President Donald Trump’s spending-and-tax law pulls and rips at the safety net, she said.

When people lose food assistance and health benefits, they must choose between paying for medicine and paying for rent, Smallwood-Cuevas said.

“We’re going to see more people in their cars, more people on the street, and a lot more people in the emergency room,” she said. “That is dangerous for all of California.”

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

Can’t see the audio player? Visit kffhealthnews.org to listen.

When Gov. Gavin Newsom, using his , refused to extradite a physician accused of prescribing and mailing abortion pills to a Louisiana woman, he said California would “not ever” allow “extremist politicians” to punish its doctors.

Newsom, who is considering a run for president, has long championed reproductive rights, but state lawmakers in the Democratically controlled California legislature know future governors might not have the same political beliefs.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host endorsed by President Donald Trump, has vowed to honor these types of extradition requests from other states if he’s elected, Louisiana “is trying to uphold what its people voted for, and California is undermining it.” His opponent, Democrat Xavier Becerra, has said he would deny the requests.

Legislation advancing in Sacramento is the latest chapter in a tit for tat that’s been happening between conservative and liberal states since 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending federal legal protections for abortion.

by state Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, which is being heard in committee, would take some decisions out of the governor’s hands, requiring governors to deny extradition requests for healthcare providers who prescribe abortion medication or administer gender-affirming care. It would also shield anyone in California who helped patients travel to California or another state to receive legal care. While opponents cast “shield laws” as an incursion on other states’ authority, supporters of the bill view it as insurance — even with Becerra leading Hilton 52% to 31%, according to by the University of California-Berkeley Institute of Government Studies.

Newsom spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said the governor doesn’t comment on pending legislation. Hilton and Becerra didn’t return calls for comment.

“Protecting providers from prosecution should not rely on shifting political winds or a single person’s decision,” said Alyssa Sherer, a nurse practitioner who spoke in support of the bill at a Senate committee hearing in June. Sherer is also the medical director at Hey Jane, a telehealth medication abortion provider. 

Thirteen states have banned abortion outright, and 28 other states ban abortion somewhere between six weeks and viability. At the same time, other states that allow abortion have enacted shield laws to protect doctors and nurses from liability when they prescribe across state lines.

People living in states with total abortion bans are increasingly getting abortion pills prescribed via telehealth, from 74,000 abortions in 2024 to 92,000 abortions in 2025, according to the Guttmacher Institute, citing numbers from its Monthly Abortion Provision Study.

Critics of shield laws say that states have a legitimate interest in enforcing their own statutes and that such laws represent an attempt by some states, like California, to nullify the legal decisions of others.

“If California says, ‘We’re not going to honor any other state’s laws. We’re going to ship abortion pills into your states. You can’t have a law that says abortion is illegal,’ I don’t know — that doesn’t seem like a workable situation,” said Greg Burt, who is vice president of the California Family Council and has spoken in opposition to shield laws at the State Capitol.

Twenty-one other states and Washington, D.C., have similar shield laws, but Arizona, California, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania’s rely on an executive order, which could be reversed by a successor, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Amanda Barrow, a senior staff attorney at the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy at UCLA Law, said passing extradition protections would put California on firmer footing, because an executive order “could be revoked by a governor who is anti-abortion or anti-gender-affirming-care.”

Hilton has said he would do just that if elected.

“Just as I wouldn’t want to see Louisiana coming in and undermining something that we voted for here in California,” the GOP candidate told KQED in January. 

During a , Becerra said he was strident about protecting reproductive rights as the state’s attorney general. “Absolutely no,” Becerra said of allowing California physicians to be extradited. 

This year, Hawai‘i to its existing shield laws. And Oregon , including banning law enforcement from cooperating with out-of-state or federal investigations into care that’s legal in the state.

But Republican legislators in conservative states have cast telehealth visits as an end run around their laws. And some have moved to restrict abortion pill access.

The governors of , , and have signed bills this year that criminalize the sale, purchase, or distribution of medication that induces an abortion. Those states make it a felony to provide medication abortion drugs to people who are seeking to end a pregnancy. The laws impose up to 10 years in prison with potentially tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

Mississippi amended the state’s controlled substances code to add abortion pills as a criminal category. Although the state already prohibits abortion broadly, the measure specifically addresses distribution, which could subject out-of-state providers to prosecution.

In January, Louisiana a California doctor, Remy Coeytaux, mailing abortion pills to a patient. Newsom denied the request. Likewise, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul denied Louisiana’s February 2025 extradition request for a .

Texas has taken a slightly different legal tact. Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican running for the U.S. Senate, obtained a default judgment of more than $100,000 against the New York doctor targeted by Louisiana, but a , citing New York’s shield law. Neither Paxton nor Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill responded to requests for comment. 

Fear of being charged with a crime for providing quality medical care is contributing to physicians leaving medicine, said Sacramento emergency room doctor Kamara Graham, who is vice president of the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, which is supporting the bill.

“It’s really conflicting and hard for us to weigh that concern of: Will I get extradited and charged and potentially be taken away from my family? Or do I do the right thing for my patient?” Graham said.

The availability of medication used in most abortions could soon change nationwide. Under the leadership of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Food and Drug Administration it is conducting a safety review of mifepristone, one of two medications in pill form that is used in most U.S. abortions. The FDA maintains the drug is safe and effective.

If the FDA were to decide that mifepristone is not safe, such a ruling would supersede state laws, even in states where abortion is legal. If mifepristone is restricted, many telehealth groups have said they would switch to using only the other medication, misoprostol.

“The elephant in the room is whether the Trump administration, particularly after the midterms, makes some kind of move to put national limits on access to abortions,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at UC-Davis who has written several books on reproductive health law.

“Not everything is something that the legislature can solve for,” Ziegler said, “because there’s some uncertainty about how the federal courts are going to react to all of this.”

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

Since the summer of 2025, Florida leaders have aimed to make the state the first to drop some of those vaccine mandates. The anti-vaccine rhetoric has often been positioned as a push for “medical freedom.” Related efforts to revise laws and regulations rumbled along at the state health department and in the legislature for months.

But by the end of April, the fight seemed to have stalled out.

In the opening minutes of a special session on April 28, the Republican speaker of the Florida House, Daniel Perez, refused to bring the vaccine issue to the floor.

“There is some concern here, on my behalf, about children being in school without measles, mumps, polio, and chickenpox vaccines that have been working for decades,” Perez told reporters afterward.

For now, at least, the push to end childhood vaccine mandates has failed in Florida, and that outcome could offer insights into such efforts’ chances in other states. An Associated Press analysis found that at least 350 anti-vaccine bills in state legislatures last year. Many focused on relaxing requirements for vaccines in schools.

Ladapo: Mandates Are Bodily ‘Slavery’

Last September, Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo set the stage for the anti-vaccine campaign. They held a news conference at a private Christian school east of Tampa, where the state would work to end all vaccine mandates in Florida law.

“Every last one of them is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery,” he said.

“Who am I, as a government or anyone else,” Ladapo said, “or who am I as a man standing here now, to tell you what you should put in your body?”

Political analysts say that the prospects for efforts to cut back on vaccine mandates are closely tied to the political prospects of Republicans trying to maintain their majorities at the state and federal levels. DeSantis is term-limited, and his governorship ends in January. And the congressional midterms are in November.

“For Republicans, they’re a little bit leery,” said , an associate professor of political science at the University of Central Florida. “They know we’re in an election cycle. They know political history. And it’s pretty clear that the president’s party tends to lose seats in the midterm election.”

Although hundreds of anti-vaccine bills have been introduced in state legislatures, the noisy rhetoric and splashy headlines don’t guarantee passage, said , an associate professor of health policy at Georgetown University.

In many states, including Florida, “there’s a disconnect between what we hear a lot from a potentially vocal minority about how they feel about vaccines compared to where the majority of people really are,” Whitener said.

“For most people,” she said, ”they still support the idea of near-universal vaccination, still understand the importance of vaccinating children to protect people who can’t be vaccinated.”

A last year by KFF and The Washington Post showed 81% of parents supported school vaccine requirements.

“They support these vaccines,” said , a senior vice president at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. “They support protecting their kids through these mandates. And that includes Florida parents.”

Unwinding Mandates by Law, and by Regulation

To undo some of the vaccine mandates, Florida’s legislature would have to pass new bills. Others could be changed by a rulemaking process at the state Department of Health, including for chickenpox, hepatitis B, pneumococcal conjugate, and Haemophilus influenzae type B.

At a Dec. 12 forum in Panama City hosted by the health department, public comment went on for hours, with those who wanted to keep the mandates slightly outnumbering those who opposed them.

“This is about freedom,” said one speaker, Larry Downs Jr. “The default setting should be freedom, not these corporate chemical vaccine injections.”

Florida schoolteacher Marion Fesmire has worked overseas. She defended vaccine requirements in part because of some of the suffering she has seen.

“I’ve seen kids with polio. I’ve seen blind kids. I’ve seen kids die before they’re even 10 years old. It’s heartbreaking,” Fesmire said.

The health department hasn’t held any more public forums on vaccines since then.

Nor has the department filed the paperwork needed to change the vaccination rules, including a statement of regulatory costs. In that, the department must estimate whether changing the rules could affect personal income, the number of visitors to the state, or the size of the Florida workforce.

In an April 13 email, the health department said that it is “currently in the rulemaking process” and that any updates would be posted in the Florida Administrative Registrar.

Pushing for a New Exemption

During the winter legislative session, a , didn’t include removing mandates but did feature a new kind of exemption. In addition to a religious or medical exemption, a parent could exempt a child for reasons of personal conscience. This type of exemption is .

Democrats, the minority in the Florida Legislature, came out against it.

“It’s currently very easy to opt out for religious reasons from school immunizations,” state Sen. (D) said while speaking from the chamber floor. “Why is this bill necessary? Given that context, is your bill just about giving people more options to ignore school immunizations, or is it intended to solve a public health problem?”

A few Republicans also opposed the bill. State Sen. (R) brought up the measles outbreak. Florida is the state with the number of measles cases this year, with 155 as of June 6.

“I truly believe that this is a dangerous bill, and I cannot vote for it,” Harrell said.

The bill also included a permanent ban on mandates for any mRNA-based vaccines and would have allowed nonprescription sales of ivermectin. That anti-parasite medication rose to popularity as an alternative treatment for covid, although the Food and Drug Administration determined that the available clinical trial data does not demonstrate effectiveness against covid in humans.

Florida’s previous surgeon general, Scott Rivkees, , calling it “the equivalent of walking into a pharmacy and requesting amoxicillin for a self-diagnosed infection.”

In the end, when the failed to make it to committee.

Yet, people on both sides say the Florida fight is far from over, especially given the lingering mistrust of the medical establishment after the covid pandemic.

“There are many more people now who have skepticism about the wisdom of public health policy and law,” said Barbara Loe Fisher, an anti-vaccine activist who has been working to end mandates since the early 1980s.

“I don’t think that that’s going to disappear,” she said. “I think it’s going to grow.”

This article is from a partnership that includes , , and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

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

“OK, cool,” his mother, J, remembered saying. (J asked to be identified by only her first initial, and Bug by his nickname, because the family fears harassment.)

“‘What do you need to be supported?’” she recalled asking next. “He asked to get healthcare.” 

This was the kind of moment J had been anticipating since the family had moved earlier that year from Texas to Massachusetts, for its more liberal and inclusive politics. She felt confident they could find the right medical experts. But she hadn’t realized that access to gender-affirming treatment could disappear even when their state’s laws and leaders supported it.

Individual hospitals all over the U.S., in red and blue states, have responded to President Donald Trump’s attacks on transgender healthcare by deciding to withdraw care on their own. At least did so in the first months of the Trump administration as it threatened to pull back federal funding or initiate fraud or wrongful-claim investigations, and such services have continued to drop off since.

Bug and his younger sister were born in Austin, Texas, but J and her husband became worried after the state outlawed abortion; dismantled diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; and limited medical and civil rights for queer and transgender people. The parents worried the support services they needed for the siblings, both of whom have autism, might be affected, too.

“I had a fear of being like the frog in the boiling water and not realizing what was happening until it was too late,” J said. “I needed to get the kids out of Texas.”

So when Bug came out as trans, J was relieved they’d landed in a state that not only has a to who offer but also is requiring commercial insurance, which Bug’s family has, to cover it.

After Bug’s gender announcement, J’s queries led her to the largest hospital system in the region, Springfield, Massachusetts-based , where they began the months-long process of getting set up to start hormone therapy.

Bug, an artistic 14-year-old who loves horses, cats, and making short films with friends, was too old for , but he was excited about the prospect of starting on testosterone. That would cause his voice to deepen, facial hair to grow, and muscles to get bigger.

“Every part of it sounds fun,” he said.

But this past February, two weeks before Bug was scheduled to start testosterone, Baystate announced it would no longer provide gender-affirming medications to minors, offering only counseling. A letter to patients’ families did not explain why.

Baystate spokesperson Heather Duggan sent a statement that said the decision to end treatment for minors reflected the fact that Baystate could lose “hundreds of millions of dollars in government reimbursement” as a result of the Trump administration’s plans. “Nearly 70 percent of Baystate Health’s patients rely on Medicaid and Medicare for coverage,” it said.

All Bug knew was that the care he’d eagerly awaited was about to vanish.

“I felt frustrated that they would do that,” Bug said.

“I bet there’s tons and tons of kids who are like: ‘OK, I’m going for trans-affirming healthcare. Yay!’” he said. “And then, like, tons and tons of kids were disappointed and sad and frustrated.”

J said it felt as if the floor had fallen out from under them. “Maybe this is naive, but I didn’t think that would happen in Massachusetts,” she said.

Baystate is among the providers still choosing not to offer puberty blockers and hormones as the issue wends its way through the courts. This spring, in , a federal judge concluded that it was unlawful for the Department of Health and Human Services to threaten federal funding for providers that offered gender-affirming care to minors. In June, another federal judge cleared 16 states, including Massachusetts, with another lawsuit against the administration over its push to criminalize gender-affirming care.

The American Academy of Pediatrics declined an interview request but said in a that young patients and their families should make decisions about gender-affirming care with their doctors, “delivered with compassion, and offered without political interference.”

One mother of a former Baystate patient said that before her child came out as a transgender girl, she had been severely depressed, battling suicidal thoughts. (The mother asked that only her first initial, L, be used, because the family also fears harassment.)

After Baystate doctors prescribed puberty blockers and estrogen, her daughter’s mood and grades rose markedly, L said. So when she received the letter announcing Baystate was ending the medical treatment, she was furious. L said she and other parents filed civil rights complaints with the Massachusetts attorney general.

The attorney general’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

“There’s a sense of, ‘How could you?’” L said. “And there’s also the awareness of the impact just pulling care could have on a youth — from a physical health perspective but also from a mental health perspective.”

L and J both found alternatives for their children. L asked the family’s primary care doctor to take over hormone prescriptions. Bug’s family was referred to in Northampton, Massachusetts, that said it has taken on about 50 of Baystate’s former patients.

“Transhealth has been staffing ourselves up for a while now in anticipation of the fact that this may be happening across the state,” said.

Erwin said Transhealth can weather the funding threats because the clinic gets large private donations and is not as dependent on Medicaid and Medicare as most hospitals. But Erwin said that doesn’t entirely reassure the broader LGBTQ+ community, including transgender adults.

“When you see something like that go down, people get scared that it’s ultimately going to happen to everyone,” Erwin said.

In May, Colorado’s Supreme Court in that state to resume medical treatments for transgender youths, while in Texas compelled a children’s hospital there to do the opposite — start the nation’s first “detransition clinic.” The Trump administration has continued to pressure providers, including by of transgender minors.

After Bug’s false start at Baystate, he was able to start taking testosterone at the new clinic in the spring.

His mother, J, said that the treatment is going smoothly and that Bug has learned how to give himself the injections. But J is nervous that the federal government will find other ways to stop his treatment again. She sometimes second-guesses the family’s move from Texas to Massachusetts, wondering whether they should have gone to Canada instead.

This article is from a partnership that includes , , and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

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

It’s a situation state officials have spent more than a decade trying to avoid. For years, they’ve been trying to make it harder for parents to send their kids to school unvaccinated.

But those efforts have backfired in places like St. Clair County, in Michigan’s conservative Thumb region. Remington Nevin, the county’s medical director, has declared “a new era of vaccine choice.” Local parents there can now bypass the usual protocols and get school vaccine waivers via email, days after they fill out a brief digital form.

State health officials aren’t fighting it.

In fact, Michigan’s health agency has been helping more than 30 counties move away from a state policy once credited with sharply reducing the number of parents who opted their kids out of shots.

In 2015, the state started requiring parents seeking waivers to first attend a vaccine education session, in person, at their local health department.

But in the post-covid era, local health officials say, the sessions became hostile, ineffective, and sometimes even unsafe for staff. One high school called police last fall over an escalating dispute with parents who refused to obtain a state-recognized waiver for their children, with a sheriff’s deputy warning the parents that they could face criminal charges.

In response, the state has helped create a hybrid waiver process for dozens of counties, allowing parents to take a brief vaccine education course online while still requiring they get their waivers signed in person. It’s part of a broader shift in strategy in a state that had some of the most polarizing and covid restrictions.

At Michigan schools where only 30% to 40% of students are now vaccinated, it is “simply not possible to keep diseases like measles at bay,” said , the state’s chief medical officer. “And when one of these measles cases ends up in a low-immunization community, that’s when the ember really has a chance to expand and become a wildfire.”

A Short-Lived Success Story

In 2014, Michigan had the in the country.

Health officials suspected some parents were just signing waivers during the stress of school registration, not because of a deeply held conviction.

“‘Oops, I forgot to do this. I’m just going to sign a waiver and be done with it,’” said Norm Hess, executive director of the . “That’s not really the way we want parents to make decisions on this issue.”

Around that time, national headlines were focused on a Disneyland-linked measles outbreak in which were infected. California cracked down, becoming the first state in decades to end .

With Republicans then in control of the Michigan Legislature and governor’s office, health officials found a side door. They created an saying nonmedical waivers required certification by the local health department “that the individual received education on the risks of not receiving the vaccines being waived and the benefits of vaccination to the individual and the community.”

“We were not aware of the rule until the day it happened,” Suzanne Waltman, president of Michigan for Vaccine Choice, . “We thought it was a stealth move.”

At first, it seemed to work. Kindergarten waiver rates in 2015. “Kids were protected more from these vaccine-preventable diseases,” Hess said.

But after that year, waiver rates started rebounding. When the pandemic hit five years later, immunization rates plunged.

‘An Unsafe Setting’ for Medical Staff

Juan Marquez is the medical director of a county where a measles outbreak sickened several people this spring, but even he wouldn’t want to do those in-person sessions again.

“It was really creating an unsafe setting, actually, for our nurses,” said Marquez, the medical director for two counties, Livingston and Washtenaw, just west of Detroit.

“Our nurses are just trying to do their job,” Marquez said. “And you can imagine, to have somebody yell at you or just say not nice things to your face and sit through that for hours is demoralizing.”

Washtenaw has had seven measles cases since March and is believed to be the source of an eighth case in a neighboring county. As of May 28, the state had a total of 14 cases this year.

Since the start of the pandemic, waiver requests in Michigan have been increasing.

Tensions over public health became especially high during the state’s covid lockdowns, which critics lambasted as too long and too strict. Republicans , and Donald Trump flipped the state in the 2024 presidential contest.

Some parents felt it was demeaning to have to go in for counseling sessions they perceived as judgmental.

Republican , who represents a district along the state’s southern border, recalled her session, speaking at a in Lansing last year. “I had a very negative experience there, simply because we made decisions as parents and did the research and made the choices that we felt were best for each one of our children.”

That resentment has also made it harder to do basic public health work, like contact tracing for measles cases, Marquez said.

Of the 10,000 vaccine waivers Marquez’s counties have given out in the past 10 years, he said, the education sessions changed the minds of maybe one or two people.

“If we’re not changing folks’ minds, can we do this in a safe way?” Marquez said. “So that was really the idea behind the hybrid model.”

The Workaround

At first, state immunizations director Ryan Malosh thought dropping the in-person requirement was a bad idea.

He was skeptical when Livingston County health officials said they wanted to replace in-person sessions with a 20-minute online course about the benefits of vaccines and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases.

State health department staffers were worried that if the waiver process became more convenient, more people would get exemptions, which could lead to more outbreaks. And because parents could get a waiver from any local health department, people from across the state might start flooding Livingston County with requests.

“We were worried that this could be sort of a sinkhole,” Malosh said.

It wasn’t. Parents took the online course, then made an appointment at the health department to get their nonmedical waivers signed. Waiver rates increased in Livingston County, but at the same rate they were rising in the rest of the state.

So the state turned to the University of Michigan to create a standardized, online course that any county could use. Parents would go through a 20- to 30-minute course, answering questions about the content, and then be able to get their waivers signed at their local health department office.

Michael Rubyan, a public health associate professor at the university, worked with some 40 public health nurses from throughout the state to design it. They wanted it to be simple and fact-based: Here’s what you should know about these diseases. Here’s how vaccines work. And if there is an outbreak at your school, your kids may have to stay home if they’re not vaccinated.

No judgment. No pressure.

This needed to be a building block in a much longer relationship with local public health, the nurses said. And while this change alone probably won’t lead to a dramatic decrease in waivers, Malosh said, it may start to rebuild some trust. “That then opens the door for further conversations, which maybe then gets these folks vaccinated,” he said.

Hybrid May Not Be Enough

About a third of the state’s counties have adopted the hybrid approach, but the waiver system is still creating confusion and conflict.

Last fall, a dispute over the waiver process involving a St. Clair County family blew up into a local controversy, and school officials asked local law enforcement to get involved.

Although the family lived in St. Clair, the children attended high school in neighboring Macomb County. Macomb had already switched to the hybrid model, but the parents didn’t want to file the documents, because they didn’t want their children’s vaccination status to be known by local health officials at all.

The father, Andrew Eberly, said at a that getting a certified waiver “forces parents like me to register personal health decisions” with an agency they don’t trust. (Eberly did not respond to multiple attempts to contact him via email, via phone, and at his home.)

At one point during the ongoing conflict, school officials asked the sheriff’s department to intervene. A deputy’s conversation with Eberly on Nov. 5 was captured in body-camera footage obtained by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News through a public records request.

The deputy described the counseling requirement as a set of “stupid hoops.”

“I know it’s super inconvenient to go into the health department, go through their stupid 10-minute class for them to tell you something you already know, to sign the waiver,” the deputy said.

But the deputy went on to warn Eberly that if they continued taking their kids to school, despite being repeatedly informed they couldn’t be enrolled without a state-recognized waiver, then they could be charged with contributing to the truancy of minors.

The clash became a local cause célèbre. Nevin, the St. Clair medical director, seized on it — and the state’s falling immunization rates — at a public health board meeting as proof that people who mistrust the state’s public health establishment “have sound reasons for doing so.”

So far, state health officials have declined to engage in verbal or legal conflict with Nevin, who has drawn cheers and jeers at public meetings over his vaccine stance. He has also been the subject of at the county health department.

Instead, state officials are stressing the importance of parents understanding the risks that vaccine-preventable diseases, like measles, pose for their kids.

“Local health departments get to decide for themselves in a lot of ways what’s best for their residents,” Malosh said. “And I think that what’s best is to be as upfront as possible, to be as truthful as possible, and to try to give the best information that we have available to us to parents so that they can actually make an informed decision.”

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